The verdict of the Supreme-Court on Friday (12th January 2024) with respect to the Kano State Governorship Election of March-2023, held that the APC were not able substantially prove that the contested 165,616 unstamped and unsigned ballot papers did not originate from the conduct of the election, and thus, the 165,616 votes of the NNPP which the Election Petition Tribunal and the Appeal Court earlier cancelled wouldn't have been cancelled in the first place.


The Judgement later went on to declare that the “stamping-and-signing of the ballot-papers by the presiding-officers at the polling-units is not necessary, since it was not stated in the Electoral-Act.”


What the Supreme Court Judges didn't recognize was that this Judgement of theirs just caused a major set-back in the Nigerian Electoral Jurisprudence, and at the same time, made the “INEC’s Regulations and Guidelines” a totally useless document once again.

In paragraph-19; sub-paragraph-(f)(ii) of the “INEC’s Regulations and Guidelines for the Conduct of Elections 2022”; one of the functions of the Presiding Officers at polling units were clearly stated as thus:
On being satisfied that the voter had been duly accredited, “the Presiding Officer SHALL stamp, sign, and write the date of the election on the back of the ballot paper before giving it to the accredited voter.”

This automatically means that every ballot-paper that was torn-out for the purpose of election must be stamped and signed singly by the presiding officer at the point of tearing it out before issuing it to the accredited voter,, and also that the presiding officer must not stamp and sign multiple ballot-papers ahead of tearing them out. This also means that any unsigned and unstamped ballot-papers which found their way into the ballot-boxes were not authentically issued by the Presiding Officers at the Polling-units.

The unsigned and unstamped ballot-papers which found their way into the ballot-boxes are already a proof of over-voting and electoral-malpractice on its own.

Some people may now argue that the Section-63(2) of the Electoral-Act made provisions for the Returning Officer to by-pass the provisions of the “INEC’s Regulations and Guidelines” where necessary, and to use his powers as the retuning officer to count all those rejected ballot-papers that were not stamped and signed by the presiding officers at the polling-units.

In order to fully understand the Section-63(2) of the Electoral-Act better, let us first see the Section-42(1-2) of the Electoral-Act.

The Section-42(1-2) of the Electoral-Act stated thus:
“42.—(1) The Commission shall prescribe the format of the ballot papers which shall include the symbol adopted by the political party of the candidate and such other information as it may require.

--(2) The ballot papers shall be numbered serially with differentiating colours for each office being contested.”

Then,, in Section-63(2), the Act stated:
“If the returning officer is satisfied that a ballot paper which does not bear the official mark was from a book of ballot papers which was furnished to the presiding officer of the polling unit in which the vote was cast for use at the election in question, he or she shall, notwithstanding the absence of the official mark, count that ballot paper.”

This section didn't state exactly what “Official Mark” meant. But the Electoral-Act was definitely was not referring to the stamping-and-signing of the ballot-papers which is a duty which the Presiding-officers must perform for each-and-every ballot-papers that were torn-out and given to the accredited voter when it mentioned “Official Mark”.

The Kano State Judgement simply means that the stamping-and-signing of the ballot-papers before issuing them to the accredited voters is unnecessary, since it is not contained in the Electoral-Act, (even though it is contained in the “INEC’s Regulations and Guidelines”)..

And again, the judgement also means that the people at the polling-units can now collude with some biased Presiding Officers at the polling-units, and the Presiding-officers would allow them to tear-out as many unstamped-and-unsigned ballot-papers as possible from the ballot-papers booklets, and thumb-print them, and then, pour the unstamped-and-unsigned thumb-printed ballot-papers into the ballot-boxes right there at the polling-units in front of the presiding-officers., and these would all remain valid -- according to the recent Judgement.

I was against the earlier tribunal judgement which made us to believe that “ONLY THE BALLOT-PAPERS WHICH HAD THE NNPP VOTES WERE CHECKED, AND NOT ALL THE VOTES CAST..”

Thus, the judgement was totally biased and one-sided.

It was a deadly ambush.

If the APC actually wanted to seek out all those stuffed-votes, then they should do the same for all the votes that were cast in that election -- and remove all of them,, and then recount the whole remaining votes all over again.
And not for them to come and search out for only the votes cast for the NNPP alone and start tampering with it, whereas all the other stuffed-ballot-papers for all the other parties were still untouched and unseen, and not-removed.

Fergie001, Garfield1, Dalitigator, Penguin2, Racoon.

Lalasticlala, Seun, Nlfpmod

Okay.

Crime007:
Okay.

Go Jarree

BluntCrazeMan:
Go Jarree

As in??🤔🤔

The era of snatching and stuffing ballot boxes is gone.

If you want to engage in such a thuggish and primitive method, then you will be shut down.


Below is what the Electoral Act 2022 says:

Section 63

(1) Subject to subsection (2), a ballot paper which does not bear
official mark prescribed by the Commission shall not be counted.
(2) If the returning officer is satisfied that a ballot paper which does not
bear the official mark was from a book of ballot papers which was furnished
to the presiding officer of the polling unit in which the vote was cast for use at
the election in question, he or she shall, notwithstanding the absence of the
official mark, count that ballot paper.

I made some explanations here months back...

https://www.nairaland.com/7851680/what-electoral-act-really-says/3#126111226

bluntcrazeman

Crime007:

As in??🤔🤔

Nothing Oga.

I just wan tikkle you.

fergie001:
I made some explanations here months back...

https://www.nairaland.com/7851680/what-electoral-act-really-says/3#126111226

bluntcrazeman

Ok.
I will see it now.

Thats not correct sir.
It is rather a case of don't attempt to steal the people's mandate through corrupt judges.
If you try it, be ready to bear the consequences.

Chinjo2:
Thats not correct sir.
It is rather a case of don't attempt to steal the people's mandate through corrupt judges.
If you try it, be ready to bear the consequences.

Just look At.

BluntCrazeMan:


Ok.
I will see it now.

What if these booklets are already pre-signed like we saw in the last off-season election?

Like we said during the Presidential judgement, if we get into the next election with this same EA, we are toast!

Something must be done, not too much though!

fergie001:

What if these booklets are already pre-signed like we saw in the last off-season election?

They were not supposed to be pre-signed.
That was why people raised alarm when they noticed such in the off-cycle election.

Like we said during the Presidential judgement, if we get into the next election with this same EA, we are toast!

THAT'S FOR SURE..

Something must be done, not too much though!

In the meantime,, seeing the Judgements so far delivered,, are there things that can be done in order to cope with the current situations and laws??

Or everybody just sit and watch the riggers try to out-rig themselves??

BluntCrazeMan:
Or everybody just sit and watch the riggers try to out-rig themselves??

The NA will need to do something but the people/CSOs & others have to start the agitations.

The judgment is correct.
If you don't want something, make it a law.
It is not too hard to amend electoral acts to include important clauses.

INEC guidelines is not the electoral act!

fergie001:

The NA will need to do something but the people/CSOs & others have to start the agitations.

Na waa oo..

So for instance, an election is coming up on 3rd February.

With the precedents set so far,, are there any hopes??

ivolt:
The judgment is correct..

READ AGAIN.

NOBODY SAID THAT THE JUDGEMENT WAS NOT CORRECT.

BluntCrazeMan:
READ AGAIN.

NOBODY SAID THAT THE JUDGEMENT WAS NOT CORRECT.

You can't blame the judgment for the failure of legislatures.
Your headline should have been directed at the legislatures and not the supreme court.

BluntCrazeMan:


Na waa oo..

So for instance, an election is coming up on 3rd February.

With the precedents set so far,, are there any hopes??

None @ all except some extra vigilance.

ivolt:

You can't blame the judgment for the failure of legislatures.
Your headline should have been directed at the legislatures and not the supreme court.

The Topic is directed at the Judgement itself..

As correct as it is, it was a bye-product of both the failure of the proper Law-making of the Legislature and the poor interpretation of the Judiciary.

fergie001:
None @ all except some extra vigilance.

So,, all those parties that are preparing for the 3rd-February election are all playing under the rain already be that.??

BluntCrazeMan:
So,, all those parties that are preparing for the 3rd-February election are all playing under the rain already be that.??

Well, lets hope we can do it better.

Just upset what we saw in the off-season.... Doesn't leave much to hope.

BluntCrazeMan:
Fergie001, Garfield1, Dalitigator, Penguin2, Racoon.

I agree.the apex court started this in 2015 rivers

Bobloco:
The era of snatching and stuffing ballot boxes is gone.

If you want to engage in such a thuggish and primitive method, then you will be shut down.

Below is what the Electoral Act 2022 says:

Section 63

(1) Subject to subsection (2), a ballot paper which does not bear
official mark prescribed by the Commission shall not be counted.
(2) If the returning officer is satisfied that a ballot paper which does not
bear the official mark was from a book of ballot papers which was furnished
to the presiding officer of the polling unit in which the vote was cast for use at
the election in question, he or she shall, notwithstanding the absence of the
official mark, count that ballot paper.

Abeg leave op in his delusion

BluntCrazeMan:
I was against the earlier tribunal judgement which made us to believe that “ONLY THE BALLOT-PAPERS WHICH HAD THE NNPP VOTES WERE CHECKED, AND NOT ALL THE VOTES CAST..”

Thus, the judgement was totally biased and one-sided.

It was a deadly ambush.

If the APC actually wanted to seek out all those stuffed-votes, then they should do the same for all the votes that were cast in that election -- and remove all of them,, and then recount the whole remaining votes all over again.
And not for them to come and search out for only the votes cast for the NNPP alone and start tampering with it, whereas all the other stuffed-ballot-papers for all the other parties were still untouched and unseen, and not-removed.

Excellent ...case closed

fergie001:
Well, lets hope we can do it better.

Just upset what we saw in the off-season.... Doesn't leave much to hope.

Let me just try and suggest to the political parties what they should be doing in all these upcoming elections; pending the time we have functional implementable and enforceable Electoral-Laws in Nigeria.


1. Elections must Not start in any polling-unit where the sensitive materials are not complete, or tampered with, or not well documented by the polling-officers and party-agents.

The nonsense that happened in Kogi State, where elections started in some Polling-units without the presence of the Result-Sheets.
The results were later written on PLAIN SHEETS OF PAPERS, and then, an entirely different result (written on the Supposed Actual EC8A Results Sheets) were later uploaded to the IREV-Portal.
That was so baadd.


2. If the INEC Officials said that the essential sensitive-materials would be brought to the Polling-units later, then the election MUST NOT START, until the sensitive-materials arrive.

Everybody at the polling-unit must wait for the sensitive materials to arrive in full, and properly documented before the election can start off..



3. The materials and booklets that were sighted before the election must be properly documented by the party agents too.

(These materials and booklets that were recorded before the election must be collated independently by the political parties -- WHILE THE MAIN VOTING CONTINUED)


4. These untampered sensitive-materials and booklets (including their serial-numbers too) which were documented and collated before the elections started, would later serve as a serious tool for Checks-and-balances after the whole Collation must have been completed.
[Section-73(2)-EA-2022]


5. After the whole election had been completed and concluded at each of the polling-units, all the remaining materials and booklets must be counted and properly documented, and their serial-numbers noted too..
(These remaining materials and booklets must also be collated independently again by the political party - for all the polling-units).


6. By applying the methods of checks-and-balances;
Whenever a results-sheet with a wrong Serial-Number is presented by any official at any collation-center, it would be noticed immediately and rejected outrightly.

(It means that the original sheet which was generated at the polling-unit had been swapped with another sheet which has another serial-number)



7. Still on the methods of Checks-and-balances;
The difference between the collated untampered full-booklets of ballot papes and that of those remaining booklets of ballot papers, would equal the number of used ballot papers, which is supposed to be equal to the “total votes cast + the destroyed ballots”.



8. The INEC - if left on their own - would not perform all these checks because they are in a haste to do what they want to do and end the whole process as quickly as possible.

But since the party-agents are also there as the electoral watchdogs, they must fully and aggressively apply these checks-and-balances, and use them to seriously question the credibility and the transparency of the elections.


9. On a very normal election day when massive rigging occurred, the values of the total number of ballot-papers used which INEC would be announcing would be so high.
(And these would be far higher than the actual number used as calculated from the checks-and-balances)..


10. The political parties must have their own fully independently collated parallel results of the election itself -- which is supposed to be totally independent of the INEC’s official collation.

The political parties Should Not solely depend on the collated results of the INEC for any reason.
It's too dangerous...


11. If there were transparent elections, the INEC’s-collated results should be in agreement with those parallel results that were independently collated by the political parties.

Then, under prefect conditions, all the results are supposed to all be exactly the same -- even though they were all done independently.


12. For the official collation of results by the INEC, the party-agents must make sure that they are fully present while the collation exercise progresses, no matter what happens there.

The party-agents Must Not boycott any part of the official collation exercise, be it at the lower level or at higher level.


13. For any collation-center where the party-agents were forcefully prevented from entering inside,, such party-agents must endeavour to capture such moments on videos as concrete evidence against the INEC and against such persons who prevented them from entering, so that it would be documented that the collation which happened inside such a center was fraudulent.


14. For any Ward-Level collation center where the “Accreditation Data” & “The Polling-Units Results” were not first cross-checked and re-confirmed using the BVAS-Machines; then, the collation officer at that collation center must be recorded on video and kept as evidence for violating the election procedures as clearly stated inside the Electoral-Act-2022.


These are my suggestions for now..

The political parties -- through their party-agents should be doing the tedious and rigorous works of the checks-and-balances for now,, until the time the electoral-act fully allows the new technological innovations to be doing the required checks-and-balances.

it's really very tedious, but they do not have much options for now.

Validated:


Abeg leave op in his delusion

Just Look At this one.!!

Bobloco:
The era of snatching and stuffing ballot boxes is gone.

If you want to engage in such a thuggish and primitive method, then you will be shut down.


Below is what the Electoral Act 2022 says:

Section 63

(1) Subject to subsection (2), a ballot paper which does not bear
official mark prescribed by the Commission shall not be counted.
(2) If the returning officer is satisfied that a ballot paper which does not
bear the official mark was from a book of ballot papers which was furnished
to the presiding officer of the polling unit in which the vote was cast for use at
the election in question, he or she shall, notwithstanding the absence of the
official mark, count that ballot paper.

3rd-February-2024 is very close.

You will see for yourself.

BluntCrazeMan:
3rd-February-2024 is very close.

You will see for yourself.

What's is happening on that day

Bobloco:


What's is happening on that day

On that day, we will count the number of ballot-box snatching (and ballot-box stuffing) that would happen..

That's a way we get to know the effects of this recent Kano State Judgement.




.....
.....
Meanwhile, the first-part and the second-part of your earlier comment are not saying the same thing.