The domain of power isn't as we see it. We've to scratch the surface of domain to find what underpins power.
Now, ask: why is it difficult for INEC to take out those underage northern voters on the register?
Two reasons. One, to play the numbers game. Two, preserve power
To understand how power is preserved, we must go back to what underpins the domain.
Let's return to May 2015.
On the eve of assuming power in 2015, Buhari made the old warhorse, Joda, Chairman of his Transition Committee. Thus, signalling the return of the #KadunaMafia
Joda was a member of the Kaduna Mafia, a loose and highly secretive and clandestine power group set up to promote northern interests. Not long after, Mamman Daura and late Isa Funtua, both members of the Mafia, appeared on the scene as power brokers inside Buhari's kitchen.
Mamman brought in his protégé, Abba Kyari as Chief of Staff, who, in turn, brought in Prof Mahmood as INEC chairman.
Farooq @farooqkperogi once did an OP-ED on this, if recollection is correct.
There're speculations that Kyari and Mahmood were once young recruits of the Mafia
with either of both serving as Secretary of the Mafia after the death of Prof Mahmud Tukur ( one-time VC BUK).
Now, why is this important?
To preserve power, the Mafia places its own where it can influence the processes of power preservation.
With a government whose principal personages have their feet rooted in a shadowy Mafia group, the last thing they would do is ensure transparent polls.
The Mafia group did it in 1978 when it ensured that the more progressive Maitama Sule didn't secure the NPN presidential ticket
The Mafia ensured that the provincial grade 2 teacher, Shagari, was selected. It continued same politics of power preservation in 1983 when it helped to rig the election of that year.
It'll do it in 2023. But, the electoral game must not only be seen to be fair, it must be fair
Your duty: continue to press on INEC's neck until it does the right thing: clean out the voter register by weeding underage kids of the north that people it.
Good afternoon from the sanctum sanctorum of the shrine.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Q. Who can challenge INEC in court and subject the voter registrar to transparent audit?
A. ANY CITIZEN, pursuant to Section 19 (2) of the Electoral Act, 2022. Any action must within 14 days of the public display of register
OR ALTERNATIVELY,
A. Political parties can proceed to court on the basis of Section 19(2) as stated above to seek an Order of Mandamus compelling INEC to show that it complied with the legal requirements of Sections 10(2), (3) and (12) of the Electoral Act 2022
Specifically under Section 10(3), the Electoral Act compels INEC to submit the names and addresses of persons registered in a particular year.
Is INEC doing that?
The ball is actually in the court of political parties.
Now, ask: do they have ICT teams auditing INEC register?
Questions:
Did INEC perform any dummy run on BIVAS in the north?
Was BIVAS used in Jos north/Bassa/Pankshin south bye elections, 2022?
G.O has always expressed the fact that the data-base of INEC has to be independently audited. If it isn't, BVAS remains an instrument for validating a fraudulent and rigged data-base, with the discoveries active citizens are making on underage voters in the north
BVAS is a garbage in, garbage out instrument. Na facial features and finger prints imputed into the data-base that it will recognise. Imput a child, it is the child that it will accredit during the voter accreditation process.
Three things G.O takes away from the US documents on the docket involving BAT that a few lawyers are muddling up: 1. The forfeiture proceedings arose from a criminal activity; 2. That funds linked to heroin trafficking were forfeited by BAT 3. That the US Court assumed
the quasi in rem jurisdiction over the accounts of BAT. A court assumes jurisdiction over a thing - property, bank accounts, cars, etc - where the thing is within its jurisdiction and the owner of the property is presumably not within it or s/he is absent from its jurisdiction.
In cases in which the court assumes in rem or quasi in rem jurisdiction ( as with cases involving drug confiscation), the thing is the DEFENDANT, while the person on whom the court papers are served is the PRESUMPTIVE OWNER.
G.O has always insisted that the Obi's key to victory in 2023 is intelligence, election intelligence - getting to know what the other parties and the electoral "umpire" intend to do or are doing outside the rules of the electoral game.
Now, let's get down to brass tacks...
A few questions:
1. How safe is the INEC data-base that potentially makes BVAS effective? 2. Does PVC transfer to another location invalidate the old? Does double PVC registration exist on the data-base? 3. Is INEC data-base susceptible to insider manipulation
These questions are pertinent in view of the confusion and crisis of legitimacy that ensued following the 2012 Ghana elections in which biometric technology was deployed.
Let's place @PeterObi's achievement in context: 1. He was Governor Feb 2007 - May 2007; June 2007 - March 2014 2. Received the Bill Gates' Award in June 2013.
2012, Obi had eradicated polio.
Nigeria eradicated polio in 2016 with the last case in Borno.
To achieve polio-free status, there must not be a single outbreak within 3 years of last occurrence.
So, in effect, Obi fought the polio scourge and eradicated it in 2009 - two years of assuming office, and even with the interregnum created by his removal from office!
A feat.
It is for this reason, and many others, I honestly think that @PeterObi has no business debating with dunderheads and political isthmus who parade themselves as presidential/VP candidates. If I were in his team, I'd tell him: "Sir, no more appearances that dignify dunderheads"