KOGI TRIBUNAL: OLAYINKA BRAIMOH OF ACTION ALLIANCE PARTY CLOSES CASE WITH PROOF OF ELECTION NON-COMPLIANCE..

The candidate of the Action Alliance in the 2023 gubernatorial election in Kogi state, who is contesting the return of Ahmed Ododo, the candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Otunba Olayinka Braimoh, has closed his case with convincing and substantial proof of the election non-compliance with the Electoral Act, 2022.

Braimoh filed an instant petition on the 2nd day of December 2023 against Ahmed Ododo as the 1st respondent, the All Progressives Congress (APC) as the 2nd respondent, and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as the 3rd respondent.

The ground for challenging the election is that the election is invalid by reason of non-compliance with the provision of the Electoral Act, 2022.

As required by law, the Petition went through the stipulated pre-trial stage which was concluded and the Tribunal issued its Report of the Pre-Trial Conference to the parties and fixed the Petition for hearing.

As the petitioner, witnesses were called from various Polling Units within Kogi Central.
He also tendered Certified True Copies of Polling Unit Results (FORMS EC8As) for the Local Governments where over voting occurred.

In the course of the trial, he tendered the voter registers, BVAS report, ward election results, local government results, and the final result for the whole state before the tribunal


Finally, he also called two subpoenaed witnesses from INEC to tender documents in support of the petition and thereafter closed the case.

The 1st and 3rd respondents, Usman Ododo and INEC, respectively, did not call any witnesses but only tendered the BVAS report used at the election.

It was only the 2nd Respondent (APC) that called one witness and the said witness was cross-examined by the Petitioner’s Counsel and the Counsel to the 1st and 3rd Respondents.

Hearing of the Petition came to an end on April 16, 2024, after which the Tribunal called on the Counsels to file their respective Final Written Addresses.

Each of the respondents were given 7 days from April 16, 2024, to file and serve their respective final addresses on the petitioners, while the petitioners shall file their own address within 5 days from the date of service of the respondent’s address, and the respondents have 3 days to file their reply to the petitioners’ final written address.

The Tribunal adjourned the Petition to the 2nd day of May 2024 for adoption of the final written address, after which the Petition shall be reserved for judgement.
....
Meanwhile, his plea received a significant boost as both the 2nd Respondent (APC) and another separate petitioner of the election, SDP, may have implicated each other by providing astonishing and incriminating evidence of overvoting, thereby validating Braimoh’s claims.

The petitioner, Muri Ajaka of the Social Democratic Party (SDP), argued and demonstrated that there was overvoting in favour of Usman Ododo of the APC primarily in the five LGAs of the central senatorial district.

In a surprising turn of events, the ruling party, the APC, who were expected to refute the allegations, instead exposed the SDP to THE SAME ELECTORAL MALPRACTICE OF OVERVOTING in eight out of the nine LGAs of the eastern senatorial district.
These compelling pieces of evidence were acknowledged by the presiding judge.

With these developments, the tribunal now possesses undeniable and substantial evidence of overvoting against Usman Ododo and Muri Ajaka of the APC and SDP, respectively.

It is evident that Otunba Olayinka Braimoh’s plea for the complete nullification of the election results and the conduct of a fresh election is highly favoured and is likely to be granted.

The election was marred by intimidation, overvoting, and fraudulent activities, but the citizens of the state are hopeful that the court, which is considered as the last resort for justice, will uphold nothing but the unadulterated truth this time.

Source:
https://tribuneonlineng.com/kogi-tribunal-braimoh-closes-case-with-proof-of-election-non-compliance/

I have always said this..

The Electoral-Act-2022 is yet to be fully explored..

We are yet to see the last of the “BVAS-Reports”.
The reason I say this is because, both the petitioners and respondents relied on the so-called transmitted “BVAS-Reports”, rather than on the Forensic Report of the Physical Direct-Inspection which are carried out on the BVAS-machines by ICT-Experts..

Nevertheless, it had been agreed severally that the Electoral-Act-2022 needs serious Amendments..

I had even gone ahead to suggest some of these Amendments in a free online book, which is available in this link below..

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GAp0cegDplx-E9FgXRXcI5uDX6tgW-cw

(Click the link above to download the book)

One More portion of the Electoral-Act-2022 that is yet to be fully explored by all these Petitioners are: - all those Sub-Sections inside Section-64...

Especially Sub-Sections-4a and 4b.
Then Sub-Section-5.
And Then, Sub-Sections-6a, 6b, 6d, and 6d.
..
And Finally; Sub-Section-7 (where the Final Returning Officer - or any higher-level collation officer - is allowed to re-collate the whole election-results all-over again,, starting from the very lowest levels,, and possibly abandoning all the other Collations that were earlier done by all the lower collation officers..)

BluntCrazeMan:


Source:
https://tribuneonlineng.com/kogi-tribunal-braimoh-closes-case-with-proof-of-election-non-compliance/

APC and Ododo never for once prove any over voting in the SDP guy constituency...with what did they prove it cos they never applied to inspect any electoral material..!!

Infact it was the ododo people that were trying to burn down inec office to destroy evidence and went as far as attacking that inec state commissioner in his house and also attacked and beat up the tribunal people that made them shift the tribunal venue to Abuja...!!

Our journalist need to do more instead of spreading misinformation...!!

Floky215:



APC and Ododo never for once prove any over voting in the SDP guy constituency... with what did they prove it cos they never applied to inspect any electoral material..!!

Infact it was the ododo people that were trying to burn down inec office to destroy evidence and went as far as attacking that inec state commissioner in his house and also attacked and beat up the tribunal people that made them shift the tribunal venue to Abuja...!!

Our journalist need to do more instead of spreading misinformation...!!

Were you following the case all these while.??

ODODO PRESENTED BVAS-REPORTS AND VOTER'S REGISTERS IN THE LGAS IN QUESTION.

They didn't opt for the inspection of materials, since they hoped to use the BVAS-Reports.

BluntCrazeMan:


Were you following the case all these while.??

ODODO PRESENTED BVAS-REPORTS AND VOTER'S REGISTERS IN THE LGAS IN QUESTION.

They didn't opt for the inspection of materials, since they hoped to use the BVAS-Reports.

Yeah...been following the case...the only people that obtain data from the bvas are the sdp people...and they used it effectively..infact as at today the APC brought in their witness who at the end of the day substantiate the over voting that took place in the constituency under dispute...!!!

Floky215:



Yeah...been following the case...the only people that obtain data from the bvas are the sdp people...and they used it effectively..infact as at today the APC brought in their witness who at the end of the day substantiate the over voting that took place in the constituency under dispute...!!!

That's wonderful..
I've been waiting to read the update of Friday and Saturday..

I guess you just gave me the snippets of what transpired.

PLEASE TAKE YOUR TIME AND READ THROUGH THESE FEW COMMENTS BELOW..
THEY ARE VERY IMPORTANT..!!

The Nigerian National Assembly Members Should Look Into These Particular Aspects Of The Electoral Reforms..

SOME SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS TO THE SECTION-60 & SECTION-64 OF THE ELECTORAL-ACT

This thread Starts from the suggested amendments to Section-60:-(Sub-Section-5)

Section-60(5):
“(5) The presiding officer shall transfer the results including total number of accredited voters and the results of the ballot in a manner as prescribed by the Commission.”


Suggested Amendments:
The Act should specify the means and the medium through which the commission shall “prescribe” the “manner” for the transmission of the results and the accreditation data.
(Any “means and medium” that is NOT intended by the Act Should Not be included in the list).

This sub-section should also remove the word “Transfer” and replace it with “Transmission”.
And also, the Act should clearly state the source of the transmission as well as the destination of the transmission.

The equipment and mode for the transmission should also be mentioned in the Act.
This sub-section should also indicate the maximum allowable timeline for the delay of the transmission of the accreditation data and the polling unit results by the presiding officer; and the penalties for delaying the transmission beyond the maximum allowable timeline should be stated in the Act.

**(The suggested timeline to be allowed for the maximum delay of the transmission of the polling-unit results should be 11:59pm on the election day).



Section-60: - (ALL SUB-SECTIONS)
“60.—(1) The Presiding officer shall, after counting the votes at the polling unit, enter the votes scored by each candidate in a form to be prescribed by the Commission as the case may be.

(2) The form shall be signed and stamped by the presiding officer and counter signed by the candidates or their polling agents where available at the polling unit.
(3) The presiding officer shall give to the polling agents and the police officer where available a copy each of the completed forms after it has been duly signed as provided under subsection-(2).

(4) The presiding officer shall count and announce the result at the polling unit.

(5) The presiding officer shall transfer the results including total number of accredited voters and the results of the ballot in a manner as prescribed by the Commission.

(6) A presiding officer who willfully contravenes any provision of this section commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not more thanN500,000 or imprisonment for a term of at least six months.”


Suggested Amendments:
In addition to all the existing sub-sections in Section-60, the section should clearly specify that the presiding officer shall first transmit the “AUTOMATICALLY-GENERATED ACCREDITATION DATA” from the voting device to the appropriate collation system for the collation of only the automatically generated accreditation data - before proceeding to sort and count the results.

After counting the results, the presiding officer shall - in front of the polling agents and everybody present - manually key-in the following results data into the transmission software of the voting device:
a). the votes scored by the various parties,
b). the number of accredited voters,
c). the number of voided votes,
d). the total votes cast,
e). and the SERIAL-NUMBERS of the hand-written result-sheets..
The Presiding Officer should then transmit same data-set to the APPROPRIATE COLLATION SYSTEM.

**(Here below are the suggested destinations for the transmission of the various results and accreditation data)

a). Automatically-generated accreditation data should be transmitted to a separate collation system meant specifically for ONLY the collation of the Automatically-generated accreditation data in the voting device.

b). The keyed-in results (including the keyed-in accreditation data) at the polling unit should be transmitted to a separate collation-system meant specifically for the electronic collation of the KEYED-IN POLLING UNIT RESULTS. The information contained in the collation system is only visible to the appropriate collation officers through their various technological collation devices.

c). A CLEAR PICTURE of the duly completed and signed results-sheet shall be taken with the voting device by the presiding officer, and transmitted to a separate PUBLICLY VIEWABLE SERVER which would be meant specifically for the uploading the pictures of the results-sheets. The photos of results that are uploaded to the photos-server shall be instantly made visible on the publicly viewable photos-server, so that the voters can also see the photos of the results of their polling units immediately they are being uploaded. The pictures uploaded to this server will serve for verification purpose.

d) The collated results that were transmitted by the collation officers at all the various collation centers should be transmitted to a separate secondary collation-system meant specifically for the electronic collation of only the Collation Officers’ results.
The results collated by all these collation systems should be made available in the technological “Collation Device” of the Collation Officer or the Returning Officer in such a way that each collation device receives only the results of the collation-centers or polling-units that are directly under its coverage.

The Electoral-Act should also indicate that the results of polling units that fails to be successfully transmitted and electronically collated by the Collation System beyond the maximum time allowed for the delay in transmission shall not be collated by the collation officers.

**(as earlier stated, the suggested timeline to be allowed for the maximum delay of the transmission of the polling unit results should be 11:59pm on the election day).

Polling-unit results that were not collated by the collation officers due to non-transmission to the collation system, or due to delayed transmission beyond the prescribed timeline, can only be considered and added by the returning officer during the final review of the collated results, provided that the photos of such Polling-unit results had been successfully uploaded to the appropriate photos-server (which is meant for the uploading of photos of results-sheets) before the time of the final review by the Returning Officer.

At the expiration of the timeline allowed for the transmission of the polling-units results, all pending polling-unit transmission of results to the polling-units collation system shall be temporarily suspended. Nevertheless, the transmission of the collated results by the collation officers to the appropriate collation system meant for the transmission and collation of the already-collated results, as well as the uploading of the captured photos of the results-sheets (both the photos of the Polling-units results and those of the collated results in the various collation centers) to the photos-server can continue without being suspended.


...
...
..
Section-64(4)(a):
“(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”

Suggested Amendments:
The second part of this paragraph should read:
“.... number of accredited voters AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED IN THE VOTING DEVICE and...”

● The part that said “..under Section-47(2)..” should be corrected to:
“... under section-47(2) and section-60(5)...”


Section-64(4)(b):
“(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—

(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.


Suggested Amendments:
The second part of this paragraph should read:
“.... the votes or results THAT ARE KEYED-IN INTO THE VOTING DEVICE and transmitted directly....”
● The part that said “..under Section-60(4)..” should be corrected to:
“... under section-60(5) of this Act....”



Section-64(5):
“(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.”

Suggested Amendments:
● “subject to subsection-(1)” should be corrected to now read:
“subject to subsection-(4)”

● “..Section-47(2)..” should be corrected to now read:
“...Section-47(2) and Section-60(5)...”

● “..Section-60(4)..” should be corrected to now read:
“...Section-60(5).......”


**Thus, Section-64(5) should be corrected to:

“Subject to subsection-(4), a collation officer or returning officer shall use the number of accredited voters AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED IN THE VOTING DEVICE and transmitted directly from polling units under Section-47(2) and Section-60(5) of this Act, and the votes and/or the results THAT WERE KEYED-IN INTO THE VOTING DEVICE and transmitted directly from polling units under Section-60(5) of this Act, as well as the transmitted photos of the results, to collate and announce the result of an election - if a collated result at his level of collation or a lower level of collation is not correct.”



Section-64(6)(c):in
“(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—

(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.”


Suggested Amendments:
The paragraph should be adjusted to include:
“.... number of accredited voters AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED IN THE VOTING DEVICE and...”

● The part that said “..under Section-47(2)..” should be corrected to now read:
“... under section-47(2) and section-60(5)...”

Section-64(6)(d):
“(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—

(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.”


Suggested Amendments:
The paragraph should be adjusted to include:
“.... the votes and/or results THAT WERE KEYED-IN INTO THE VOTING DEVICE and transmitted directly....”

● The part that said “..under Section-60(4)..” should now read:
“... under section-60(5) of this Act...”


SUGGESTED ADDITIONAL PARAGRAPHS TO THE SUB-SECTION-6 OF SECTION-64:

**“A collation officer who did not properly settle ALL the disputes that were raised at his or her collation center and level of collation, and goes ahead to announce the debated collated results with all the pending unresolved disputes in the collated results, had breached the provisions of the
Act.”**

The Electoral-Act should state the Exact Penalties for such breach.


Section-64: - (ALL SUB-SECTIONS)
“64.—(1) The presiding officer shall endorse the word “rejected” on the ballot paper rejected under section-52(1) of this Act and for any other reason, and the ballot papers shall not be counted except otherwise allowed by the returning officer who may overrule the presiding officer.

(2) If an objection to the decision of a presiding officer to reject a ballot paper is raised by a candidate or a polling agent at the time the decision is made, the presiding officer shall add to the word “rejected”, the phrase “but objected to”.

(3) The presiding officer shall prepare a statement on rejected ballot papers, stating the number rejected, the reason for rejection and their serial number, and he or she shall on request, allow a candidate or a polling agent to copy the statement.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(7) If the disputed result under subsection-(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 subsection-(6);(a)-(d).

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

(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.”

***To be continued BELOW in the next comment...

Source:
NAME OF E-BOOK:
“SOME SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS TO THE NIGERIAN ELECTORAL ACT 2022.”
((Pages: 28-32; And from Pages: 33-46))

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GAp0cegDplx-E9FgXRXcI5uDX6tgW-cw

***Continued from the above comment..
..

Suggested Amendments and possible additional sub-sections to the Section-64:

The Section-64 is the only section which tried to guide the electoral officers on the procedures for the Collation of Results after the voting process had been completed.

Thus, there is need to introduce more detailed sub-sections which would throw more lights on the proper procedures for the collation of the election results.

Therefore, in addition to all the existing sub-sections; Section-64 should have further sub-sections as suggested below:

a). A Collation Officer or Returning Officer shall have a technological “Collation Device” which provides the collation officer with all the appropriate collated results which were made available from the various appropriate collation systems.

(b) The collated results that shall be available on the collation device include the computer-collated results received from the Collation System for the directly transmitted polling unit results, as well as the manually collated results that were transmitted to the secondary collation system by only the direct down-line collation officers where applicable.

c). The Collation Device of the first-level collation officers (Ward Collation Officers) do not need to have the manually collated results that were transmitted by any direct down-line collation officers, since there are no other down-line collation officers below them - except the presiding officers at the polling units.

d). The collation device of a collation officer or returning officer shall contain only the necessarily applicable transmitted polling units results, or the necessarily applicable computer-collated results as well as the transmitted collated results from the direct down-line collation officers under him or her.

**(This means that a Collation Officer or Returning Officer shall not see the results of any other collation center, or the results of any other polling units which are not under his or her coverage of collation.)

The commission (INEC) shall ensure that all the electoral devices at all levels are configured properly in order to perform accordingly as stated in the Electoral-Act.

e). For the first-level collation officers (Ward-Level collation officers), if there are polling units that are not yet available on the Collation Device, they shall wait until after the expiration of the maximum delay time allowed for polling unit transmission, before they can go ahead to collate and announce their results with only the available polling units on the collation device, provided that the automatically generated number of accredited voters in the polling unit coincided with the keyed-in number of accredited voters, and the keyed-in results coincided with the photos of the results uploaded to the photos-server.

The first-level collation officers shall not collate the results of those polling units that are not available on the collation device, -- not minding the fact that the hard-copies of such Polling-unit results are available, **(and also without minding the fact that the uploaded photos of such missing Polling-unit results on the collation device are already available on the publicly viewable photos-server).

f). For higher-level collation officers and the returning officers, if the collated results of any (or some) of the direct down-line collation officers are not yet available on the collation device, the affected down-line collation officer(s) shall provide the hard-copy as well as the soft-copy of their collated results, and also an attestation and a proof that the collated results which they presented were the same as the one they already transmitted from the COLLATION CENTER, but were delayed due to poor network or other unforeseen circumstances.
Nevertheless, the computer-collated results of the polling-units which are available on the collation officer’s collation device must be used to verify and confirm the collation figures presented by such down-line collation officers.

g). The results on the Collation Device, as well as the process of keying-in of the collated results by the collation officer shall ALL be DISPLAYED and made clearly visible at the Collation Center where the accredited polling agents and media personnel shall see it.

h). At the end of the maximum allowable waiting time for transmission of the Polling-unit results, the commission shall issue an instant notice to all the Collation Officers, and at the same time, suspend all further polling-units results from being transmitted to the collation system, -- until after the final results had been declared, and all possible reviews completed, then the remaining suspended polling-unit results can be transmitted to the collation system..
**Nevertheless, the uploading of the photos of the polling unit results to the publicly viewable photos-server, which is meant for the uploading of photos of results-sheets, shall not be suspended.

i). At the end of the collation at every collation center, the collation officer shall key-in the collated Results, total accredited voters, total voided votes, and the total votes into the transmission software of the collation device, and transmit same to the appropriate collation system meant for the transmission and collation of the already Collated Results.

j). A CLEAR PICTURE of the duly completed Collated Results shall be taken with the collation device by the Collation officer, and transmitted to the publicly viewable photos-server which is meant specifically for the uploading of pictures of results sheets.
The picture will also serve for verification purposes.

k). The penalties for outright NON-TRANSMISSION of the collated results from the collation center by the collation officer before proceeding to the venue of the next level of collation should be specified in the Act.
Collation Officers shall be mandated by the Act to transmit their collated results from their various collation centers and upload the picture of the collated result sheet to the photos-server before leaving their venue of collation to deliver the hard copies of their collated results to the higher-level collation officer at the higher-level collation center.

l). The temporary stoppage of the transmission of POLLING UNIT RESULTS by the Commission after the expiration of the maximum delay-time SHALL NOT affect the transmission of the Collated Results by the Collation Officers from their Collation Centers.

m). At the end of the collation by the final returning officer, he or she shall announce the initially collated results without declaring or returning a winner; after which a review period of 72-hours maximum shall be allowed for the returning officer, at the end of which a winner can be declared and returned.

n). During the review period, all the possible disputes to the computer-collated results as well as all the omitted polling unit results that were not transmitted within the initial window-period for the transmission of polling unit results, shall be fully reviewed and added accordingly and be re-tallied again properly by the returning officer, provided that he or she is satisfied that the uploaded photos of the results-sheets of such omitted polling units are available on the appropriate server meant for the uploading of photos of the polling units results, and that they are consistent with the hard-copies that were presented for review; and that these polling units results are also verified and confirmed by all the polling agents present, else such omitted polling unit results should not be included by the Returning Officer.

o). If all possible disputes, including the disputes to the collated results by the down-line collation officers were all treated and settled before the maximum allowed review time of 72-hours, the returning officer may declare the final collated results and return a winner without having to wait for 72-hours.

p). At the end of the review period, if there are still persisting unresolved disputes, the returning officer shall declare the final results as at the end of the 72-hours, and return a winner, putting into consideration the disputes that were already resolved within the review period.

q). The collation as well as the reviewing of the collated results by the Returning officer shall ALL be DISPLAYED, and be made clearly visible at the Final Collation Center where the accredited polling agents and the accredited media personnel shall be seeing the display screen clearly.

r). A returning officer shall key-in the Final Collated Result into his or her collation device and transmit same to the appropriate collation system after the declaration of the final results.
He or she shall also take A CLEAR PICTURE of the Final Collated Result and transmit appropriately to the photos-server.

s). A returning officer who declares the final result of an election before the elapse of the 72-hours whereas there are still persisting unresolved disputes, had breached the Act.
There should be penalties for such erring Returning Officer.

t). Immediately the final results are declared, and the winner announced, the commission shall publish all the results in all the Collation Systems on their website where they are available to be made available to the public within 48 hours.
These results include:
a). the collated accreditation data from the accreditation collation system which were automatically generated and transmitted by the voting device while the voting was going on.
b). the direct polling-units computer-collated results from the primary collation system which were the results sent by the presiding officers at the various polling-units - including all those delayed polling-units results which were later transmitted after the final results had been declared (all those delayed polling-units results which were later transmitted must be indicated in the published results, so as to aid independent forensic auditors).
c). the secondary collated results from the secondary collation system which were transmitted by the various collation officers at the different levels of collation which also include the final results-collation sheet which was transmitted by the final returning officer.
d). the final numbers of the remaining ballot papers and booklets from the collation system for the collation of the numbers of the remaining electoral materials which were transmitted by both the presiding officers at the polling-units as well as the various logistics officers at the various levels of collection points of these materials.

Any person or party who wants to have the certified true copies of these results, whether in part or in whole, shall apply accordingly to the Chief National Electoral Commissioner or any other appropriate officer of the commission – as the case may be.

u). Electoral devices used in an election shall not be tampered with, or recycled for use in any other election if the election in which it was used for is still undergoing review by the
commission.

v). Polling unit results and the collated results that are transmitted to the collation systems as well as the photos of the same results that are uploaded to the photos-server for the benefit of the viewing public shall be deemed as the exact representations of the same original results that were transmitted and/or uploaded by the appropriate electoral officers, unless contested at the Tribunal or court of competent jurisdiction with the certified true copies of the duplicate copies of the results that were given to the police, or the originals of the duplicate copies of the results that were given to the party agents, and found to be manipulated.

w). The reproduced certified true copies of the transmitted results, both the results that were transmitted directly from the polling units and those that were transmitted from the various collation centers, which were used by the commission to collate and announce results during the election, as well as the reproduced certified true copies of the photos of the results which were uploaded to the photos-server, and which were certified and released by the commission as the true copies, shall ALL be deemed as the exact representations of the same original results that were transmitted and/or uploaded by the appropriate electoral officers, unless contested at the Tribunal or court of competent jurisdiction with the certified true copies of the duplicate copies of the results that were given to the POLICE, or the ORIGINALS of the duplicate copies of the results that were given to the party agents, and found to be manipulated.

x). The Act should indicate a timeline after the election within which the commission must release a detailed demographic report of the persons who participated in the election and also publish it on the commission’s website. The report shall contain the number of those voters who came out to vote, whose voter-information were successfully found on the electronic register, but were not successfully authenticated for voting.
The report shall also contain some categorizations according to gender, age-ranges, occupations and so on. This report shall also be broken down from state to state. Same report shall be forwarded to the Nigerian Bureau of Statistics (NBS) for data updating.
The suggested timeline for this report is 14-days after the final results were announced.

y). The Act should mandate the commission to conduct a compulsory in-depth forensic inspection of all the deployed electoral technologies which were used in the election, and publish the forensic reports on their website within a certain timeline after the election. These technologies include the voting devices, collation devices, all the various collation systems, and including the photos-servers.
The suggested timeline for the publishing of this forensic report is 14-days after the final results were announced.

** (Important Notes):
The Act should explain some of these terms in Section-152..
Such terms as:
“Transmission”,
“Collation System”,
“Server”,
“Collation Device”,
“Computer-Collated Results”,
etc.

Source:
BOOK TITLE:
“SOME SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS TO THE NIGERIAN ELECTORAL ACT 2022.”
((Pages: 28-32; And from Pages: 33-46))

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GAp0cegDplx-E9FgXRXcI5uDX6tgW-cw

Meanwhile...
These suggestions below are what the various political parties and their party-agents are supposed to be doing in the interim during the collation of election-results,, pending the time the AMENDED ELECTORAL-ACT fully supports the instant electronic-upload and electronic-transmission of results to the photo-servers and the electronic collation systems respectively.

..

BluntCrazeMan:
THE BEST WAYS THE PARTY-AGENTS OF THE POLITICAL PARTIES SHOULD BE RAISING THEIR DISPUTES DURING THE ELECTION COLLATION EXERCISE..


..
..
This topic became necessary after observing the past series of elections,, and taking serious notes of how wantonly the collation-officers (and even the returning-officers) were disregarding and/or paying less attention to the disputes which were raised by the various aggrieved party-agents during the collation exercises at the various collation centers.

Meanwhile, most of the observed party-agents were merely wailing and ranting at the collation-centers - and almost getting themselves on the verge of staging fights at the collation-centers in an Orubebe-Styled manner, without actually stating the exact figures that are being disputed, and thus, they were left unattended to; since they actually have no facts-and-figures to be looked into.

Thus, going forward, the party-agents should endeavour to do the following while raising their disputes at the Collation-Centers...
They should be very calm, soft-voiced (but loud enough to be heard), and then, TAKE THE WHOLE TIME TO GENTLY READ OUT “EVERY DISPUTED FIGURES” ACCORDING TO ALL THE AFFECTED POLLING-UNITS, and most-importantly have the party-agent recorded on video-camera while presenting the disputes as well as capture the collation-officers’ response on video-camera too.

There are two main reasons why the above-listed steps are very necessary during disputes:

1. These steps would help the Party’s Situation-Room to properly trace the originating points of all the mistakes and errors in the tallying and calculation of results,, as well as to trace all the originating points of all possible fraudulent manipulations of results, and communicate them to the party-agents on the field, for them to use the data in further butressing their disputes.

2. These steps would also help the Party to EASILY GATHER ALL THEIR EVIDENCE ahead of time, including all the necessary video-evidence, for them to be used during their election petition tribunal, Where all such erring collation-officers would also be joined as respondents in the election-petition -- (as stipulated in the Electoral-Act-2022)


...
...
WHAT EXACTLY ARE THE PARTY-AGENTS SUPPOSED TO BE SAYING WHILE RAISING THEIR DISPUTES.??

Like I pointed out earlier,, the party agents are actually supposed to calmly and gently read out “all the disputed figures” according to all the affected polling-units. The polling-unit-number and NAME must be mentioned for all the affected polling-units.
(The figures must be read out according to the various polling-units, in addition to being lumped or summed together according to the wards, or LGAs, or States)

The reason why the figures must be read out according to the polling-units is because, ALL THE BVAS-MACHINES FOR ALL THOSE AFFECTED POLLING-UNITS THAT WERE CALLED-OUT (AND DISPUTED) ARE SUPPOSED TO BE BROUGHT THERE AT THE COLLATION-CENTER, and be used to settle all those raised disputes..
That is what the Electoral-Act-2022 says in Section-64-(sub-section-6).

Assuming the party-agents lumped the figures according to the Wards collated-figures, or LGAs collated-figures, or States collated-figures, without naming all the affected polling-units, it would be very hard for the collation-officer to settle the disputes in accordance with the Electoral-Act-2022, because there were no BVAS-Machines used at these Wards, LGAs, or States levels.


...
..
From all the above descriptions, it simply means that the party-agents MUST be physically present at the WARDS Collation-Centers., and start there to raise their disputes wherever and whenever they detected errors and discrepancies between the figures which the collation-officers are announcing and the figures that were contained inside the BVAS-machines.

These party-agents at the Wards would now communicate those disputes that were raised to the party-agents at the LGAs collation-officers (according to the exact polling-units and each of the exact figures as they were disputed and the correct summations for all the parties and votes cast -- including the wrongly summed figures which were announced by the INEC’s collation-officers). It is the duty of the party-agents at the upper level of collation to cross-check the summed figures which the collation-officers at that particular upper level of collation would announce.
If the figures happen to be the wrong summations,, then the party-agents would raise the disputes by first pointing out the wrong summations,, and then break the whole wrong results down into the various polling-units -- AND DEMAND FOR ALL THE AFFECTED BVAS-MACHINES OF ALL THOSE MENTIONED POLLING-UNITS TO BE BROUGHT “UNTAMPERED” TO THE COLLATION-CENTER FOR VERIFICATION AND CONFIRMATION.


...
...
..
WHAT WOULD THE POLITICAL PARTY DO IF THE PARTY-AGENTS AT THE WARDS AND LGAS (LOWER-LEVEL COLLATION-CENTERS) WERE FORCEFULLY NOT ALLOWED TO ENTER THE VENUE OF THE COLLATION.??

If the authentic party-agents who were supposed to be at the Wards and/or LGAs Collation-Centers were forcefully blocked off from entering the venue of the collation,, such affected party-agents should make a video of the incident, calling his/her name and showing his/her face as the authentic party-agent for such a center, and also showing good evidence of forceful barricade, and then declare inside the video that whatever that happens inside that particular Collation-Center (as also named inside the video), that the party is not aware of it, and that the process is flawed and no more transparent and credible..

The reasons for making such videos 📷 are very simple.

According to the Electoral-Act-2022, all the party-agents must have submitted their names and photos to the INEC, and must have even submitted samples of their signatures too before the election..

Thus, such videos would help the party’s situation room to know the Collation-Centers where their Authentic Party-agents were prevented from entering, and start early enough to call the attention of the State’s Securities to attend to such centers. It would also help the party in establishing the case of “fraudulent and non-transparent collation” at the election tribunal should in case the matter gets to the tribunal, because the case of forceful exclusion could easily be established from the videos.

The various political parties should be very much aware that without such videos, they cannot establish that there was forceful exclusion or forceful barricade from the venue of the collation,, and thus, the opponent may quickly assume that the Party-agents WILLFULLY ABSCONDED, since there were no evidence to prove that there was forceful barricade,, and thus, such opponent would use the Section-43-(subsection-3) of the Electoral-Act-2022 to assume that the party-agent willfully absconded from the venue of the collation, and use such provisions of the law against him/her.
Therefore, the party-agents must be very very cautious, and very careful for them not to play into the cunning hands of their opponents..

This video would also help the party-agents at the upper-level Collation-Centers to already be aware (ahead of time) that the Lower-Level party-agents were not able to raise disputes at the Collation-Centers due to undue forceful blockage from entering the venue of the Collation-Centers,, and thus the party-agents should raise the matter up at the upper-level Collation-Center, and call for a full review of all the previously collated results so-far by invoking the Section-64-(subsections-6-&-7) of the Electoral-Act-2022.
(YESSS..!! The Electoral-Act-2022 allowed for the whole Results to be re-collated ALL-OVER AGAIN FROM SCRATCH, USING THE WHOLE OF ALL THE BVAS-MACHINES OF ALL THE WHOLE POLLING-UNITS,, IF THERE WERE ESTABLISHED INCONSISTENCIES DURING THE VERIFICATION AND CONFIRMATION OF THE ALREADY-COLLATED RESULTS..)

...
I greet you all.

Have a nice day.

Garfield1, Racoon, Penguin2, Dalitigator

Helinues

Mynd44

Interesting times. But are these non-compliance substantial enough?

BluntCrazeMan:
Garfield1, Racoon, Penguin2, Dalitigator

BluntCrazeMan:
Garfield1, Racoon, Penguin2, Dalitigator

A waste

APC have finished Nigeria and Nigerians..... We became a nation with no low...

God loves you

Pray with us in the Holy spirit for one hour on Saturdays and Sundays 6pm

The Gate of Hope Fellowship online
WhatsApp and Telegram t .me/thegateofhope

Will the judges be fair enough in the case

1

Will all this grammar now, APC are trying to play one dirty game in kogi.
I believe ododo would be quite that office one way or the other , and the Court case might not favour muri ajaka to enable one ApC candidate gain that office as new kogi governor.

Kogi's election should be termed, an election done and dusted before the election day. Rouges!!!

Garfield1, Racoon, Penguin2, Dalitigator

AcadaWriter:
Garfield1, Racoon, Penguin2, Dalitigator

A waste

BluntCrazeMan:


Source:
https://tribuneonlineng.com/kogi-tribunal-braimoh-closes-case-with-proof-of-election-non-compliance/

This is a report by an interested party.

COMRADES, the evil APC never conducted any election that is in compliance with the provisions of the electoral acts. Very Useless party