If you and your Dullard Buhari supporters is alledging that something was removed from the bill sent to the executives, why is it so difficult for you people to post the version confirming the alledged provison that removed the use of card reader. If you have the correct version, why not post it here. He that alledges must provide evidence and not the other way round. If you know better than us why not educate us or its not your responsibility to help us because we are not as intelligent as you people. If you people can only alledge and cannot provide evidence, don Allah ku yi shiru.

kaycodes:


Madam what you are quoting is the first bill sent in Feb. From the screenshots you posted it is clearly stated Feb 2018. This first bill sent to the President was rejected because of NASS seeking to change the sequence of the election thereby overriding INECs power. They took it back and from the claim by the presidency have now remove the provisions for card reader from the first bill they submitted. In the hope that the presidency will not review the document in full. The onus is on the NASS to furnish us with the latest bill that was refused assent instead of media propaganda. Saraki and his cohorts are trying to undermine our electoral process. Let the NASS release a statement denying what Ita Enang has said. You cannot be crying more than the bereaved. Ensuring that the truth prevails should be our focus. So let's focus on the issue. Was the card reader included in the latest copy of the bill or not. Provide a verifiable document with dates that we can prove or provide a statement by the NASS that counters the presidency. Dont let these politicians play hanky panky with your emotions.

Buterflyle0:


Bloody liar. Screengrab the portion or portions talking about it and paste here.

If you dodge and refuse to do this then you confirm my liar tag on you.

Oya paste it

I can't believe LadyExcellency could tell such a blatant lie. I can't believe she never saw or downloaded any such document yet claimed she did.

This is really shameful!

This is how most of these PDP sympathisers go around social media spreading half truths and outright falsehood. You say you see something, oya post screen shot, e become rocket science.

SMH

Corrinthians:
I can't believe LadyExcellency could tell such a blatant lie. I can't believe she never saw or downloaded any such document yet claimed she did.

This is really shameful!

This is how most of these PDP sympathisers go around social media spreading half truths and outright falsehood. You say you see something, oya post screen shot, e become rocket science.

SMH

Read through the debate, I beat him hands down. I posted the screenshot and defeated him in all ramifications.

I posted the amendments and substantiated the truth on differences between the 2014 and the proposed 2018 amendment to prove that the presidency was not coming forth with the truth.

kaycodes:


Madam what you are quoting is the first bill sent in Feb. From the screenshots you posted it is clearly stated Feb 2018. This first bill sent to the President was rejected because of NASS seeking to change the sequence of the election thereby overriding INECs power. They took it back and from the claim by the presidency have now remove the provisions for card reader from the first bill they submitted. In the hope that the presidency will not review the document in full. The onus is on the NASS to furnish us with the latest bill that was refused assent instead of media propaganda. Saraki and his cohorts are trying to undermine our electoral process. Let the NASS release a statement denying what Ita Enang has said. You cannot be crying more than the bereaved. Ensuring that the truth prevails should be our focus. So let's focus on the issue. Was the card reader included in the latest copy of the bill or not. Provide a verifiable document with dates that we can prove or provide a statement by the NASS that counters the presidency. Dont let these politicians play hanky panky with your emotions.

Bros, the onus remains on the presidency to prove the card reader was removed.

Buterflyle0:


This is from the 2015 elections

Sections 49 and 52 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) had been subjected to legal debate in respect to the use of the card reader for the 2015 general elections. To some, the deployment of card readers for the accreditation of voters at the
elections tactically meant adoption of electronic voting, which the 2010 Electoral Act outlaws
(Oderemi, 2015). Section 49 states that:
(1) Every person intending to vote shall present himself to a Presiding Officer at the polling
unit in the constituency in which his name is registered with his voter‟s card. (2) The
Presiding Officer shall, on being satisfied that the name of the person is on the Register of
Voters, issue him a ballot paper, and indicate on the Register that the person has voted. Section
52 stipulates that: (1) Voting at an election under this Act shall be by open secret ballot. (2)
The use of electronic voting machine for the time being is prohibited. (3) A voter on receiving
a ballot paper shall mark it in the manner prescribed by the Commission. (4) All ballots at an election under this Act at any polling station shall be deposited in the ballot box in the open
view of the public.

In his contribution, Falana (2015) averred that the deployment of the card reader by INEC is
not illegal. He submitted that INEC has the constitutional power to set the standards and
guidelines for elections. In view of this, he argued that the card reader is part of accreditation
and not voting. He maintained that what the law proscribed is electronic voting and not the
card readers. Therefore, according to him the use of the card reader in the 2015 general
elections is legal and legitimate (cited in Oderemi, 2015).

The Society for Advancement and Protection of Public Rights (SAPPR) (2015), a civil society
in its submission argued that the deployment of the card reader is illegal because it is in
violation of Section 52 (1) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended). SAPPR opined that the use
of the card reader for screening of voter cards or which has the effect of preventing a registered voter to vote is beyond the powers of INEC. As such, the civil society maintained that by virtue of Sections 77 (2) and 117 (2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) of Nigeria.

These were the legal arguments for and against the use of the card reader in 2015 of which inec won because their powers also covered any means they thought fit to be used for accreditation.

Some of you just talk carelessly.

It won't cost you a dime to be civil. I am pretty sure you think you are helping the presidency, sorry for you but you are harming them, most especially if you are a paid hack.

Let me start with the links you sent. The links are not the electoral amendment of 2015. Get a copy, sit down and read through. And come back to argue.

Now to the case on ground. The electoral ammendment document was sent to Buhari on the 3rd of August, but all necessary changes had been done as at 12th of June. Kaycodes, you demanded for the June bill, so here you go. Whenever a bill is being attended to at the national assembly, you can track it's progress on the nass website. As at June 12 2018, find attached a screenshot, the nass concluded on the electoral amendment. https://nass.gov.ng/document/bills

You can actually download the bill there and also see the date. Upon download, you can also search for card reader which I also did.

Question now is that if this document was available to the public as at 12 of June, how come the presidency is saying card readers were omitted.

Full response from the FG to NASS

delvinmaya:


It won't cost you a dime to be civil. I am pretty sure you think you are helping the presidency, sorry for you but you are harming them, most especially if you are a paid hack.

Let me start with the links you sent. The links are not the electoral amendment of 2015. Get a copy, sit down and read through. And come back to argue.

Now to the case on the ground. The electoral amendment document was sent to Buhari on the 3rd of August, but all necessary changes had been done as at 12th of June. Kaycodes, you demanded for the June bill, so here you go. Whenever a bill is being attended to at the national assembly, you can track it's progress on the nass website. As at June 12 2018, find attached a screenshot, the nass concluded on the electoral amendment. https://nass.gov.ng/document/bills

You can actually download the bill there and also see the date. Upon download, you can also search for card reader which I also did.

Question now is that if this document was available to the public as at 12 of June, how come the presidency is saying card readers were omitted.

I am sure you are either the person who sent the bill to him or you have no idea what you are talking about. Don't peddle stories you cannot prove.

The first bill was sent Feb 20th and Buhari refused assent.
It was revised and sent again on June 27th and again was refused assent.

These two bills which is probably where you got your screenshot from had the provision for the card reader.

The third bill sent on the 3rd of August does not contain the Card reader so couldn't have been the basis for rejection by the president. As Ita Enang has made a press release to that effect, let the NASS come out and refute it. The PDP has kept mum since the information was released. All of a sudden they can no longer defend or scream that Buhari is not signing the bill because of the card reader.

Please get your stories and timeline correctly before you come back and quote me. The presidency has responded, let the NASS respond as well, or are you their spokesperson? We only know what they reveal.

There are always three sides to a story, the two sides, and the truth. We want to hear from the NASS and decide who is lying. Go get your facts straight.

haveadream:
If you and your Dullard Buhari supporters is alledging that something was removed from the bill sent to the executives, why is it so difficult for you people to post the version confirming the alledged provison that removed the use of card reader. If you have the correct version, why not post it here. He that alledges must provide evidence and not the other way round. If you know better than us why not educate us or its not your responsibility to help us because we are not as intelligent as you people. If you people can only alledge and cannot provide evidence, don Allah ku yi shiru.

Ogbeni what correct version are you looking for? Has there ever been a time when the presidency pasted a bill that was before it in the public domain? The presidency refused assent as per his constitutional powers, and the PDP and never do wells decided to accuse him of refusing because of the card reader. They have come out with a press statement that says the card reader was not in the bill sent to them by the NASS, yet for some wonderful reason you want them to provide the Document which is by origin a property of the NASS until signed into law. Biko who is supposed to have the original version? If it's the NASS why have they not countered the Presidency? Are you privy to the correct version? Is it so hard for the NASS to speakout and condemn the presidency for lying? The PDP are the once who accused the presidency, they have only come out to defend themselves. Since when has the burden of proof been on the accused?

You need to go back and read the statement made by Ita Enang. " The card reader was not included in the new version of the bill sent to the President, so it could not have been the basis on which the bill was rejected." In plain English, if a clause is not included, I cannot reject the bill because of a non existent clause. Get your facts straight.

Buterflyle0:


Those who drafted it aka NASS know how they drafted it.

How can the Presidency show you what it did not draft? They can only tell you why they rejected it.

The ones who drafted it should provide proof that they included it as the originators of the draft.

If I pay you money from my account and you deny it, will the court be asking you to show proof of what you say you did not receive or would they be asking me for proof of what I sent to you?

Use your head and not your feet to think.

Your PDP as they did in 2015 are trying to truncate the use of card readers.

Fraudulent party with fraudulent followers

Please ignore these ones who like to argue from both sides of their mouth. They accused the presidency, and the Presidency defended itself. All of a sudden the burden of proof is now on the accused. What level of ignorance are we not going to see in this country...