₦airaland Forum

Lance008:
This news too correct
The result looks fake
Some accredited voters less the large amount of vote

I saw this exact figures on Sunday on another platform form and I am seeing it again. Instead of calling it fake, why not log in to irev portal

Then it looks like PDP have a good case at the tribunal...

When I saw the way the policemen and APC thugs, were shouting at the Gov. Obaseki like mad dogs at the INEC office, it became clear that APC were exhibiting federal might to rig the elections.

Wike's cousin as INEC REC was simply detailed to rig the elections. All those Professors from FUTMINNA lobbied to become ordinary local government collation agents so that they can share the bribes that will come from politicians.

Just like the Ekiti Professors that helped APC rig in Imo, you will see some of these professors begging for recommendations letters for American Visa, trying to abandon the rot that they created.

Dalohad:
When I saw the way the policemen and APC thugs, were shouting at the Gov. Obaseki like mad dogs at the INEC office, it became clear that APC were exhibiting federal might to rig the elections.

Wike's cousin as INEC REC was simply detailed to rig the elections. All those Professors from FUTMINNA lobbied to become ordinary local government collation agents so that they can share the bribes that will come from politicians.

Just like the Ekiti Professors that helped APC rig in Imo, you will see some of these professors begging for recommendations letters for American Visa, trying to abandon the rot that they created.

Edolites voted out pdp

How come none of the mainstream media is picking on this?
The conspiratorial silence is loud
BluntCrazeMan I told you INEC was not the problem
From this news, you can see that INEC allowed the upload of PU results, then still went ahead on Irev and announced a totally different result. They are able to do this because the courts up to SC has trashed Irev which has killed s64 of the EA automatically. I believe trashing of Irev by the courts was deliberate. It was to leave a leeway for this post-election rigging to still be viable

Godjone:
Under this useless tinubu there will never be free or fair elections. If the revolution begins, we should start it first with INEC.

INEC is just one useless organization that has lost relevance and credibility. Useless organizations

I am surprised that we are surprised

Factcheck0001:
y are u Igbos more concerned about Edo election

Y u carry am for head pass?

.
Can't u just move on?

..

Factcheck0001:
.....pokenosing into Wetin no concern u

So tell me....
If your neighbour's house is on fire 🔥,, and the fire happens to be huge, you will just come around and pass-by and move on.??

You won't help to quench the fire.??

Oga, be a human.
If you were saying that “Nothing Happened in Edo”, it would have been totally different.

But coming out to tell people to MOVE ON, that the thing which happened did not happen in their Houses, that it happened in Edo State...,, that's brute wickedness..

Kukutenla:
How come none of the mainstream media is picking on this?
The conspiratorial silence is loud
BluntCrazeMan I told you INEC was not the problem
From this news, you can see that INEC allowed the upload of PU results, then still went ahead on Irev and announced a totally different result. They are able to do this because the courts up to SC has trashed Irev which has killed s64 of the EA automatically. I believe trashing of Irev by the courts was deliberate. It was to leave a leeway for this post-election rigging to still be viable

Bro..

Even-though the Nigerian courts have passed series of judgements which made the INEC’s “Regulations and Guidelines” almost irrelevant, they have not yet passed any judgement that directly interpreted any part of the Section-64 of the ELECTORAL-ACT-2022.

Therefore, INEC is still acting based on the loopholes that are still present with regards to the Section-64 of the Electoral-Act-2022 which mainly concerns the collation of results, and these loopholes had not been fixed yet.

..

I could remember that while the preparations for the Edo Elections were gearing up, I approached some of the handlers of the Asue-Ighodalo campaign and encouraged them to go to court and get a court order for the STRICT implementation of Section-64(4a) and Section-64(6) of the Electoral-Act which says that no Collation can commence without checking and comparing with the Electronically-Generated Accreditation Values INSIDE THE BVAS (That the collation officers should not use the ones that were recorded with hands), and again, that once there is any dispute of the results at any level, the BVAS of such disputed Polling-units must be called up at such collation-centers where the disputes were raised.

These PDP guys told me that such court order is of no use, that no manipulation of results would happen. That they have men on ground everywhere.
They were so confident in themselves.
(Possibly because they too also hoped to rig in one or two places, so they wouldn't want such a court order to also work against them).

When the results started appearing on the IREV, I discovered that the INEC even had the temerity and the audacity to upload fake handwritten results into the IREV -- which didn't reflect the actual elections which happened on the voting ground.
(After-all,, they promised that they would upload the results to the IREV, and they actually did that -- so, if we say that those results on the IREV are fake, then we should go produce our own real results.)

Then, in the end, they still didn't use the values of their own so-called results which they uploaded to the IREV.

Well..
We are observing..

..


The only way that anybody can prove anything at the tribunal is BY USING ALL THE POLLING-UNIT RESULTS ON THE IREV TO COMPARE DIRECTLY & SIDE-BY-SIDE WITH THE POLLING-UNIT RESULTS THAT WERE RECORDED INSIDE THE WARDS-RESULTS..

And then go ahead to compare with the LGAs-Results, and the Final State Results.


They should gather ALL those WARDS-RESULTS, AND THEN EXTRACT ALL THOSE PU-RESULTS THAT WERE RECORDED INSIDE THE WARDS-RESULTS.

After that, they should bring ALL those PU-Results gotten from the Wards-Results and place them SIDE-BY-SIDE with ALL the PU-Results that were gotten from the IREV,, and compare them directly. Bring out all the PUs with discrepancies and tabulate their names and their degree of discrepancies, and then add the discrepancies together at the ward levels..

Then, after that, they should climb to the LGAs level and start to compare the Individual Wards-Results that were recorded inside the various LGAs-Results with the ones they got from adding the results in the IREV, and also with what the INEC Officers got inside their Wards-Results.

After finishing with the LGAs Level, they would climb to the STATE LEVEL (FINAL LEVEL), and do the final comparism with the FINAL RESULTS which were announced by the Returning Officer.

The PDP might think this is a whole lot of hard-work, (I already suggested this to them, but they think I'm going the looonngg waayy),, but this is the only way to convince the Nigerian Judges.
You have to break things down very well for them.

One thing which this so-called looong method would clearly establish is that “it would be clearly proven whether the results on the IREV were sidelined by the INEC or Not”,, and then,, those PUs were the INEC sidelined the IREV were clearly pin-pointed and proven.

Anything other than this method -- is just a big waste of time.

Nevertheless, we continue to watch the system.



..

Finally,, if they truly want to probe the so-called results that were uploaded on the IREV, they should even request for the BVAS Accreditation-values, and use them to cancel a whole bunch of the fake results on the IREV even before using them to compare.

The PDP would not do this one though, because a whole lot of the FAKE results that were uploaded on the IREV also favoured them too., so they wouldn't want those results which favoured them to be removed.

Lalasticlala, Seun, Nlfpmod

BluntCrazeMan:
..

So tell me....
If your neighbour's house is on fire 🔥,, and the fire happens to be huge, you will just come around and pass-by and move on.??

You won't help to quench the fire.??

Oga, be a human.
If you were saying that “Nothing Happened in Edo”, it would have been totally different.

But coming out to tell people to MOVE ON, that the thing which happened did not happen in their Houses, that it happened in Edo State...,, that's brute wickedness..

but Edo people didn't complaining now

Y are Igbos crying more than d bereaved

Bobloco:
......abandoned IREV to favour APC


....

For instance, in Esan Southeast, the PDP’s original votes of 10,565 were increased to 14,199, but the APC’s votes were reduced by 9.99% from 9,237 to 8,398 in what appears to be a strategic adjustment.

In Ovia South West, the PDP’s numbers were slashed by 18.95% from 12,659 to 10,260, while the APC’s votes remained unchanged.

In total, the PDP’s vote tally dropped by 37.73%, from 314,676 votes recorded on IREV to just 195,954 votes in the final announcement. In contrast, the APC’s vote total increased by 8.58%, rising from 223,619 votes to 244,606 votes.


https://newsdirect.ng/exposed-how-inec-manipulated-edo-governorship-election-results-abandoned-irev-to-favour-apc/?utm_source=operamini&utm_medium=feednews&utm_campaign=operamini_feednews

The only way that anybody can prove anything at the tribunal is BY USING ALL THE POLLING-UNIT RESULTS ON THE IREV AND COMPARE THEM DIRECTLY (& SIDE-BY-SIDE) WITH THE POLLING-UNIT RESULTS THAT WERE RECORDED INSIDE THE WARDS-RESULTS..

And then go ahead to compare further with the LGAs-Results, and the Final State Results.

...
..

.
If they didn't do the comparisons down to the Polling-units Levels, then they are all going to the court to make some biigg jokes.

These comparisons here (inside this thread) are for the sake of news, that is why it stopped at the Local-Government Level, and we are commenting on it.
But don't be surprised that the PDP will go to court with these crude values without bringing in the breakdown of how they arrived at it.

Factcheck0001:
but Edo people didn't complaining now

Y are Igbos crying more than d bereaved

Edo people are not complaining.??

HOW.??

BluntCrazeMan:
Edo people are not complaining.??

HOW.??

tell me d edk people complaining

BluntCrazeMan:
Bro..

Even-though the Nigerian courts have passed series of judgements which made the INEC’s “Regulations and Guidelines” almost irrelevant, they have not yet passed any judgement that directly interpreted any part of the Section-64 of the ELECTORAL-ACT-2022.

Therefore, INEC is still acting based on the loopholes that are still present with regards to the Section-64 of the Electoral-Act-2022 which mainly concerns the collation of results, and these loopholes had not been fixed yet.

..

I could remember that while the preparations for the Edo Elections were gearing up, I approached some of the handlers of the Asue-Ighodalo campaign and encouraged them to go to court and get a court order for the STRICT implementation of Section-64(4a) and Section-64(6) of the Electoral-Act which says that no Collation can commence without checking and comparing with the Electronically-Generated Accreditation Values INSIDE THE BVAS (That the collation officers should not use the ones that were recorded with hands), and again, that once there is any dispute of the results at any level, the BVAS of such disputed Polling-units must be called up at such collation-centers where the disputes were raised.

These PDP guys told me that such court order is of no use, that no manipulation of results would happen. That they have men on ground everywhere.
They were so confident in themselves.
(Possibly because they too also hoped to rig in one or two places, so they wouldn't want such a court order to also work against them).

When the results started appearing on the IREV, I discovered that the INEC even had the temerity and the audacity to upload fake handwritten results into the IREV -- which didn't reflect the actual elections which happened on the voting ground.
(After-all,, they promised that they would upload the results to the IREV, and they actually did that -- so, if we say that those results on the IREV are fake, then we should go produce our own real results.)

Then, in the end, they still didn't use the values of their own so-called results which they uploaded to the IREV.

Well..
We are observing..

..


The only way that anybody can prove anything at the tribunal is BY USING ALL THE POLLING-UNIT RESULTS ON THE IREV TO COMPARE DIRECTLY & SIDE-BY-SIDE WITH THE POLLING-UNIT RESULTS THAT WERE RECORDED INSIDE THE WARDS-RESULTS..

And then go ahead to compare with the LGAs-Results, and the Final State Results.


They should gather ALL those WARDS-RESULTS, AND THEN EXTRACT ALL THOSE PU-RESULTS THAT WERE RECORDED INSIDE THE WARDS-RESULTS.

After that, they should bring ALL those PU-Results gotten from the Wards-Results and place them SIDE-BY-SIDE with ALL the PU-Results that were gotten from the IREV,, and compare them directly. Bring out all the PUs with discrepancies and tabulate their names and their degree of discrepancies, and then add the discrepancies together at the ward levels..

Then, after that, they should climb to the LGAs level and start to compare the Individual Wards-Results that were recorded inside the various LGAs-Results with the ones they got from adding the results in the IREV, and also with what the INEC Officers got inside their Wards-Results.

After finishing with the LGAs Level, they would climb to the STATE LEVEL (FINAL LEVEL), and do the final comparism with the FINAL RESULTS which were announced by the Returning Officer.

The PDP might think this is a whole lot of hard-work, (I already suggested this to them, but they think I'm going the looonngg waayy),, but this is the only way to convince the Nigerian Judges.
You have to break things down very well for them.

One thing which this so-called looong method would clearly establish is that “it would be clearly proven whether the results on the IREV were sidelined by the INEC or Not”,, and then,, those PUs were the INEC sidelined the IREV were clearly pin-pointed and proven.

Anything other than this method -- is just a big waste of time.

Nevertheless, we continue to watch the system.



..

Finally,, if they truly want to probe the so-called results that were uploaded on the IREV, they should even request for the BVAS Accreditation-values, and use them to cancel a whole bunch of the fake results on the IREV even before using them to compare.

The PDP would not do this one though, because a whole lot of the FAKE results that were uploaded on the IREV also favoured them too., so they wouldn't want those results which favoured them to be removed.

I'm not sure you understand how the electoral system works. First of all, no court will grant you an academic request like an order for INEC to implement any section of the electoral act when you don't have any evidence that they are not using it or have jettisoned that particular section. That's what is called cause of action in law. Your request will amount to an abuse of court process because what you're asking a conventional court to do is exactly what the election tribunals are for. Multiple cases decided up to SC have clarified that there's an assumption that elections are held in compliance with relevant laws until proven otherwise. What your request signals is that elections WILL NOT be held in compliance with electoral laws. I hope you can see the anomaly in that regard.
Secondly, what you should understand, and I've told you before is that it's the courts themselves that trashed s64 that you're holding on to by insisting that Irev is not captured in our laws. The whole idea of s64 is for direct transmission from the PUs to be used at each stage of collation to address any incongruencies. When the courts then say electronic transmission is not recognised by our laws and Irev is just like a viewing centre, s64 is killed. I suspect strongly that INEC's decision to jettison Irev in 2023 elections was based on legal advice of the loophole of the omission of the word electronic transmission in the electoral act. Most of us have easily forgotten that Irev was used in two elections before the general elections and the results were largely impressive. The first thing after the jettisoning of IREV was muddling up of the waters. The senate first came out and said they never allowed electronic transmission in the electoral act. At the PEPT, the argument turned to whether IREV was an collation system and if electronic collation was allowed or not in our laws. Meanwhile, the real crux of the matter which was largely ignored is the role IREV was supposed to play. By the framing of s64, IREV was supposed to be a last resort when figures collated manually was under contention. Note what the courts did. They summarily dismissed IREV!! The result is what we have been seeing since then. The courts claimed transmission and collation is manual in Nigerian electoral laws and further said IREV had no role in the electoral system. This is came courts that gave an illegal judgment that was misinterpreted by hallelujah boys as LG autonomy. Before that, same court ruled against CBN in a matter that was an abuse of court process and clearly against CBN act. The question is if the courts can take radical decisions on less important issues like LG autonomy or CBN currency swap, how do they become simply tone deaf and reticent in electoral matters that form the bedrock of democracy itself? INEC played safe in 2023 elections by jettisoning IREV and their guidelines and the courts backed them up. So why do we expect them to do better going forward? The battle for better electoral systems was lost at the courts after 2023 elections.
So even if PDP were to take your advice, IREV can't be tendered as evidence in court. That's what 2023 jurisprudence ensured.

Kukutenla:
I'm not sure you understand how the electoral system works. First of all, no court will grant you an academic request like an order for INEC to implement any section of the electoral act when you don't have any evidence that they are not using it or have jettisoned that particular section. That's what is called cause of action in law. Your request will amount to an abuse of court process because what you're asking a conventional court to do is exactly what the election tribunals are for. Multiple cases decided up to SC have clarified that there's an assumption that elections are held in compliance with relevant laws until proven otherwise. What your request signals is that elections WILL NOT be held in compliance with electoral laws. I hope you can see the anomaly in that regard.
Secondly, what you should understand, and I've told you before is that it's the courts themselves that trashed s64 that you're holding on to by insisting that Irev is not captured in our laws. The whole idea of s64 is for direct transmission from the PUs to be used at each stage of collation to address any incongruencies. When the courts then say electronic transmission is not recognised by our laws and Irev is just like a viewing centre, s64 is killed. I suspect strongly that INEC's decision to jettison Irev in 2023 elections was based on legal advice of the loophole of the omission of the word electronic transmission in the electoral act. Most of us have easily forgotten that Irev was used in two elections before the general elections and the results were largely impressive. The first thing after the jettisoning of IREV was muddling up of the waters. The senate first came out and said they never allowed electronic transmission in the electoral act. At the PEPT, the argument turned to whether IREV was an collation system and if electronic collation was allowed or not in our laws. Meanwhile, the real crux of the matter which was largely ignored is the role IREV was supposed to play. By the framing of s64, IREV was supposed to be a last resort when figures collated manually was under contention. Note what the courts did. They summarily dismissed IREV!! The result is what we have been seeing since then. The courts claimed transmission and collation is manual in Nigerian electoral laws and further said IREV had no role in the electoral system. This is came courts that gave an illegal judgment that was misinterpreted by hallelujah boys as LG autonomy. Before that, same court ruled against CBN in a matter that was an abuse of court process and clearly against CBN act. The question is if the courts can take radical decisions on less important issues like LG autonomy or CBN currency swap, how do they become simply tone deaf and reticent in electoral matters that form the bedrock of democracy itself? INEC played safe in 2023 elections by jettisoning IREV and their guidelines and the courts backed them up. So why do we expect them to do better going forward? The battle for better electoral systems was lost at the courts after 2023 elections.
So even if PDP were to take your advice, IREV can't be tendered as evidence in court. That's what 2023 jurisprudence ensured.

Before I respond to this, I need you to answer these simple questions here.

1. What are the exact roles of the BVAS-MACHINES.??

2. According to the Electoral-Act-2022,, after using the BVAS-MACHINES for the Accreditation of Voters and Recording of the results at the Polling-units,, at what other points again are those “Automatically-Generated Numbers of Accredited Voters” inside those BVAS-MACHINES supposed to be called-up and used again.??

3. Had the INEC ever called-up the BVAS-MACHINES again at any higher level after concluding their activities with those BVAS-MACHINES at the Polling-units.??

..
You were referring to electronic-transmission in your response,,, but all I have been trying to say all these while is “CALLING-UP THE BVAS-MACHINES, AND PHYSICALLY EXTRACTING THE ACCREDITATION-VALUES FROM THEM.”.
It's not about the IREV. It's about the BVAS-MACHINES themselves.

The two procedures are different.
One is Electronic, the other is MANUAL.

Those parts of Section-64 which I mentioned also accommodated for the manual calling-up of the BVAS-MACHINES.

DaddyCoool:
I'd just say Stalin was right (see below).
But truth is, we politicians all rig (or would rig if we could).

That's a lie, just because you are corrupt doesn't mean everyone is, you guys justify nonsense just to support nonsense by generalizing it....

BluntCrazeMan:
Before I respond to this, I need you to answer these simple questions here.

1. What are the exact roles of the BVAS-MACHINES.??

2. According to the Electoral-Act-2022,, after using the BVAS-MACHINES for the Accreditation of Voters and Recording of the results at the Polling-units,, at what other points again are those “Automatically-Generated Numbers of Accredited Voters” inside those BVAS-MACHINES supposed to be called-up and used again.??

3. Had the INEC ever called-up the BVAS-MACHINES again at any higher level after concluding their activities with those BVAS-MACHINES at the Polling-units.??

..
You were referring to electronic-transmission in your response,,, but all I have been trying to say all these while is “CALLING-UP THE BVAS-MACHINES, AND PHYSICALLY EXTRACTING THE ACCREDITATION-VALUES FROM THEM.”.
It's not about the IREV. It's about the BVAS-MACHINES themselves.

The two procedures are different.
One is Electronic, the other is MANUAL.

Those parts of Section-64 which I mentioned also accommodated for the manual calling-up of the BVAS-MACHINES.

1. The BVAS is to identify a voter and validate his voting particulars. From this, it will obtain the number of would-be Voters that are accredited to vote in an election and store them. That's s47(2) and it is clear nor under contention. The second role of BVAS that's under contention and which INEC jettisoned and the court applauded is found in s60(5) which I reproduce below.

The presiding officer shall transfer the results including total number
of accredited voters and the results of the ballot in a manner as prescribed by
the Commission

. The manner prescribed by the commission towards 2023 elections was two. IREV and manual submission of forms EC8A. INEC later jettisoned the IREV claiming a glitch occurred. The courts later said INEC guidelines are not binding on it and MORE IMPORTANTLY, IREV is just a viewing portal and has no role in the collation process.

2. I believe you're referring to s64(6) which is in case of results being disputed. The snag is that most opposition parties have never asked INEC to do this. They usually claim they were either restrained from access to collation centre or storm out of the centre. I believe you'll agree that disputing a result does not include storming out of the collation centre. As a matter of fact, s65 gives INEC 7 days to look at results declared and make corrections. INEC can claim that no one approached them to dispute any result. That's why the the phrase "Go to court" is as putrid as it is suspicious.

3. Like I maintained, calling up BVAS results is in case of dispute as laid out in s64(6). If there's no dispute, there's no reason to call up BVAS in INEC's view. Note that s65 clearly says results must be declared in conformity with INEC guidelines. Again, the guidelines mentioned IREV as the primary place to get results to ensure transparency. The courts trashed both guidelines and IREV!! So what evidence will a party have to institute a dispute if there's no IREV? All the discrepancies we've been seeing on irev in all the elections, has INEC ever come out to explain it? Why should they? The courts already trashed IREV. That's my point. If the courts had recognised IREV as is obvious from the EA, all other things would have fallen in place.

You go explain tire

Brendaniel:
That's a lie, just because you are corrupt doesn't mean everyone is, you guys justify nonsense just to support nonsense by generalizing it....

Name ONE politician, not only today but in Nigeria's history, whose supporters won't rig if they see the chance and it would make him win

DaddyCoool:
Name ONE politician, not only today but in Nigeria's history, whose supporters won't rig if they see the chance and it would make him win

El Rufai, he did it with LGA elections...

Kukutenla:
1. The BVAS is to identify a voter and validate his voting particulars. From this, it will obtain the number of would-be Voters that are accredited to vote in an election and store them. That's s47(2) and it is clear nor under contention. The second role of BVAS that's under contention and which INEC jettisoned and the court applauded is found in s60(5) which I reproduce below. . The manner prescribed by the commission towards 2023 elections was two. IREV and manual submission of forms EC8A. INEC later jettisoned the IREV claiming a glitch occurred. The courts later said INEC guidelines are not binding on it and MORE IMPORTANTLY, IREV is just a viewing portal and has no role in the collation process.

2. I believe you're referring to s64(6) which is in case of results being disputed. The snag is that most opposition parties have never asked INEC to do this. They usually claim they were either restrained from access to collation centre or storm out of the centre. I believe you'll agree that disputing a result does not include storming out of the collation centre. As a matter of fact, s65 gives INEC 7 days to look at results declared and make corrections. INEC can claim that no one approached them to dispute any result. That's why the the phrase "Go to court" is as putrid as it is suspicious.

3. Like I maintained, calling up BVAS results is in case of dispute as laid out in s64(6). If there's no dispute, there's no reason to call up BVAS in INEC's view. Note that s65 clearly says results must be declared in conformity with INEC guidelines. Again, the guidelines mentioned IREV as the primary place to get results to ensure transparency. The courts trashed both guidelines and IREV!! So what evidence will a party have to institute a dispute if there's no IREV? All the discrepancies we've been seeing on irev in all the elections, has INEC ever come out to explain it? Why should they? The courts already trashed IREV. That's my point. If the courts had recognised IREV as is obvious from the EA, all other things would have fallen in place.

We are actually saying the same thing here..
That is why I maintained that the Electoral-Act-2022 needs serious re-adjustments.

The Electoral-Act as it currently is, had left a lot of wide gaps in the Nigerian Electoral Processes...

That is why I wrote this book which I am going to post here-below.
Inside the book, did an indepth study of the Electoral-Act-2022, and penned down some suggestions towards amending the current Electoral-Act in order for it to become a formidable tool for strengthening the electoral processes in Nigeria,, (Including the LG Elections in the various states)

I also created some topics on Nairaland where I discussed some of the contents of the book.


HERE IS THE LINK TO THE BOOK..
https://drive.usercontent.google.com/u/0/uc?id=1GAp0cegDplx-E9FgXRXcI5uDX6tgW-cw

BluntCrazeMan:
We are actually saying the same thing here..
That is why I maintained that the Electoral-Act-2022 needs serious re-adjustments.

The Electoral-Act as it currently is, had left a lot of wide gaps in the Nigerian Electoral Processes...

That is why I wrote this book which I am going to post here-below.
Inside the book, did an indepth study of the Electoral-Act-2022, and penned down some suggestions towards amending the current Electoral-Act in order for it to become a formidable tool for strengthening the electoral processes in Nigeria,, (Including the LG Elections in the various states)

I also created some topics on Nairaland where I discussed some of the contents of the book.


HERE IS THE LINK TO THE BOOK..
https://drive.usercontent.google.com/u/0/uc?id=1GAp0cegDplx-E9FgXRXcI5uDX6tgW-cw

I agree with you that the EA has a lot of gaps. But if our courts meant well, the EA is well worded enough with latitudes that they could have been progressive on the interpretation and give us better electoral jurisprudence. IREV is covered in the EA. Not explicitly but implicitly. The courts killed IREV not INEC. If IREV was alive, we will not have to live with the ignominy of different result on IREV and different results announced and whoever does not like it is advised to "Go to Court"

Kukutenla:
I agree with you that the EA has a lot of gaps. But if our courts meant well, the EA is well worded enough with latitudes that they could have been progressive on the interpretation and give us better electoral jurisprudence. IREV is covered in the EA. Not explicitly but implicitly. The courts killed IREV not INEC. If IREV was alive, we will not have to live with the ignominy of different result on IREV and different results announced and whoever does not like it is advised to "Go to Court"

We will continue to push..


The best thing that can happen for now is for the members of the National Assembly to tey their best and cover-up all those unnecessary gaps which they created in the Electoral-Act-2022 at-First for reasons best known to them..

And again,, we pray that Tinubu will agree with those amendments.

Well..
For the mean time, let the INEC continue to do their best..
I don't blame the INEC much.
I blame the NASS Members for this mess.

In the draft of the Electoral Reform Bill which the INEC sent to the National Assembly, they clearly stated that there should be Electronic Transmission and Electronic Collation.

But the guys at the National Assembly were too naive.. They were feeling that Nigeria is not yet ripe for such “FAST TECHNOLOGY”, and they Yanked it off the Bill without even hearing from the INEC.

It was only when INEC Independently published an unsolicited book -- where they clearly stated the “readiness of the INEC to do Electronic Transmission and Collation” -- that the National Assembly decided to add it back with such a “shaky” language, and still made it a choice on INEC instead of making it Mandatory.

Nothing prevented the National Assembly Members from saying “Electronically” in the Electoral-Act,, but they carefully avoided it totally.

Now, all of them are running from pillar to post,, especially those ones who were voted out.