garfield1:


And it must be so overwhelming that it can change the final outcome or course of the election.it must affect the margin bw tinubu and atiku at least

Genius100:


Lol. They attempted to transmit but it didn't work. This argument is really going nowhere..

garfield1:


Apart from that,there are two mode of transmission,online and offline.if they couldn't transmit it due to network,they will transmit it on offline mode thereby satisfying the requirement of transmission. it would show sent or pending which takes it out of their hands

0monnak0da:

16th wonder because there are potentially 2 appeals and the best I see them getting is a cancellation and ordering a rerun . Who will be in charge of that rerun and what is to stop the same thing happening again?

We need to look at the system so that elections are concluded earlier and no one is sworn in until cases resolved.

BluntCrazeMan:
Now we are talking..


The Electoral Act didn't give room for unforseen circumstances..

It's either the provisions of the Act are abided by., Or else there are penalties.

Genius100:


Who is supposed to enter the results into the CSRVS system from the polling unit? As far as I know, the polling unit workers are only supposed to take a picture of the result sheet, and the image (not numbers) gets uploaded into iREV. So how does the result get inputted into CSRVS system?

Genius100:


Lol.. so how do you punish technology? I believe someone has already told you about the term “substantial noncompliance”.

Besides that, let’s assume you are right. If the presidential election is deemed not to have followed the electoral act, then so will the house and senate elections. In what universe do you see the Judges cancelling all elections because of something that can’t be deemed to be “substantial noncompliance”.

BluntCrazeMan:
In trying to establish a case of “Electoral Fraud” and “Electoral Malpractice”, must my evidence also be “Overwhelming”??

(Fergie001, Litigator.. Please and help out here abbegg)

BluntCrazeMan:
In order to satisfy the requirements, no collation officer can announce anything until he had “verified” that what he collated is consistent with what was “transmitted”...

So, that they “sent” it, but it didn't “transmit”, then they have not satisfied the requirements yet.

The collation officers must wait for the “Directly Transmitted Results” to be ready-for-use, so that they can verify their collations, and thus, satisfying the requirements.

BluntCrazeMan:


For the purpose of the “Electronic Transmission” to the Collation System, The Presiding Officers -- while still at the venue of the election -- are supposed to key-in the figures scored by the parties into the Electronic Transmission App, and then send.

Then they should also upload the photos of the result-sheets o their polling-units to the IREV..
(This was actually supposed to be another weakness to the whole Electronic Transmission System, since human beings are involved again in inputting the data -- but the fact remains that, this procedure was totally avoided in the first place).

garfield1:


You still dont get it Mr.you have never obviously never been in an election or collation centre. the collation officers do not check results on the inec back end as you are thinking or log into any inec server. they simply compare manually prepared results and results captured on the bvas afterall what was transmitted is still in the bvas.they dont mechanically follow it as you think.it is not black and white but done flexibly.it is only the ratech and in some cases the spos that make sure results have actually been sent not the collation officers Mr.collatuin officers only take records of what you have on ec8a and your bvas and see check for discrepancies.

BluntCrazeMan:



I guess you are aware of what you just confirmed.??

garfield1:


You said ekwo doesnt have age on his side.he is too controversial and radical to be in the apex.

If fct will be a state only in the aforementioned areas,then it becomes less of a state which means it cannot take part in the two third calculus talkless of being mandatory.

BluntCrazeMan:
In trying to establish a case of “Electoral Fraud” and “Electoral Malpractice”, must my evidence also be “Overwhelming”??

(Litigator.. Please and help out here abbegg)

garfield1:


That is why you need to be in collation centres

BluntCrazeMan:



Ok.
That they ALL did it that way, it didn't mean that they did the right thing though..

fergie001:
Ekwo doesn't have age.... I always mix up Ekwo & Okoro .... Maybe the Inyangs in their names.

It can't be, because like you said earlier, it is neither inferior nor more powerful than the States.

fergie001:

If there is anything like over-overwhelming the better.

The SC lead judgement in Atiku Abubakar v Yaradua:

The lead judgement by Niki Tobi JSC (of Blessed memory)

Petitioner who contests the legality or lawfulness of votes cast in an election and subsequent result must tender in evidence all the necessary documents by way of forms and other documents used at the election. He should not stop there. He must call witnesses to testify that the illegality or unlawfulness substantially affected the result of the election. The documents are among those in which the results of the votes are recorded. The witnesses are those who saw it all on the day of election not those who picked the evidence from eye-witness. No. They must be eye witness too. Both forms and witnesses are vital for contesting the legality or lawfulness of votes and the subsequent result of the election. One cannot be substitute for the other. It is not enough for the Petitioner to tender only the documents. It is incumbent on him to lead evidence in respect of the wrong doings or irregularities both in the conduct of the election and recording of the votes; wrong doings and irregularities, which affected substantially the result of the election.”

garfield1:


Unfortunately, you can't prove anything

0monnak0da:

16th wonder because there are potentially 2 appeals and the best I see them getting is a cancellation and ordering a rerun . Who will be in charge of that rerun and what is to stop the same thing happening again?

We need to look at the system so that elections are concluded earlier and no one is sworn in until cases resolved.

BluntCrazeMan:


Ok naa.
You still cannot say what comes out of this case.

garfield1:


I like how inec has started clamping down on errant RECs like that of sokoto.I hope they spare Sylvia agu,na my sweet mama

BluntCrazeMan:



Thanks so much for this..

fergie001:

Hahaha.... You only liked it because it's Sokoto

garfield1:
Rtd JSC abdu aboki from kano so it can't he zonally

fergie001:
... ...
The SC might sit in seven because of the FCT Constitutional issue.

It is a settled principle of interpretation that a provision of the Constitution or a statute should not be interpreted in isolation but rather in the context

SECTION 299:
The provisions of this Constitution shall apply to the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja as if it were one of the States of the Federation; and accordingly -

(a) all the legislative powers, the executive powers and the judicial powers vested in the House of Assembly, the Governor of a State and in the courts of a State shall, respectively, vest in the National Assembly, the President of the Federation and in the courts which by virtue of the foregoing provisions are courts established for the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja;

(b) all the powers referred to in paragraph (a) of this section shall be exercised in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution; and

(c) the provisions of this Constitution pertaining to the matters aforesaid shall be read with such modifications and adaptations as may be reasonably necessary to bring them into conformity with the provisions of this section.

What this means is that, the Constitution specifies CLEARLY where the FCT should enjoy its STATE status and no more.

semmyk:

An interesting article on interpretation and two-thirds (pretty long)
https://www./quarter-two-thirds-nigeria-winning-formula-a-kayode-adesemowo

A quarter of a two-thirds: Nigeria winning formula
"The word “and”, being a conjunction, performing the function of joining two expressions or sentences which could be inseparable, integrated, joint or matched." - Justice Niki Tobi in Buhari v INEC, 2008
The #Nigeriadecides2023 comes in many dimensions. I shall refrain from the politics! However, there is one dimension that resonates with the other side of me. Yep, apart from cybersecurity and multimedia, and 'pythoning', I have a postgraduate in Law, albeit labour law.

I heard analysts are analysing, vehemently so, the interpretation of the "25%" requirements across two-thirds of states (in Nigeria).
Lemme put off my many caps and, for the next few minutes, put on my 'legal' cap.

[SUMMARY} How do we interpret the conjunctive 'and' between two conditioning sentences and the conjunctive 'and' within a conditioning sentence? This is the situation of the two-third impasse of (Constituion) s134(2) arising from #Nigeriadecides2023.

An interesting aspect of law is #interpretation. Most constitutions have a provision for interpretation. In South Africa, s39(2) of the Constitution (1996 as amended) is authoritative in dictating how provisions of law are interpreted. Nigeria relies on the common law principles, called Canons of Interpretation.

Why interpretation:
Courts interpretive directive arises when there is an allegation of ambiguity in the understanding of the provision of law. This happens often in contracts. Interpretations are also sought in applying Acts and, often, the Constitution. Ironically, constitutions ought to be written in definitive plain language. Alas, contentions rage high.

Interpreting:
Interpretation must promote 'the spirit, purport and objects' of the provisions of law (constitution, acts). The courts must give credence to the construction of the provision of law (or the contract) in question. The construction is based on
- the totality of the provision of law (or Act or contract) in question
- the context of the provision of law (or Act or contract) in question
- the language of the construction (plain, nominal, functional)

Therefore the interpretive approach must not be isolating. Simply put, the wording must not be taken in isolation and/or out of context and/or out of the intent/purpose.

The approach, then is to consider:
- Textualism (plain meaning),
- Original Meaning (founding understanding),
- Structuralism (design of the Constitution),
- Historical Practices (long-established),
- Judicial Precedent (principles, rules, standards)

In K&S v Gordon, 1985 ... the dictum stood against reading section in isolation from the enactment of which it forms a part. Doing so will offend against the cardinal rule of statutory interpretation that requires the words of a statute to be read in their context. This carries through to Natal v Endumeni, 2012 where it affirms interpreting ordinary meaning in the context of the Regulations as a whole. Natal 2012 took judicial note of the principle of purpose, totality and context already formulated in Bato, 2004. The Supreme Court of Nigeria, in dismissing the appeal in Kassim v Adesemowo 2021, affirmed that "where the words used in a statute are clear and unambiguous, the Courts are enjoined to interpret the words in their ordinary and natural meanings." The SC further stated that Courts "should give a holistic interpretation to a statute." However, where there is a lack of clarity, real or perceived, interpretation kicks in. It then follows that the provisions (and principles) of extant rulings comes into play.

Two-third debacle:
A rare opportunity arises for Nigeria to revisit the interpretation of two-third yet again after the 'controversial' saga of 1979, albeit in a different context.

The two-third predecessor:
In Awolowo v Shagari, 1979, the Supreme Court was called upon to solve the mathematical puzzle of the new democratic dispensation, inter-alia the two-third of nineteen, where 19 is the number of States in Nigeria as at then! Is two-third 12 or 12 and 2/3 or 13 States. Solving this arises from the ingenuity of lawyers advising rival candidates and imposing their submissions on the Federal Electoral Commission (FEDECO), the Election Tribunal and the Supreme Court. Indeed!!, the 1979 Constitution (the 50-wise men Welfarist Constitution) was duly put to test.

What was in dispute:
Section 34 A (1)(c)(i) and (ii) of the Electoral Decree 1977 (No. 73 as amended) provides:
a Presidential candidate will be deemed to have been duly elected to such office where he has the highest votes cast at the election; and
he has not less than one quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of, at least, two-thirds of all the States in the Federation.

What was held:
The justices (concurring and dissenting), although not ad idem, are clear about the principles of interpretation. Although they took different view and route, they took cognisance of salient circumstances:

- realisation that they were interpreting a particular statute passed under special circumstances - the electoral law enacted through Decree
- determination of what is two-thirds of 19 States.

Essentially, they were dealing with a matter of law dealing with the interpretation of the provisions of Section 34A(1)(c)(ii) of the Decree.
- They followed an interpretive approach
- They defer to logical reasoning that States cannot be fractionalised for the purposes of elections
- They interrogate the original (founding) meaning of the drafter of the Decree
- They consider the practical and ordinal interpretation.

The 2023 two-third debacle:
In 2023, the declared President-elect has a quarter (25%) of votes in more than two-thirds of States in the Federation (Nigeria). The candidate has 19.76% of votes in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). The second and third candidates, particularly the third candidate, contend that the INEC Chairman erred in declaring the first candidate the winner.

The 2023 dispute:
The contention is that the INEC chairman erred with the declaration ...
... “I certify that I am the returning officer for the 2023 presidential election held on the 25th of February 2003.” “That Tinubu Bola Ahmed of the APC, having satisfied the requirements of the law is hereby declared the winner and returned elected. The Certificate of Return to the president elect and Vice president elect will take place here at 3pm today (01 March 2023).” - {insertion mine}

The 2023 two-third provision:
Unlike the 1979 debacle fixated on 'mathematics', the 2023 'ambiguity' hinges on inclusion or exclusivity, (in tandem with 'representativeness' of the FCT) and the conjunction 'and'.


Here is the provision of the Constitution. (NB: I consider s134 more appropriate to s133 in the situation instant)

Nigeria Constitution (1999) section 134.
... ...
(2) A candidate for an election to the office of President shall be deemed to have been duly elected where, there being more than two candidates for the election-
(a) he has the highest number of votes cast at the election;
and
(b) he has no less than one-quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the States in the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja


Toward an interpretation of the two-third provision:
In the applicable section of the Constitution, there are two conjunctive "and'. The first separate sub-sections 2(a) and 2(b). The second linked FCT to States.

NB: I take notice that 'and' as conjunctive is 'resolved' in Nigeria's jurisprudence.

[Inter conditioning sentence}
At the end of s134(2)(a) is a semi-colon ";" followed by a "and". Being at the end of a sentence and in between the start of the second, the first "and" connotes a distinctness of two sentences, yet peremptorily demands the second to be 'tightly coupled' with the first. In other words, the two 'distinct' sentences must be read together and satisfied independently and jointly.

{Intra conditioning sentence} In s134(2)(b), the "and" combines two phrases: States and FCT.
- Is FCT a type of State?
- Is FCT another State?
- Is FCT a special State?
If FCT is a type of State or another State, does the "and" indicates two-thirds of 37 (36 States and #1 FCT). If so, this brings us back to 1979 (the Awolowo v Shagari saga. Two-thirds of 37 gives us 24.67, which from the authority of Awolowo v Shagari 1979 will make us consider 25 States of the '37' States.
If FCT is a special State, would the interpretation be 2/3 of 36 States and 2/3 of FCT being a representative special State? If so, would the Justices of the SC in 2023 defer to the dicta of the Justices in 1979 ... if two-thirds of FCT had been intended, would the 'legislature' have not said so in clear terms!
Is this what it is or there is or there are other intents of the legislature? We shall see in the coming weeks/months as the Supreme Court Justices are called to interpret.

{intra and inter conditioning sentence}
Bringing the intra 'and' within s134(2)(b), and the inter 'and' between s134(2)(a) and (b), we would have to look at the ratio or the reasoning of the majority in Buhari v INEC 2008. Thus, it is safe to say:
for the inter, there are two distinct conditions in 2(a) and 2(b) that must be satisfied independently and jointly;
for the intra, there are two phrases. One is a condition, and the other is a non-conditioning expression.
--- (b) he has not less than one-quarter of the votes cast at the election each of at least two-thirds of ... ... all the States in the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.
for the intra, we alternatively break down into two part with each having a conditioning part as
--- (b) he has not less than one-quarter of the votes cast at the election each of at least two-thirds of all the States in the Federation and (he has not less than one-quarter of the votes cast at) the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. {insertion mine}
PS: The writer notes the writing of s146 of the Electoral Act 2006 (which Buhari v INEC is based on) carries through to s135 of the Electoral Act 2022.

Consideration of FCT as a State or special State
Throwing into the mix is an existing judgement (pending implementation!!). The Appeal Court judgement, extensively interrogated s299 of the Constitution vis-a-vis the promulgation of the FCT (Decree 6 of 1976; Cap 503 LFN, 2004). [I note there purports to be a Senate resolution. The writer, (mindful of misinformation), cannot locate a/the Senate Votes and Proceeding for 31 Jan 2019).

The Baba-Panya v President 2018 Appeal Court judgement places FCT as one of the States of the Federation pursuant to ... as if ... in s299 of the Constitution.

I leave it for the Courts to make a determination of the construction of s134(2) of the constitution as read with s299 and s3 of the Constitution.

Conclusion:
Inevitably, precedent shall come to play. It will be foolhardy not to consider Awolowo v Shagari, 1979 as applicable or irrelevant. On the premise that it would be and should be

the 1999 Constitution would be interpreted according to the 'Canon of Interpretation'.
- The 'intent' of the legislature (in framing) would be interrogated
- There was no FCT in 1979
- There was litigation about two-thirds in 1979
- The drafter of the 1999 Constitution would be considered to have 'learnt their lesson' and 'covered their ground'
- FCT is given special consideration and defined in section 3 and clarified in Part III (Federal Capital Territory, Abuja Executive Body)
- The 'special' dispensation of the FCT necessitates the need to consider it alongside other States so that the FCT is not disenfranchised or 'belittled'.
-;The principle of democracy and social justice in s14

I will not make a pronouncement. This article gives pointers to "matters to be decided" in considering FCT in the context of the States of the Federation (of Nigeria).

BluntCrazeMan:



One thing the Electoral Act made very clear (And Factual) is that: “The Directly Transmitted Results From the Polling-units” SHALL be used for the “Verification” of the “Collated Results”...
And also, that the Collated Results must be “CONSISTENT WITH” the “Directly Transmitted Results From the Polling-Units”..

So, are we together on the above??
(At least from there, we can continue further)



Because, that is what I’ve been trying to break down in the whole of my analysis..