ACCORDING TO THE ELECTORAL ACT 2022; THE “QUICK TRANSMISSION” OF RESULTS “DIRECTLY FROM THE POLLING-UNITS” IS ACTUALLY MANDATORY, AND NOT OPTIONAL.

Section-64:
Sub-Section-(4) A collation officer or returning officer at an election SHALL collate and announce the result of an election, subject to his or her verification and confirmation that the—

(a) number of accredited voters stated on the collated result are correct and CONSISTENT with the number of accredited voters recorded and transmitted directly from polling units under section 47(2) of this Act; and

(b) the votes stated on the collated result are correct and CONSISTENT with the “votes or results” recorded and transmitted directly from polling units under section 60(4) of this Act.

Sub-Section-(5) Subject to subsection (1), a collation officer or returning officer shall use the number of accredited voters recorded and transmitted directly from polling units under section 47(2) of this Act and the votes or results recorded and transmitted directly from polling units under section 60(4) of this Act to collate and announce the result of an election if a collated result at his or a lower level of collation is not correct.

Sub-Section-(6) Where during collation of results, there is a dispute regarding a collated result or the result of an election from any polling unit, the collation officer or returning officer shall use the following to determine the correctness of the disputed result—

(a) the original of the disputed collated result for each polling unit where the election is disputed;

(b) the smart card reader or other technology device used for accreditation of voters in each polling unit where the election is disputed for the purpose of obtaining accreditation data directly from the smart card reader or technology device;

(c) data of accreditation recorded and transmitted directly from each polling unit where the election is disputed, as prescribed under section 47(2) of this Act; and

(d) the votes and result of the election recorded and transmitted directly from each polling unit where the election is disputed, as prescribed under section 60(4) of this Act.

Sub-Section-(7) If the disputed result under sub-section-(6) were otherwise found not to be correct, the collation officer or returning officer shall re-collate and announce a new result using the information in sub-section-(6) (a)-(d).

Sub-Section-(8.) Where the dispute under sub-section-(6) arose at the level of collation and the returning officer has satisfied the provision of sub-section-(6) (a)-(d), the returning officer shall accordingly declare the winner of the election.

Sub-Section-(9) A returning officer or collation officer, as the case may be, commits an offence if he or she intentionally collates or announces A FALSE RESULT and is liable on conviction to a fine of N5,000,000 or imprisonment for a term of at least three years or both.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN “ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION” AND THE IREV-PORTAL..

The “Current” System for the INEC’s Electronic Transmission is called the “Collation Support and Results Verification System -- (CSRVS)”..

It is the INEC’s Online Transmission and Online Collation System for the moment. It is the system to which all the results are supposed to be directly transmitted to.
The collated results are then used by the Collation Officers to verify the results..

This particular system is not meant for the PUBLIC VIEW.. And it is protected with a very strong and tight cyber-security system.
The results that are uploaded into this CSRVS System are NOT in pictures format.
They are most-probably keyed-in by the Presiding Officers.

In the future, the INEC might develop another better system for the purpose of Direct Transmission and Collation of Results from the Polling-Units., but for the moment, the CSRVS is the current Electronic Transmission System.

On the other hand, the IREV-Portal is a portal where the members of the Public Can log in to see the uploaded photos of the Polling-Unit Result-sheets. These uploaded photos on the IREV-Portal are just there for the viewing.
The only function of the IREV-Portal is just for the viewership-sake of the members of the public.
The protection security of the IREV-Portal is not as strong and as tight as that of the CSRVS System.

BluntCrazeMan:
Garfield1..



You can argue more on this here on this new thread.

But please, make out time to read the main original post first before arguing.

Thanks Bro.

BluntCrazeMan:
Racoon.I know say you go like to read this one too.

garfield1:
I already told you earlier some few hours ago that assuming that electronic transmission is mandatory,results were actually transmitted directly by presiding officers after the elections.Again,the penalty for not transmitting directly is never nullification of elections

Racoon:
Which school of thought do you belong too? The world have long left the analogue system of electioneering and embraced digital technology.

Massiveglory:
INEC carried out a fraud. But note, not all INEC officials are involved in the fraud.
The fraud will be discovered.
Tinubu will not be sworn in.
PODATTI will be found clearly to be the winner of the election and will be sworn in at a later date.

garfield1:


What will stop tinubu from being sworn in when tribunal will finish sittings September

Massiveglory:

Just de watch the movie. Tinubu will not be sworn in.

garfield1:


Who will stop it boy

Racoon:
Which school of thought do you belong too? The world have long left the analogue system of electioneering and embraced digital technology.

Massiveglory:
..

garfield1:


I already told you earlier some few hours ago that assuming that electronic transmission is mandatory, results were actually transmitted directly by presiding officers after the elections.

Again,the penalty for not transmitting directly is never nullification of elections

garfield1:


Unfortunately son,nigeria haven't left that school totally

Jokay07:
bluntcrazeman
This is the first time I will be reading this article of yours and I am really impressed. But if my memory serves me right, this would be the second topic as regards to the issue of "electronic transmission of results".

You should understand the fact that the interpretation of laws and constitutions are very elastic; with respect to individul's understanding and view.

Firstly, if your argument is factually based on "transmission of results electronically" in the electoral act, then you will need to withdraw and rest your case.

So I ask, is "transmission of results electronically" literally stated or factually imprinted in the electoral act.?

BluntCrazeMan:


From the previous thread, (What Exactly Did The Electoral-Act-2022 Say About The Election Results.??),, a lot of people argued about a lot of things.

Some people said that the “Transmission” as mentioned inside the Electoral Act could means “Manual” transmission, and not Electronic Transmission, since the word “Electronic Transmission” was not specifically mentioned.

Others argued that: even though the Electronic Transmission method was implied or intended in the Electoral Act, that the Electoral Act DIDN'T make it MANDATORY, unlike the way it made “Electronic Accreditation” Mandatory.


These are very good arguments indeed.

I am going to throw more lights on these two strong arguments with references from the Electoral Act Alone.

**(I will NOT bring in quotes from the INEC’s “Guidelines And Procedures”.)

I can agree that the Two Words “Electronic Transmission” were not phrased together anywhere inside the Electoral Act.
But then, it was definitely implied.
And if it was implied, then it means that: it was the intention of the Act that the Transmission mode should be Electronic Transmission, and not Manual.

And again, if the Electoral Act specified the “Uses” of the directly transmitted results, and even gave a penalty (to all the would-be collation officers and the returning officers) for not making proper “Use” of the directly transmitted results, then it means that it was also the intention of the Act for the “use” of the directly transmitted results to be Mandatory.


Let us take another look at the Section-64 of the Electoral Act,, starting from Sub-Section-(4)



Note the word SHALL..
The word SHALL is never used whenever something is supposed to be OPTIONAL..
And again,, this particular Sub-Section-(4) made it mandatory (that is, with the word SHALL) that a collation officer or a returning officer must “VERIFY” his own collated results and make that they are CONSISTENT with the directly transmitted results.

This means that, it is MANDATORY for there to be an already transmitted and collated result, which every Collation Officer and/or every returning officer MUST use to verify his own collations at every collation level..

In layman’s language, this Sub-Section-(4) is mandating INEC to transmit results directly from the various polling-units -- (without passing through the various collation officers, and in a very quick manner) -- to a separate aggregation and collation centre; and from where these separately collated results MUST be made QUICKLY AVAILABLE to the various collation officers for them to be used for verification purposes at all the collation levels.

That means, INEC is free to do the “direct transmission” in any way it so desires, as far as the requirements for “Verification” as described in the Electoral Act is properly met.
IT ALSO MEANS THAT THIS VERY PROCEDURE MUST NOT BE DISCARDED.

Thus, if the INEC employed the use of manual transmission for the procedure described by the Electoral Act, it cannot achieve this desired fastness (or quickness).





This Sub-Section-(5) is summarily saying that a returning officer (or a higher collation officer) can overrule the results of lower-level collation officers based on those directly transmitted results.



This Sub-Section-(6) made it very clear that apart from the MANDATORY VERIFICATION Purposes, the directly transmitted results are also supposed to be used in settling disputes that may arise at collation centers.







This Sub-Section-(9) made it an offence for any collation officer or returning officer to collate and announce a “FALSE RESULT”.

And What Is the “False Result” here supposed to mean.??

a.) Any collated result that was not compulsorily verified as mandated in sub-section-(4) is regarded as a False Result.

b.) For any disputed collated-result which was not settled according to the procedures outlined in Sub-Sections (6, 7, & 8.), then, if the collation officer or returning officer went ahead and announce such a result, it is regarded as a False Result.


AS ALWAYS,, WE WILL STILL WAIT FOR THE JUDGEMENT OF THE SUPREME-COURT JUDGES..

THEY ARE STILL THE FINAL BUS-STOP TO ALL THESE ARGUMENTS..

gawu1:

Pitobi badly needs your service now.

BluntCrazeMan:


Now bro, I can categorically tell you right now that “Directly Transmitted Results” were NOT used to verify any of the collated results or to settle disputes in the Just-recently-concluded Presidential Election.
(You can go and verify this)

As for the IREV-PORTAL,, (because I can very well guess that you're referring to the IREV-Portal when you said “Electronic Transmission”),, the IREV-Portal is not in the Electoral Act - Although it is very well described inside the INEC GUIDELINES.
But I can tell you pro-bono that IREV-Portal is not Electronic Transmission..

As at this very election-cycle, according to the INEC, the approved Electronic Transmission System is the CSRVS Platform..

Electronic Transmission is in the Electoral Act, but the IREV-Portal is not.
(You can also go and verify this too)


Again,, the penalty for non-usage of Directly Transmitted Results is not “Nullification of the Election”.
But the Penalty for “Corruption” is.

Therefore, if it can be established that due to the lack of “Verification”, that the original results were badly tampered with, then it is a case of Corruption, and it is good GROUND for Nullification of the Election.

BluntCrazeMan:
To the final question you asked,, the answer is No.

Like I earlier said, it was NOT written in black-and-white inside the Electoral Act..
But whatever the Electoral Act implied as “Directly Transmitted From The Polling-Units” is definitely not “Manual Transmission”.

That is the premises for my argument.

Jokay07:


First of all, it's a good thing that you and I have reached a conclusion that Electronic transmission of results is not Factually stated in the act and this is a first win for Inec and Apc.

Secondly,
Emotions aside, your argument is totally flawed sir and you are arguing from a very disadvantage position. No serious court would entertain such blantant misinterpretation of electoral act.

You see, in law, any argument that cannnot be established with fact can also be dismissed without fact.
Let me see your response on this before I move on to the interpretation of "Direct/Directly" in the electoral act sir.

BluntCrazeMan:
Fergie001, Naptu2, Litigator, Penguin2..

BIZNess123:
The obedients claim their master won yet cannot give any proof.. other spreading fake news up and down...


Someone that couldn't even get 25 percent in 24 States...such a shame..