Penguin2:


If Nigerian judiciary were anywhere close to independent, the sham organized by INEC shouldn’t stand at all.

But this is Nigeria🤦

And one more thing, according to the former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Federation, Michael Aondoakaa, the Supreme Court has ruled that INEC guidelines have constitutional flavour.

The reason is that INEC’s power to set up guidelines for elections was derived from the constitution which established it. It therefore follows that whatever they decide as guideline carries legal weight and justiciable as against some APC supporters arguing that “Results Transmission” is mere INEC guideline.

See, this case is a huge litmus test for the Nigerian Judiciary; if they still have any shame at all or they have banished all shame and become the vestige of corrupt politicians.

Fingers crossed 🤞

It is not a matter of whether or not the courts are independent. It has more the do with the facts before the court, evidence and issues for determination.

I still find it funny that people don't understand how the court works.

BluntCrazeMan:
Naptu2, garfield1, Litigator, Penguin2..

I have followed these arguments studiously and can say categorically that INEC fell foul of its own Electoral Act.

I have x-rayed Sections 60, 64 and 134 of the Electoral Act, I don't think even the APC lawyers can fault that.

However as is traditional with our Courts.... They will go straight to substantial non-compliance.

How many agents in the 176000 PUs can ascertain (or act as withesses) that these results were not transmitted? Cancellations or otherwise will commence at PUs, can this be proven?

This case reminds me of 2007.... National Elections are difficult to prosecute even for the best of lawyers. Again, this SC gives me absolutely no confidence that the case will be seen thoroughly.

No disrespect to them... If I put them side-by-side Onnoghen, Kutigi, Musdapher, Oguntade, Mukhtar... Your guess is as good as mine.

fergie001:


I have followed these arguments studiously and can say categorically that INEC fell foul of its own Electoral Act.

I have x-rayed Sections 60, 64 and 134 of the Electoral Act, I don't think even the APC lawyers can fault that.

However as is traditional with our Courts.... They will go straight to substantial non-compliance.

How many agents in the 176000 PUs can ascertain (or act as withesses) that these results were not transmitted? Cancellations or otherwise will commence at PUs, can this be proven?

This case reminds me of 2007.... National Elections are difficult to prosecute even for the best of lawyers. Again, this SC gives me absolutely no confidence that the case will be seen thoroughly.

No disrespect to them... If I put them side-by-side Onnoghen, Kutigi, Musdapher, Oguntade, Mukhtar... Your guess is as good as mine.

I agree with you.you can't prove it polling unit by unit.even on that day,a lot of results were transmitted and used for dispute resolutuon

garfield1:
I agree with you.you can't prove it polling unit by unit.even on that day,a lot of results were transmitted and used for dispute resolutuon

It is good to go to Court, but there should not be heavy optimism. With the time-frame and all that, how can you prosecute a case In a National Election like Nigeria's.

fergie001:


I have followed these arguments studiously and can say categorically that INEC fell foul of its own Electoral Act.

I have x-rayed Sections 60, 64 and 134 of the Electoral Act, I don't think even the APC lawyers can fault that.

However as is traditional with our Courts.... They will go straight to substantial non-compliance.

How many agents in the 176000 PUs can ascertain (or act as withesses) that these results were not transmitted? Cancellations or otherwise will commence at PUs, can this be proven?

This case reminds me of 2007.... National Elections are difficult to prosecute even for the best of lawyers. Again, this SC gives me absolutely no confidence that the case will be seen thoroughly.

No disrespect to them... If I put them side-by-side Onnoghen, Kutigi, Musdapher, Oguntade, Mukhtar... Your guess is as good as mine.

The Section-137 of the Electoral Act 2022 saysthat: “It shall NOT be necessary for a party who alleges non-compliance with the provisions of this Act for the conduct of elections to call oral evidence, if originals or certified true copies manifestly disclose the non-compliance alleged.”

I don't think that such a clause was there in the Electoral Act 2010 - (As Amended)..

All that is needed to ascertain the Non-compliance, would be:

1. To Get the CTCs of the back-end documents from the INEC’s CSRVS-System for the Presidential Election.. If there are none for the Presidential Election (as was hypothetically predicted), then those of the Senatorial and HOR would be obtained (in order to establish that fact that there was compliance in the Senatorial and HOR Elections which happened simultaneously on the same day).

2. To subpoena INEC Chairman for serious grilling.

fergie001:


It is good to go to Court, but there should not be heavy optimism. With the time-frame and all that, how can you prosecute a case In a National Election like Nigeria's.

What do you think of fct as part of the spread?

garfield1:


What do you think of fct as part of the spread?

I will use this simple analogy:

I want to see 17 boys and Seun in my office.

I want to see 17 boys, including Seun in my office.

BluntCrazeMan:


The Section-137 of the Electoral Act 2022 saysthat: “It shall NOT be necessary for a party who alleges non-compliance with the provisions of this Act for the conduct of elections to call oral evidence, if originals or certified true copies manifestly disclose the non-compliance alleged.”

I don't think that such a clause was there in the Electoral Act 2010 - (As Amended)..

All that is needed to ascertain the Non-compliance, would be:

1. To Get the CTCs of the back-end documents from the INEC’s CSRVS-System for the Presidential Election.. If there are none for the Presidential Election (as was hypothetically predicted), then those of the Senatorial and HOR would be obtained (in order to establish that fact that there was compliance in the Senatorial and HOR Elections which happened simultaneously on the same day).

2. To subpoena INEC Chairman.

1. The importance of oral evidence in election petition cases cannot be over-emphasised. I will tell you a story of the cases in Buhari v Yaradua in 2007.

The panel had told Mike Ahamba SAN (Buhari's Attorney) to not waste time calling witnesses and proceed with documentary evidence. The man did and the same Appeal Court upheld Yar'Adua for failure of Buhari's lawyer to call witnesses.

The Supreme Court now floored the lawyer's ego by saying Buhari had a good case but was messed up by his lawyer. Ahamba was so angry that he petitioned the NJC, using very intemperate language calling for the sanction of Justice Niki Tobi who took the lead judgement and the Appeal Court Justices who misled him.

You don't just dump papers in front of the Court without calling those who could say for sure, what happened.

In this kind of cases, you don't create a loophole, you want to seal all ends of the case, especially at the trial stage. If you don't call witnesses, the other side will and score a point with you over that.
The burden of proof is on the plaintiff who should argue on the strength of his case rather than on the weakness of the defendant(s).

When Obi won Ngige in Court, he had 500 witnesses and called 57.
In the Uzodinma-Ihedioha case, Hope called 54 witnesses.

2. The INEC Chairman was subpoenaed in 2019.


garfield1

fergie001:


1. The importance of oral evidence in election petition cases cannot be over-emphasised. I will tell you a story of the cases in Buhari v Yaradua in 2007.

The panel had told Mike Ahamba SAN (Buhari's Attorney) to not waste time calling witnesses and proceed with documentary evidence. The man did and the same Appeal Court upheld Yar'Adua for failure of Buhari's lawyer to call witnesses.

The Supreme Court now floored the lawyer's ego by saying Buhari had a good case but was messed up by his lawyer. Ahamba was so angry that he petitioned the NJC, using very intemperate language calling for the sanction of Justice Niki Tobi who took the lead judgement and the Appeal Court Justices who misled him.

You don't just dump papers in front of the Court without calling those who could say for sure, what happened.

In this kind of cases, you don't create a loophole, you want to seal all ends of the case, especially at the trial stage. If you don't call witnesses, the other side will and score a point with you over that.
The burden of proof is on the plaintiff who should argue on the strength of his case rather than on the weakness of the defendant(s).

When Obi won Ngige in Court, he had 500 witnesses and called 57.
In the Uzodinma-Ihedioha case, Hope called 54 witnesses.

2. The INEC Chairman was subpoenaed in 2019.


garfield1

In 2019 they didn't make the INEC Chairman to answer questions about the documents he tendered to the Tribunal.
He was just subpoenaed to present the documents, and after he did that, he was let off. There were no serious cross-examinations.


This time, INEC Chairman should be thoroughly grilled..
His testaments would reveal all the omissions on the side of INEC, which were never supposed to be omitted in the first place..

(Questions like these ones below are expected to be asked the INEC Chairman this time: “Were there Directly Transmitted Results From The Various Polling-Units as required by the Electoral Act for the Sole Purpose of Verification of Collated Results and Settling Disputes that may arise at the Collation Centers?? If yes, was the Direct Transmission done in all the over-176,000 polling-units?? Were each and every of all the various collated results verified with the Directly Transmitted Results From The Various Polling-Units as required by the Electoral Act??”, and so on.)

fergie001:

I will use this simple analogy:

I want to see 17 boys and Seun in my office.

I want to see 17 boys, including Seun in my office.

In both cases,, Seun must be among the boys..

In the first line,, that would be 18 boys in all.

In the second line, that would be 17 boys in all.


In the FCT argument,, they are saying that FCT is an optional factor.
(But it didn't seem optional from the way it is presented inside the constitution).

So, is there a way to put the line in such a way that there would be 17 boys,, and that Seun could be an option.

garfield1:


Were you at all the ward and lga collation points to take note that transmitted results were not used to settle disputes? I told you days ago that those disputes being talked of are at the lower collation points that is why the electoral act mentioned polling unit results.now,melaye wasn't challenging the results but was requesting inec to display unit results side by side with declared state results which is impossible.
Now,when a dispute arises at a collation point,the results that were transmitted are jot deleted from bvas.they are still there abi? So the collation officer will simply check the bvas to verify.simple

Well,, let's see what the final outcome would be like.

How many times we go talk am?
25% of ABUJA loading. . . . .

BluntCrazeMan:
In 2019 they didn't make the INEC Chairman to answer questions about the documents he tendered to the Tribunal.
He was just subpoenaed to present the documents, and he did that and was let off.

This time, INEC Chairman should be thoroughly grilled..
His testaments would reveal all the omissions on the side of INEC, which were never supposed to be omitted in the first place..

(Questions like: “Were there Directly Transmitted Results From The Various Polling-Units as required by the Electoral Act for the Sole Purpose of Verification of Collated Results and Settling Disputes that may arise at the Collation Centers?? If yes, was the Direct Transmission done in all the over-176,000 polling-units??” are expected to be asked)

Don't forget, that the lawyers on the other side will also be doing their jobs knowing that INEC is expected to be on their side in Court.

fergie001:

I will use this simple analogy:

I want to see 17 boys and Seun in my office.

I want to see 17 boys, including Seun in my office.

You are correct.you yourself said all criteria for guber and presidential are same so why was it not mandatory for governors to get same in state capitals? Why must fct be mandatory? Is it more important than other states?
Now colloquially or literally,when we talk of the component units,we usually say 36 states and fct.they could have said "and in the fct" afterall they started with in each of at least.

fergie001:

Don't forget, that the lawyers on the other side will also be doing their jobs knowing that INEC is expected to be on their side in Court.

Yes..

But questions like those ones are straight forward.
And their supposed answers are also supposed to be straight forward too.

BluntCrazeMan:
In 2019 they didn't make the INEC Chairman to answer questions about the documents he tendered to the Tribunal.
He was just subpoenaed to present the documents, and after he did that, he was let off. There were no serious cross-examinations.


This time, INEC Chairman should be thoroughly grilled..
His testaments would reveal all the omissions on the side of INEC, which were never supposed to be omitted in the first place..

(Questions like these ones below are expected to be asked the INEC Chairman this time: “Were there Directly Transmitted Results From The Various Polling-Units as required by the Electoral Act for the Sole Purpose of Verification of Collated Results and Settling Disputes that may arise at the Collation Centers?? If yes, was the Direct Transmission done in all the over-176,000 polling-units?? Were each and every of all the various collated results verified with the Directly Transmitted Results From The Various Polling-Units as required by the Electoral Act??”, and so on.)

What is your problem? You see how obi will fail.why should he answer such questions? Is he an it staff? Was he at the various polling units? You dont have what to say

BluntCrazeMan:
Well,, let's see what the final outcome would be like.

If so,drop this matter

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 [b] "transmission of results electronically" [/b]literally stated or factually imprinted in the electoral act.?

Yes.

garfield1:


You are correct.you yourself said all criteria for guber and presidential are same so why was it not mandatory for governors to get same in state capitals? Why must fct be mandatory? Is it more important than other states?
Now colloquially or literally,when we talk of the component units,we usually say 36 states and fct.they could have said "and in the fct" afterall they started with in each of at least.

For the Governorship Elections,, the 2/3 of the LGAs were clearly stated. No mention of the State Capitals.

For the Presidential Election, based on the grammar alone, it sounded more like “the FCT must be added to the 24-or-more states”. Thus, it means that 23+FCT is still not enough..
And then, 28-without-FCT still doesn't meet the criteria.

Nevertheless, there had never been any prior cause that warranted the need to seek for the proper interpretation of that particular condition.
I guess that now is the best time.

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.

Okay, for the sake of Knowledge how is electronic transmission of result supposed to be done when upload to the IREV portal is taken out of the equation sir?

garfield1:


If so,drop this matter

Heheheheheeeeheheheheehheheeehee..

I seek knowledge here.
So, the more I learn, the better for me.

BluntCrazeMan:
Heheheheheeeeheheheheehheheeehee..

I seek knowledge here.
So, the more I learn, the better for me.

Doesnt seem like it.you seem like you have an opinion and you want to force it on others.

garfield1:


Is he an it staff?

Was he at the various polling units?

If you're the principal of a secondary school, and students of your school won a national competition in Abuja,, who should appear in the television for interviews on how THE SCHOOL prepared and attended and won the National Competition??



You (the Principal)??

Or the Students.??

BluntCrazeMan:


For the Governorship Elections,, the 2/3 of the LGAs were clearly stated. No mention of the State Capitals.

For the Presidential Election, based on the grammar alone, it sounded more like “the FCT must be added to the 24-or-more states”. Thus, it means that 23+FCT is still not enough..
And then, 28-without-FCT still doesn't meet the criteria.

Nevertheless, there had never been any prior cause that warranted the need to seek for the proper interpretation of that particular condition.
I guess that now is the best time.

They were supposed to do that in 1979 but tactically dodged it.

garfield1:


They were supposed to do that in 1979 but tactically dodged it.

Now, let's see how it goes again.

garfield1:


Doesnt seem like it.you seem like you have an opinion and you want to force it on others.

Far from it.


If your argument is superior to mine, I back down.



In this particular issue here which we are discussing,, I have not seen any point that is stronger than the ones I am bringing up.


And that is why you think that I am forcing my opinions on others.

BluntCrazeMan:
If you're the principal of a secondary school, and students of your school won a national competition in Abuja,, who should appear in the television for interviews on how THE SCHOOL prepared and attended and won the National Competition??



You (the Principal)??

Or the Students.??

This analogy is misplaced.the supreme court have stated severally that evidences of elections must be from polling units and witnesses must be from there.calling inec chairman won't help obi.obi must call thousands of presiding officers

garfield1:


This analogy is misplaced.the supreme court have stated severally that evidences of elections must be from polling units and witnesses must be from there.calling inec chairman won't help obi.obi must call thousands of presiding officers

Technology is involved here this time around.
(as opposed to all those yesteryears).

Back-end is also involved this time too..
(Remember Osun State)

BluntCrazeMan:
Technology is involved here.

Back-end is also involved.

(Remember Osun State)

The process of judgment are manual and delivery is manual.the backend won't help you.you must call those who were to transmit results to testify.why are you dodging the polling unit evidences? Osun own is different,apc were claiming victory based on 700 cancelled units.obi is not claiming victory

BluntCrazeMan:
Far from it.


If your argument is superior to mine, I back down.



In this particular issue here which we are discussing,, I have not seen any point that is stronger than the ones I am bringing up.


And that is why you think that I am forcing my opinions on others.

That guy fergie summed up everything.it is impossible to prove substantial noncompliance

yemex04:








Okay, for the sake of Knowledge how is electronic transmission of result supposed to be done when upload to the IREV portal is taken out of the equation sir?

Thanks for this question..

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.

garfield1:


The process of judgment are manual and delivery is manual.the backend won't help you.you must call those who were to transmit results to testify.why are you dodging the polling unit evidences? Osun own is different,apc were claiming victory based on 700 cancelled units.obi is not claiming victory

Ok naa..

At least,, I got your drift..
And I can assure you,, I have taken good note of that too.