Ratello's Posts
Nairaland Forum › Ratello's Profile › Ratello's Posts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 (of 109 pages)
LAW DIGEST How Electoral Act 2015 legalised card reader Published March 24, 2016 Femi Falana In December last year, the Supreme Court upheld all the disputed governorship elections conducted by the Independent National Electoral Commission on April 11, 2015 and undertook to adduce reasons for each of the judgments at a later date. Last month, the court announced the reasons for the decisions. Essentially, the apex court vehemently disagreed with the judgments of the Court of Appeal which had set aside election results which emanated from manual accreditation instead of the card reader machines prescribed by the INEC. For not validating the use of card reader for voter accreditation some commentators, including lawyers, have criticised the verdicts of the apex court. The criticisms which have greeted the judgments are not unexpected given the controversy which trailed the use of card reader for the elections. Although the National Assembly had approved fund for the purchase of the card reader machines in the Appropriation Act of 2014, the then ruling party wanted to use its control of the federal legislature to discredit the electronic device. Hence, the immediate-past chairman of the INEC, Prof. Attahiru Jega, was summoned to the Senate to justify the introduction of the card reader for voter accreditation. In taking up the challenge, Prof. Jega demonstrated the use of card readers and its capacity to eliminate electoral fraud perpetrated at the accreditation stage of election. At the end of the exercise the Senate was compelled to endorse the use of card reader for the 2015 general election. Thereafter, the Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2015 which sought to legitimise the use of card reader was unanimously passed by both chambers of the National Assembly. The bill was signed into law by former President Goodluck Jonathan on March 20, 2015. Prior to the amendment, Section 52 of the Electoral Act had prohibited the INEC from the use of any form of electronic voting. But following the amendment of the provision, the INEC has been conferred with the power to determine the procedure to use for any election. Specifically, Section 52 states that “voting at an election shall be in accordance with the procedure determined by the Independent National Electoral Commission.” With the amendment of the law the INEC was on terra firma when it decided to use the card reader machine for the accreditation of voters for the 2015 general election. In spite of the initial hiccups encountered by voters with respect to the use of the card reader machines it is generally agreed that the technological device enhanced the credibility of the 2015 general election. Indeed, a number of the election petitions filed by aggrieved candidates were anchored on the gap between the number of voters accredited with the card reader machines and the fake election results declared by some returning officers. At the election petition tribunals, the INEC, through its lawyers, canvassed rather curiously that the directive on accreditation of voters with the aid of card reader machines was not backed by any law. And that the failure to comply with the directive could not vitiate any election conducted by the INEC. Some members of the Election Petition Tribunals and the Justices of the Court of Appeal upheld the submissions of the INEC lawyers. In their judgments they ignored the figures of accredited voters obtained via the card reader machines. Others were however convinced that the directive on the use of card reader was backed by the letter and spirit of the Electoral Act. In the case of APC v Kolawole Agbaje, Ogbuinya JCA traced the genesis of the card reader when he said, “The evolution of the concept of smart card readers is a familiar one. It came to being during the last general election held in March and April, 2015 in Nigeria. On this score, it is a nascent procedure injected into our infant and fledgling electoral system to ensure credible and transparent election. Specifically, it is aimed to concretise our fragile process of accreditation – the keystone of any suffrage. The concept, owing to its recent invention by INEC, a non-legislative body, traces its paternity to the manual for election officials, 2015.” The above view of Ogbuinya J.C.A was adopted in toto by Ejembi Eko JCA in the case of Umana v Emmanuel, when he stated that, “I do not believe that with the fast pace of development globally and the whole world embracing the latest IT technologies, that resistance should be placed to emerging technologies geared towards transparency in elections, by backward thinking interpretations that can only be deleterious to the system. Holding otherwise would be to truncate the great efforts of the 3rd respondent (INEC) in its bid to ensure a credible election and in so doing attempt to plug all loopholes that can be exploited by unscrupulous persons.” Regrettably, the Supreme Court did not share the progressive view of both Ogbuinya and Eko JJCA on the legal validity of the technological device. Thus, in the case of Edward Okereke v Dave Umahi the apex court held that the appellant failed woefully to prove the allegation of over-voting as he did not tender the voters’ registers along with the card reader reports. Justice Cletus Nweze, who read the lead judgment of the court, held that, “Indeed, since the Guidelines and Manual, which authorised the use and deployment of the electronic card reader machine, were made in exercise of the powers conferred by the Electoral Act, the said card reader cannot, logically, depose or dethrone the Voters’ Register whose judicial roots are firmly embedded or entrenched in the selfsame Electoral Act from which it (the Voters’ Register) directly, derives its sustenance and currency….since the National Assembly has not deleted the provision of Section 49 of the Electoral Act (2010), which allows manual accreditation, it would be wrong for any petitioner to seek to rely solely on the report of the card reader (which is intended as a supplementary measure to the already provided means of accreditation) to prove over-voting.” However, in spite of the clear position of the INEC on the mandatory use of card readers for the governorship and state legislative elections it did not adduce any argument in favour of the use of electronic device at the various election petition tribunals and the appellate courts. It is particularly intriguing that the INEC did not defend the card reader by relying on Section 52 of the Electoral Act (Amendment Act) 2015. If the attention of the Justices of the Supreme Court had been drawn to the 2015 amendment of the Electoral Act they could not have held that accreditation by the card reader machine was supplementary to manual accreditation. In other words, the judgments of the apex court would have legitimised the use of card reader for voter accreditation. No doubt, the legitimisation of the card reader would have had dire consequences on the results of the disputed governorship elections. Falana, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, writes from Lagos Copyright PUNCH. All rights reserved. This material, and other digital content on this website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or in part without prior express written permission from PUNCH. https://punchng.com/ |
I need brilliant and unbiased analyses from our learned gentlemen in the house please on this. ChristianNorth, engineerboat, tuniski, wiseandtrue, etc oya come and contribute |
oyatz: |
The noise on Supreme Court ruling in Wike Vs Peterside Dakuku on the real winner of the Rivers Guber in 2015 was quoted in many quarters as the likely verdict in Atiku VS Buhari's case but it seems this is not likely as many waters have passed under the bridge between 2015 and 2019. Atiku is standing on the Electoral Law backing of the Smart Card Reader which was non existence in 2015. However, I am not a lawyer but I need legal luminaries in the house to give an elaborate interpretations to this hotly debated topic. Below is Supreme Court reasons for ignoring the Smart Card Reader for manual collation in 2015: Supreme Court gives reasons for upholding Wike’s election as Rivers Governor!https://dailypost.ng/2016/02/12/rivers-judgement-supreme-court-flaws-tribunal-appeal-courts/ |
The Electoral act was amended in 2015 and it legitimized the use of card readers, it was signed by Jonathan The NASS amended the act again in 2017 and 2018 to include e-collation which the card reader has capability to, but Buhari declined assent. Again, the electoral act section 52 empowes INEC to set electoral guidelines and this guidelines have the full weight of the law and in the guideline for the last election, INEC clearly stated that any result from a PU without a card reader is invalid. So card readers will be admissible in the tribunal and all those kangaroo votes Buhari got from the North will be cancelled. https://punchng.com/how-electoral-act-2015-legalised-card-reader/ |
9jahotblog:Well said Comrade! I believe this is what you meant at the bolded; This Senior Advocate of Nonsense did not know that even the use of Smart Card Reader for accreditation is backed by law. I believe the smart card reader was allowed according to the Electoral Act as amended in 2015 |
Something tells me Orji Uzor Kalu may not survive this and may end up like Dariye in jail |
udemzyudex:Please comrade I will appreciate if you can share the screen shots of those pictures here please. |
PART 2 . 2019 ELECTION TRIBUNAL : DEMOLA OLANREWAJU COUNTERED FESTUS KEYAMO . Is E-Collation ordinarily backed by law? No. Section 52 of the EA however says that “voting at an election shall be in accordance with the procedure determined by the Independent National Electoral Commission.” Even If INEC says it is using palm kernels for fingerprints. The law is clear and unambiguous: INEC is allowed by Section 52 of the Electoral Act to determine how it wants to conduct elections and in 2019, e-collation was used and no law prohibits the use of e-collation. The position is very clear and direct. Keyamo knew that if INEC said it will use e-collation, the law doesn’t forbid it. And that’s why he lied that INEC guidelines did not include e-collation, whereas, it was a part of everything INEC did - and this is now proven publicly and will be upheld legally. The confusion is in what Section 52 said before, that any electronic process is prohibited but the Section was amended in 2015 and gave INEC the power to conduct elections in any manner it seems fit - they can even use thunder and lightning if they like, the law supports them. “voting at an election shall be in accordance with the procedure determined by the Independent National Electoral Commission.” Was e-collation part of the procedure determined by INEC for February 23rd election? Yes. And that ends it - and that’s why they’re saying it wasn’t. |
Sagamaje:Suicide and depression plus high blood pressure will abound this I am too sure of. |
What a useless and wasteful administration this is what this wicked man ought to have done in his 2nd year in power in 2017 unfortunately he is too dull to understand this. |
hassan4: |
segun0085:Nice one! |
garfield1:Let me massage your ego I guess you need it after the series of blows received in the past few days ![]()
|
2019 ELECTION TRIBUNAL : DEMOLA OLANREWAJU COUNTERED FESTUS KEYAMO . Feels good to have APC on the defensive all the time and to see Keyamo struggling to defend the indefensible fraud of February 23. Notice though he has learnt from his past gaffe when PDP quoted his petition to the police on the subject of INEC server to prove their existence. Unfortunately for Keyamo, his understanding of the law is outdated - but no surprises there as he was more involved only recently with sharing campaign money and now twisting truths to justify a fraudulent election - those are his personal problems though. I’ll clarify again: Section 49 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) gives INEC the power to conduct elections manually. Section 52 was amended in 2015 to state that: “voting at an election shall be in accordance with the procedure determined by the Independent National Electoral Commission.” Under Section 52 therefore, INEC guidelines for the conduct of an election are totally upheld. The question now therefore is: what electoral procedures did INEC adopt for the conduct of the 2019 general elections? To answer that, we should rely on INEC’s own documents. INEC’s training manuals for Presiding Officers (POs) included this document below to guide them on how to use the Smart Card Reader, not only for the accreditation and voting processes, but also for the process of manual and electronic collation - e-collation, in the election. Wary that some POs may be too busy with other activities after voting to collate the results electronically, INEC engaged some Technical Support persons for Registration Areas and they were dubbed RATechs - Registration Area Tech And also had LGATech in fact to assist further. RATechs were deployed one per Ward, or two per Ward for Wards with large numbers of Polling Units. The sole duty of the RATech was to provide technical assistance for the POs with the SCR (Smart Card Reader) for accreditation, voting and transmission of results (see above tweet) In INEC’s own training manual video for the Presiding Officers, there was provision for e-collation as seen in this short video extract. (There are other juicy bits from this video but that will be reserved for the Tribunal - this one should suffice in addition to tweets above.) For anyone to say as Keyamo has said, that INEC guidelines (which power it derives from Section 52 of the Electoral Act 2010 - as amended) does not provide for e-collation is blatant falsehood. This same Keyamo inadvertently confirmed it earlier with his police petition! I can understand that Keyamo is a neophyte in politics because even as far back as Edo gubernatorial elections in 2015, INEC was using e-collation and we knew it: Deji Adeyanju and myself led the PDP Situation Room in Benin and we had Abuja insiders who kept us updated. In every election since Edo in 2015, Mahmud Yakubu used e-collation and was always aware of the results directly from the field, from inside his space in Abuja. That Situation Room was to be thrown open to observers this year for the first time but “something” overtook it. But no need for mental gymnastics on this, let’s quote the words of top INEC Officers - starting with Prof. Segun Agbaje - Resident Electoral Commissioner for Osun State. Here, he confirms that INEC was to use e-collation for the Osun election last year. If you don’t like the man’s suit or his demeanour, here again is Mike Igini, the Resident Electoral Commissioner in Akwa-Ibom, oratorically explaining on February 10, how the e-collation process was to be deployed on February 23: To sum it all up, Prof. Mahmud Yakubu himself confirmed that results were to be collated electronically on February 23. The logical question after this should then be: Did INEC collate the results of the presidential election both electronically and manually or only manually? The straightforward answer is that INEC did - but the manually collated figures had been tampered with and did not tally with the electronically collated figures. So INEC declared Buhari as the winner based on the falsified manually accredited figures and denied e-collation. Unfortunately for INEC and Keyamo (along with Keyamo’s rigging paymasters), Atiku has sent to the Tribunal, the sworn testimony of dozens of POs who swear that they collated results electronically. Fortunately for Democracy however, Atiku got the figures from their server. So not only will Atiku prove that INEC made provisions for e-collation, trained its staff to do it but also that results were electronically compiled and that the figures which show that he won the February 23 elections were sourced directly from INEC’s own unique server. This story is rich in details and the statement by YIAGA which monitored the elections of February 23 is further evidence of e-collation. Where it falls short is in taking cognisance of Section 52 of the Electoral Act which gives INEC electoral leeway. The matter of e-collation is however only a subsection of 1 section out of 5 that Atiku is challenging the February 23 electoral fraud on - we’re discussing them one by one: last week was Buhari’s qualification, this week is e-collation - and Keyamo is a good customer . #AtikuIsComing is the hashtag that scares APC the most on digital media but it is a reality that will be proven in court and upon which justice must be done. Note that we haven’t yet come to the juicy details of how results were manipulated and how APC bought votes very openly. For now, the subject of e-collation has been conclusively proven in the court of public opinion - INEC planned to do it and INEC did it. That INEC is denying it now is only evidence that INEC compromised and INEC is guilty of perjury - some people may end up in jail eventually. Just got this: we have many Presiding Officers in Nigeria to establish the truth and many more are still turning up, not mainly for Atiku but for the sake of Democracy. INEC, quit lying! You cannot abort a baby that has been born, you can only kill it and be guilty of murder. Demola Olanrewaju https://www.facebook.com/1336531132/posts/10219369940662688/ Cc: Seun, Lalasticlala please move to the paradise Land
|
engineerboat: Next time use the below quote to answer or reply the dude; Defending Buhari At All Cost Is One Of The Most Irritating Task On Earth At The Moment, It Tends To Expose You As Being Cerebrally Challenged and slow. It's Like You Quoting From Genesis To Malachi From The Holy Writ (The Bible) And Your Listeners Are Not Convinced And You Proceeded To The Books Of Matthew To Revelations And Yet You Appear Boring To Your Listeners Only For You To See Yourself Quoting From The *Mysterious 6th and 7th Book Of Moses* Without You knowing, All In Your Desperation To Sound Convincing To Your Listeners. Know For Sure That Your Basic Cognitive Skills To Process Simple Matter Is Fast Eroding Away Just Because You Must Defend Buhari. @TemitopeA |
tuniski:Next time use the below quote to answer or reply the dude; Defending Buhari At All Cost Is One Of The Most Irritating Task On Earth At The Moment, It Tends To Expose You As Being Cerebrally Challenged and Retarded. It's Like You Quoting From Genesis To Malachi From The Holy Writ (The Bible) And Your Listeners Are Not Convinced And You Proceeded To The Books Of Matthew To Revelations And Yet You Appear Boring To Your Listeners Only For You To See Yourself Quoting From The *Mysterious 6th and 7th Book Of Moses* Without You knowing, All In Your Desperation To Sound Convincing To Your Listeners. Know For Sure That Your Basic Cognitive Skills To Process Simple Matter Is Fast Eroding Away Just Because You Must Defend Buhari. @TemitopeA |
engineerboat: don't kill that boy my engineer |
capitalzero:Yes and hearing was concluded yesterday so we await judgment now. |
tuniski:definitely PDP -Adeleke Ademola wins this but just wondering why judgment will be this imminent but when I remembered the job perfected at the Tribunals then I understood why. The Tribunal judgment was indeed a template to simplify future judgments on the Osun case and similar ones. |
Breaking: OSUN STATE The appeal court judgement between Gov Oyetola and Aspirant Adeleke now ready. To be declared very soon. Details shortly...... |
I knew it just confirmed from a friend few minutes ago. It will be all over the news soon. |
Adeinfo:Going by the realities on ground regarding Atiku's case, it is now glaring that this article is relevant. Atiku is coming |
DemolaUnbias:Haba you folks should think from time to time now before commenting. ....the Court already ordered INEC to grant Atiku and his team access to the electoral materials under the care of INEC so what is INEC hiding and afraid of? |
ChristianNorth:You always say it as it is! |
The Take Home From The Osun Guber Court Of Appeal Case Today At Abuja! Osun Guber Appeal: Oyetola, Respondents Lawyers' Ridiculed in Court *You are not making any sense in your submission, Judge to Wole Olanipekun *You should have Defended allegation of Doctored results at Tribunal,Judge to Yusuf Ali *Dont Twist or Mislead us on Cross Appeal,Judge to Akin Olujinmi The Appeal against the ruling of Osun governorship election Tribunal today took off on a sad note for the Appellants namely Gboyega Oyetola, the All Progressive Congress and the Independent National Electoral Commission INEC. From the three Appeals to the cross Appeal by Senator Ademola Adeleke , it was a rolling show of Judicial bashing for Oyetola,APC and INEC. The Appellants' Counsel staggered from one error to the other amidst muddling of presentations and out of context legal submissions, prompting the judges to on several occasions intervene to correct and even frown at obvious misrepresentations, misinformation and irrelevant arguments by the Counsel for Appellants. As the three Appeals and cross Appeal proceeded one after the other, the counsels to the Appellants and the cross Respondents descended into legal confusion with even the legal juggernauts among them, Wole Olanipekun SAN, Akin Olunjinmi SAN and Yusuf Alli SAN engaging in what the judges considered to be legal ramblings and obvious irrelevances. At today's sitting ,the judges had reason to chide and call to order the appellant's counsels for more than 12 times such that at a point ,one of the judges exploded:"we are not making sense of your submission at all. "You tend to be everywhere .You are citing pages and pages and we are not getting the point you are making. You need to be more concise ",the panel chairperson, Justice J.H. Sankey pointedly told Wole Olanipekun SAN. As though ruffled by the calm disposition and legal intellectualism displayed by respondents' legal team comprising of Dr Emeka Ikpeazu,SAN,Dr Ananaba,SAN,N.O.Oke,SAN ,Ogunwumiju,SAN,the counsels to the appellants got trapped in many legal holes and on many occasions, the judges had to pull them out to safe the integrity of the learned silks. The proceedings had taken off on a good note with the panel chairperson promising accelerated hearing. Senator Ademola Adeleke and Gboyega Oyetola were sitting facing each other both wearing white with Adeleke's white garments reinforced by that of his deputy,Albert Adeogun. In a very tense seven hour hearing punctuated by only 10 minutes recess, the sitting commenced with the first appeal. To the shock and apprehension of the chamber, Olanipekun launched the first Appeal apparently focussing only on line of argument - that the Judge who delivered the majority ruling at the lower court was not present on a particular day of the hearing. Scrambling to cite authorities to back up his claim, it became obvious that the Appellants have no defence against the substance of the Tribunal judgement. The respondent's counsel, Ikpeazu SAN responding on this point affirmed that the issue in question is about conflict of court records as Justice Obiorah was cited in the proceedings of the said date even though he did not sign. To nail Olanipekun who had built a castle in the air ,Ikpeazu declared that the Appellants should have filed an affidavit to inquire from the judge and to clarify the conflict in the court records. The issue he said cannot be simply settled by assumption of the appellant's Lawyers. Justice Obiorah he said should be given fair hearing to know exactly what happen on the said day. Ikpeazu SAN by raising the issue of conflict in court records and the need for affidavits to get clarification from the Judge punctured the major plank of appellant's case. All efforts to reset the matter failed as the respondent submitted several authorities to prove that the issue of a Judge's absence cannot be determined without hearing from the judge. On the second Appeal, Olanipekun run into troubled water when he posited that the respondent, Ademola Adeleke is seeking to be declared winner on the basis of September 22 poll which has been declared inconclusive. The Tribunal he said exceeded its authority by reframing reliefs and granting such adding that the petitioner did not plead categorically. Plunging further into self deviced legal trap,Olujinmi posited that the respondent attacked September 27 poll to win the September 22nd election,affirming that the respondent did not plead non-compliance in September 22 election .He noted that non compliance of September 27 cannot be used to gain advantage on September 22,adding that the Tribunal relied on certified true copies of forms ec8a dumped on the court to compare and take decision. The legal sophistry and manipulative proposition by Olujinmi was immediately buried by Dr Ikpeazu who methodically and calmly demolished the legal lies built and packaged by Olujinmi. Ikpeazu SAN submitted that the APGA case cited by Olujinmi is not applicable to the Osun case. In the APGA case,there was no return on the election,so the court held that the election where there was no return cannot be adjudicated upon. In the case of Osun,he said there was a return with Senator Adeleke winning by majority votes and satisfying the local government spread conditional requirements to be declared. The respondents submission he said was that on the basis of September 22nd poll which was announced by the electoral commission, Ademola Adeleke should have been declared Winner . In other words ,the rerun was illegal as the constitutional requirement has been and satisfied by one of the contestants. Ikpeazu declared further that contrary to Olujinmi's submission ,the respondent pleaded both September 22nd and 27th polls in the petition. Citing relevant authorities ,he argued that no election is complete until a winner is declared. Hence,the respondent filed the petitions after the violently rigged rerun. In what appears like a legal lecture on election petition,Ikpeazu passionately argued and submit with judges taken copious notes and with Oyetola on the VIP desk looking worryingly at the exceptional brilliance of the respondents lawyer. On the third Appeal,the INEC lawyer,Yusuf Ali was confronted with probably one of his worst legal outing. First his presentation was devoid of seriousness to the extent that the panel chairman jokingly said the learned silk is only entertaining the court. He hinged his submission on the fact that the tribunal was wrong to have held that INEC should have called witnesses to defend the doctoring and mutilation of results sheets. He struggled and laboured to proof that form EC8A is not very important and that ballot accounting is irrelevant in an election. As he was making his submission,the judges were questioning his lines of thought even before the respondents reacted .One of the judges questioned him about why INEC failed to react to the many allegations at the trial stage during the life of the suit at the lower court. He responded by saying the burden of proof is on the Petitioner. At that point,a judge fired at him and said: "you should have vigorously defended the allegations against INEC at the tribunal" Another judge told Ali SAN that INEC should have invited witnesses and also explained why the results sheets were altered. Responding Ipkeazu affirmed that there was no contradiction in the ruling of the tribunal over the issue of non-compliance. He said the burden of proof shift only after the accused has made his submission. In this case he said INEC failed to explain the disparity between certified true copies and pink copies of ec8a which are results from the wards. On the issue of powers of the tribunal to cancel and declare results, Olujinmi failed in his bid to prove that the tribunal has no power despite citing the ruling of the court. He even produced a 2015 version of the electoral act ,positing that the court ruling by Justice Kolawole striking that section 140 (2) of the electoral act has no effect. Olanipekun added his own by saying the ruling is overtaken by events. Midway,the judges questioned the submission before Ikpeazu jailed the coffin by asserting that as at today ,the ruling and the judgement remains especially as there has been no appeal against it. The panel Judges even concurred with the respondent's submission. A major high point of the hearing today was the hearing on the cross Appeal when the counsel to Adeleke ,Kehinde Ogunwumiju,SAN made his presentation submitting that the court should add six 6 witnesses rejected at the tribunal and add their testimony to the hearing. He submitted that granting the prayers will increase the margin of win of his client, Adeleke. In a major show of legal mastery,the SAN took on Wole Olanipekun,Akin Olujinmi and Yusif Ali,knocking lives out of their presentations and submitting that the panel should allow the cross Appeal. By the time the hearing closed around 4:30pm, it was clear that the appeal has probably failed and that the cross Appeal has strong prospects. Olanipekun left the premises frowning while Oyetola hurriedly left without speaking with the press. Ajibola Ajibola Bashir was clearly rattled while the well mobilised APC members left in clearly very sad mood. Senator Ademola Adeleke was thronged by well wishers. The names of the panel members are J H Sankey, A. D. Yahaya, I G Mbaba, Justice Akeju and BG Sanga https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10157544306907841&id=595332840 |
Atiku of course |
9jahotblog:This is the crux of the matter. |
9jahotblog:Exactly the reason why I said the Court of Appeal will uphold the Tribunal verdict definitely |
From the proceedings so far, the Court Of Appeal is upholding the Tribunals judgment this is the truth. |
udemzyudex:My comrade thanks for educating the lad some of them just like empty arguments even when presented with facts like you just did. |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 (of 109 pages)

