tempest01:
So the travesty by the court was even done on the basis of incomplete bvas data first issued by inec and retracted as incomplete.

These people will cause anarchy soon.

The result from the initial BVAS report was used in pronouncing the winner. so how is it incomplete when it was used in declaring a winner?

SmartPolician:
B.A Ogbuli has a good point, but it doesn't matter because he's just one man. However, the question is: Why did INEC issue the first comprehensive BVAS report immediately the election ended?

Since INEC commissioner knew that there was another report underway, they should have delayed the report for a while so they can tender the final report in court. Imagine having two different BVAS reports, making themselves look amateurish, or even dubious.

Also, according to the Section 51 of the 2022 Electoral Law, the judges who had the majority decision (the two others) should have called for a rerun after the cancellation of the results of the BVAS reports being contested. Did they enact their own law yesterday? 🥱

My conclusion is, all these boys who plan to rig election for politicians should learn from this. Technology promotes transparency and you cannot change that. Don't try to alter anything because the law made it clear: over-voting leads to outright cancellation with a rerun conducted. This is what they should have done in this case.

Go and read that section 51 you did not read it at all

dustmalik:

The result from the initial BVAS report was used in pronouncing the winner. so how is it incomplete when it was used in declaring a winner?

It seems INEC first issued the correct one on the 17th, which was used to declare the winner. Then issued a CTC later which was incomplete.

So they are using that incomplete one as basis of overvoting. From my own interpretation.

pavoda:
Justice P. Ogbuli disagreed with the majority judgment, saying that there are two BVAS reports and since there are inconsistencies in the two reports presented by both petitioners and respondents, the majority judgment should have considered the results of physical extraction from BVAs because it is the primary source of data of which the petitioners did not oppose.

Ogbuli therefore dismissed Oyetola’s petition and upheld the victory of Adeleke.

This position is not backed by law. The first BVAS report was issued by INEC and not APC. APC filed its case based on the CTC of the BVAS report issued by INEC. After filing its case and serving all the respondents including INEC, PDP and Adeleke, INEC now issued another BVAS report a month later in response to the case filed by APC. In law, that is very wrong and unacceptable. Evidence cannot be manufactured during the pendency of a case.

So you see, there was really no inconsistency as the second BVAS report is not acceptable as far as the evidence act is concerned. INEC goofed big time and that’s why they quickly said yesterday that they won’t bother to appeal the judgement.

INEC's decision not to appeal the case doesn't imply acceptance of the judgment's validity. The PDP has promptly filed an appeal, and it's likely they will prevail at the appellate court. There seems to be a mix-up in the sequence of the case, and it's essential for you to delve deeper into the ruling.

The Tribunal Chairman based his judgment on the BVAS report, which is a form of secondary evidence rather than the primary evidence—the machine itself, which accredits votes and generates reports without an internet connection, leading to potential delays and transmission issues.

In the worst-case scenario, applying the statutes outlined in the current electoral act, the most the APC can expect is a rerun in areas where votes were voided due to over-voting.

seunmsg:


This position is not backed by law. The first BVAS report was issued by INEC and not APC. APC filed its case based on the CTC of the BVAS report issued by INEC. After filing its case and serving all the respondents including INEC, PDP and Adeleke, INEC now issued another BVAS report a month later in response to the case filed by APC. In law, that is very wrong and unacceptable. Evidence cannot be manufactured during the pendency of a case.

So you see, there was really no inconsistency as the second BVAS report is not acceptable as far as the evidence act is concerned. INEC goofed big time and that’s why they quickly said yesterday that they won’t bother to appeal the judgement.

dustmalik:

The result from the initial BVAS report was used in pronouncing the winner. so how is it incomplete when it was used in declaring a winner?

The initial Bvas report that was not synchronized?

Even if there are conflicting reports, the BVAS itself used in the elections are still available with the data, why not turn to that as the source of truth?

tempest01:


The initial Bvas report that was not synchronized?

Even if there are conflicting reports, the BVAS itself used in the elections are still available with the data, why not turn to that as the source of truth?

WHAT BALDADASH ARE YOU INSINUATING?

The tribunal summoned and commanded all the machines and records of it, even when INEC foot dragged over it. They got it and examined everything before arriving at conclusion for Oyetola against the infirm dancer certificate forger.

GO READ THE REPORT OF THE RULING OF THE TRIBUNAL BEFORE MAKING UNINFORMED COMMENTS.

Synchronize my foot. You people are full of sentiments and ignorance.

Mickykarim:


WHAT BALDADASH ARE YOU INSINUATING?

The tribunal summoned and commanded all the machines and records of it, even when INEC foot dragged over it. They got it and examined everything before arriving at conclusion for Oyetola against the infirm dancer certificate forger.

GO READ THE REPORT OF THE RULING OF THE TRIBUNAL BEFORE MAKING UNINFORMED COMMENTS.

Synchronize my foot. You people are full of sentiments and ignorance.

You are either a slowpoke or you like twisting facts. Go and read the minority ruling and you will see that the unsynchronized report which INEC has disclaimed repeatedly was used to make the calculations.

tempest01:


You are either a slowpoke or you like twisting facts. Go and read the minority ruling and you will see that the unsynchronized report which INEC has disclaimed repeatedly was used to make the calculations.

UNFORTUNATELY, THE MINORITY REPORT IS NO LONGER CONSEQUENTIAL IN THE SCHEME OF THINGS. IRRELEVANT AND USELESS IN THE LIGHT OF THE MAJORITY REPORT.

The horrible ignoramus you are, would rather dwell on and continue to beat a dead horse.

IF MINORITY REPORT MAKES ANY SENSE, THE CERTIFICATE FORGER WOULD AHEV BEEN CONFIRMED WINNER OF THE ELECTION.

Now let me ask, which school did you attend?

AND DID I JUST PROVE WHO THE MORONIC DUMB ACTUALLY IS!

Mickykarim:


UNFORTUNATELY, THE MINORITY REPORT IS NO LONGER CONSEQUENTIAL IN THE SCHEME OF THINGS. IRRELEVANT AND USELESS IN THE LIGHT OF THE MAJORITY REPORT.

The horrible ignoramus you are, would rather dwell on and continue to beat a dead horse.

IF MINORITY REPORT MAKES ANY SENSE, THE CERTIFICATE FORGER WOULD AHEV BEEN CONFIRMED WINNER OF THE ELECTION.

Now let me ask, which school did you attend?

AND DID I JUST PROVE WHO THE MORONIC DUMB ACTUALLY IS!

You are a dumb idiot and unworthy to be engaged.

Why are you moving in circles?

Minority report does not now make sense.

On appeal, all reports will be considered.