Penguin2:
Before the Supreme Court ruled on Oyetola v Adeleke case, I made a submission that whatever the Supreme Court decides on the case would be very consequential to the presidential petitions of Atiku and Peter Obi. And the reason I said this is because this is the first time that the highest court will be ruling on a case involving the BVAS and IREV since the 2022 Electoral Act was signed into law which made BVAS and IREV legal properties of INEC.

My argument was, and still is, that whatever the court decides will serve as a precedent on how the lower courts will adjudicate on electoral petitions in different tribunals across the country, and being so recent, it will be a precedent that no one would expect the Supreme Court to overrule itself on anytime soon.

Now, the apex court has upheld the election of Ademola Adeleke. Congratulations to him. But what did they say in delivering their judgment?

First, and the most important takeaway, is that the apex court has established it as a precedent that the BVAS is the primary source of data for the election. What this means is that every vote scored or announced by INEC must tally with the accreditation data as captured by the BVAS.

Again, and similarly, INEC declared results must tally with accreditation data on the BVAS.

I think there are other things they said which would be further elaborated on by lawyers in the house even though more clarity will come when we get the full judgment of the court.

Fergie001
Garfield1
Ejimatic

garfield1:


You didnt read it well.they were three different accreditation reports and none tallied with what inec declared.since apc could not prove sufficient overvoting,it failed.obi never extracted data directly from the bvas so he fails

seunmsg:
For anyone to prove over voting or rigging, only direct data on BVAS will be accepted as primary source of evidence. Nonsense argument like results were not uploaded straight from polling units is useless.

garfield1:


You didnt read it well.they were three different accreditation reports and none tallied with what inec declared.since apc could not prove sufficient overvoting,it failed.obi never extracted data directly from the bvas so he fails

seunmsg:
For anyone to prune over voting or rigging, only direct data on BVAS will be accepted as primary source of evidence. Nonsense argument like results were not uploaded straight from polling units is useless.

In as much as the declared result is substantially in-line with what’s on BVAS, it’s a done deal.

Peter Obi and Atiku’s results were not uploaded on IREV argument has been trashed even before the commencement of the case.

Finally, except there is a very substantial and widespread irregularities, Supreme Court will always side with whoever is declared winner by INEC.

Penguin2:


Lol!

Is this the watery argument that you are hoping will save you guys from Rivers robbery?

Need I remind you that the Supreme Court equally ruled that Form EC8A, which is where votes are entered at polling units with party agents having a copy, is equally consequential in proving the authenticity of votes declared by INEC.

So, using Rivers as an example, what Obi’s lawyers need to do is to provide the form EC8A of all the polling units in Rivers State as issued to Labour Party by Polling Unit Returning Officer. Once the court can determine that the numbers on the form EC8A of Labour Party agents, and PDP agents too (most probably), and that the numbers on the EC8A of Labour Party agents actually tally with the numbers on IREV, you think the court is going to look away?

Lastly, the Supreme Court did not dismiss the instrumentality of the IREV in election matters.

seunmsg:
For anyone to prune over voting or rigging, only direct data on BVAS will be accepted as primary source of evidence. Nonsense argument like results were not uploaded straight from polling units is useless.

In as much as the declared result is substantially in-line with what’s on BVAS, it’s a done deal.

Peter Obi and Atiku’s results were not uploaded on IREV argument has been trashed even before the commencement of the case.

Finally, except there is a very substantial and widespread irregularities, Supreme Court will always side with whoever is declared winner by INEC.

Penguin2:


Lol!

Is this the watery argument that you are hoping will save you guys from Rivers robbery?

Need I remind you that the Supreme Court equally ruled that Form EC8A, which is where votes are entered at polling units with party agents having a copy, is equally consequential in proving the authenticity of votes declared by INEC.

So, using Rivers as an example, what Obi’s lawyers need to do is to provide the form EC8A of all the polling units in Rivers State as issued to Labour Party by Polling Unit Returning Officer. Once the court can determine that the numbers on the form EC8A of Labour Party agents, and PDP agents too (most probably), and that the numbers on the EC8A of Labour Party agents actually tally with the numbers on IREV, you think the court is going to look away?

Lastly, the Supreme Court did not dismiss the instrumentality of the IREV in election matters.

Exc2000:


BVAS accreditation is legal and recognize by Electoral laws, Supreme Court and Court of Appeals

IREV database online portal and Website isn't recognize by the electoral law, Supreme Court or any court ... It is simply an INEC guideline

lhordspy:
According to your main point, this:
"First, and the most important takeaway, is that the apex court has established it as a precedent that the BVAS is the primary source of data for the election. What this means is that every vote scored or announced by INEC must tally with the accreditation data as captured by the BVAS."

I have come to the conclusion that it is either you are ignorant of this whole thing or you trying hard to confuse yourself rather than convince your reader.

BVAS is different from IREV. Will i have to continue screaming this everyday?

And what do you mean by "every vote scored or announced must tally with accreditation voters?"

Going by the judgement, Obi has no case. Obi used 2weeks trying to harvest data from Bvas stored in INEC server. And they came back with complains instead of concrete evidence. We know how lousy the LP are, if there was anything tangible as outcome. They would have included 'Over voting' in their petition. They would have made it the center of their wailing.

It is two different thing here. Ademola vs Adeleke case is centred on over-voting, and it is very logical that BVAS should be the main source of focus; because that is the main work of the BvAS. But Obi's petition is centred around result and other small fries that falls under deminimis rule . And it has nothing to do with BVAS.

seunmsg:



They did not dismiss IREV, they only said BVAS is the primary source of data to prove Election Day irregularities. Irrelevant argument such as results were not uploaded on IREV from polling units holds no water in as much as what is eventually uploaded is in-line what’s on BVAS.

From Peter Obi’s petition, it’s obvious they don’t even have a substantial number of form EC8A as they don’t have agents in most polling units. They may get lucky with Rivers if what’s on IREV is the same with what’s on BVAS. But then, that’s where it ends for them. Rivers alone is not enough to change the outcome of the entire election.

Results from various states uploaded on IREV have been calculated by different interest groups including Mark Essien of the Obidient movement and they all ended up arriving at Tinubu’s victory.

Finally, to prove rigging, a candidate must produce the direct result on BVAS from over 170k polling units. I will be waiting for how any candidate will do that successfully.

engineerboat:


The judgement does not invalidate IREV

Oyetola does not bring up any case on Form EC8 oyetola argument was on voters accreditation. IREV is result viewing portal and verififcation portal and it's not for accreditation

engineerboat:


The 2 case in reference are different

Oyetola is saying I DON'T NEED BVAS BECAUSE I ONLY NEED INEC DATABASE BUT THE COURT SAID NO, YOU NEED TO PRESENT THE BVAS AS THE ACTUAL MEANS OF THE UPLOAD WHICH MUST BE CORRECT

However in PEPT It's a case of WHAT YOU GAVE TP PARTY AGENT IS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WAS ANNOUNCED AND ALSO IN YOUR GUIDELINE AS A CHECK AND BALANCE IREV WAS NOT DONE.

Penguin2:


How can you say Obi never extracted data directly from the BVAS?

What then did his lawyers go to do at INEC HQ when they went to inspect materials?

And hey, Obi’s case is just starting. You can’t claim to be privy to his lawyers’ evidences and materials. Wait until trials start.

And remember that Adeleke’s lawyer, Onyechi Ikpeazu, is also Obi’s lawyer. He’s definitely going to take lessons from this Osun case to the Presidential Petition Tribunal.

garfield1:


You didnt read it well.they were three different accreditation reports and none tallied with what inec declared.since apc could not prove sufficient overvoting,it failed.obi never extracted data directly from the bvas so he fails

Penguin2:


Just a reminder, Obi has 3 other solid ground of petition against Tinubu before we get to the part that has to do with the BVAS.

My talking about the BVAS here is just to inform you guys that Obi’s case is getting even more stronger.

And saying that Obi came with complaints rather than concrete evidence after inspecting the BVAS is being presumptuous because trials have not started and you haven’t seen the evidences they extracted from the BVAS. And mind you, nothing stops parties from bringing more evidences as the case progresses just like nothing stops the court from ordering INEC to produce all the BVAS machines used for the election.

seunmsg:


Believe whatever makes you happy. The court has made it clear that BVAS is the primary source of evidence for election data. In as much as the declared result is inline with what was uploaded, arguments such as results were not uploaded from polling units holds no water. It is dead on arrival already. If the result on BVAS is not substantially different from what was declared by INEC, it stands. Period!

Penguin2:
Before the Supreme Court ruled on Oyetola v Adeleke case, I made a submission that whatever the Supreme Court decides on the case would be very consequential to the presidential petitions of Atiku and Peter Obi. And the reason I said this is because this is the first time that the highest court will be ruling on a case involving the BVAS and IREV since the 2022 Electoral Act was signed into law which made BVAS and IREV legal properties of INEC.

My argument was, and still is, that whatever the court decides will serve as a precedent on how the lower courts will adjudicate on electoral petitions in different tribunals across the country, and being so recent, it will be a precedent that no one would expect the Supreme Court to overrule itself on anytime soon.

Now, the apex court has upheld the election of Ademola Adeleke. Congratulations to him. But what did they say in delivering their judgment?

First, and the most important takeaway, is that the apex court has established it as a precedent that the BVAS is the primary source of data for the election. What this means is that every vote scored or announced by INEC must tally with the accreditation data as captured by the BVAS.

Again, and similarly, INEC declared results must tally with accreditation data on the BVAS.

I think there are other things they said which would be further elaborated on by lawyers in the house even though more clarity will come when we get the full judgment of the court.

Fergie001
Garfield1
Ejimatic

Penguin2:


Just a reminder, Obi has 3 other solid ground of petition against Tinubu before we get to the part that has to do with the BVAS.

My talking about the BVAS here is just to inform you guys that Obi’s case is getting even more stronger.

And saying that Obi came with complaints rather than concrete evidence after inspecting the BVAS is being presumptuous because trials have not started and you haven’t seen the evidences they extracted from the BVAS. And mind you, nothing stops parties from bringing more evidences as the case progresses just like nothing stops the court from ordering INEC to produce all the BVAS machines used for the election.

Exc2000:



Saying the same thing

IREV wasn't brought up because no section of the constitution acknowledge it unlike BVAS

engineerboat:


The 2 case in reference are different

Oyetola is saying I DON'T NEED BVAS BECAUSE I ONLY NEED INEC DATABASE BUT THE COURT SAID NO, YOU NEED TO PRESENT THE BVAS AS THE ACTUAL MEANS OF THE UPLOAD WHICH MUST BE CORRECT

However in PEPT It's a case of WHAT YOU GAVE TP PARTY AGENT IS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WAS ANNOUNCED AND ALSO IN YOUR GUIDELINE AS A CHECK AND BALANCE IREV WAS NOT DONE.

seunmsg:


Believe whatever makes you happy. The court has made it clear that BVAS is the primary source of evidence for election data. In as much as the declared result is inline with what was uploaded, arguments such as results were not uploaded from polling units holds no water. It is dead on arrival already. If the result on BVAS is not substantially different from what was declared by INEC, it stands. Period!

seunmsg:



They did not dismiss IREV, they only said BVAS is the primary source of data to prove Election Day irregularities. Irrelevant argument such as results were not uploaded on IREV from polling un

Results from various states uploaded on IREV have been calculated by different interest groups including Mark Essien of the Obidient movement and they all ended up arriving at Tinubu’s victory.

Finally, to prove rigging, a candidate must produce the direct result on BVAS from over 170k polling units. I will be waiting for how any candidate will do that successfully.

Exc2000:




Anyone with tiny little sense would know with this supreme court pronouncement Obi lost woefully

Oyetola went to Court to present evidence of Over voting and actual vote not matching what BVAS PVCs accredited

Adeleke and INEC argued that the descripancy recorded where not upto the margin of first and second position PDP and APC, hence election can't be cancelled and a re run can't be ordered

While electoral laws , Supreme Court, Appeal court all agree Bi Modal Voters Accreditation System is legal and would be used. Non agreed that IREV database and website is compulsoryNeither Obi nor Atiku go to court cos of over voting,we are talking of allocation of votes,wait till court decide.....




.