The Nation Newspaper

Tag: manual

  • CAC to close manual registration

    CAC to close manual registration

    The Acting Registrar General Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC), Azuka Azinge has said  the commission is currently working on closing manual registration in all its remaining locations nationwide.

    A statement signed by the Head of Public Affairs Godfrey Ike, the  Acting Registrar-General spoke during a two-day strategic management planning retreat in Keffi Nassarwa State. He said this is to extend online services across the country.

    Azinge said:  “This is repositioning the commission towards organisational excellence which of course is top priority of this administration.

    “The retreat was aimed at charting a new course for the Commission. It has become imperative to enable management brainstorm and arrive at a decision that would provide a clear sense of direction for managing the affairs of the Commission.

    “It will also enable management align the specifics of its actions and decisions with clearly defined priority targets. It will also strategise on how best management could navigate and remain relevant in the face of global competitiveness and other

    “The Federal Government had very high expectations from the Commission being a star agency driving the ease of doing business agenda, all hands should be on deck.

  • Manual for writers

    Manual for writers

    At a time many writers spend their resources to publish fiction, biography and motivational books, a seasoned journalist and retired United Nations (UN) diplomat Mr. Segun Omolayo has published a comprehensive book on common errors made by writers.

    The 12 chapter-book titled: ‘’Pop Errors in English. Writers Beware’’ is about popular mistakes writers make when they write either as a result of carelessness or ignorance in some cases. When such mistakes are not taken care of, they can distract the quality of our writings.

    According to the author, the objective is to help writers to avoid those barriers to correct usage in English or those barriers to elegant writing and effective communication. “First is how to write lucidly in a manner that flows. The author takes each of the mistake, discuss the principles underlying them and uses copious examples how people commit such errors,” he said.

    In first chapter of the book, the author discusses redundancy, which he described as the greatest affliction or difficulty for writers. These, he said, are what are unnecessary in a sentence.

    Omolayo stressed that writers should not write to impress, but ‘write to inform, to communicate and communication means sharing meaning. By the time your reader or listener gets the same meaning of what you have written as you intended it, you are communicating. If you are not doing that, you are not communicating’.

    He noted that many writers want to show erudition to impress, which is not necessary. He urged every writer to write simply and clearly, give his writing fluidity and he would have impressed.

    Another concern in the book is malapropism, which is when writers use words for one another wrongly. In such circumstance writer use attribute instead of adduce. “For example, writing to say that ‘Mr A has been arrested because he was alleged of instead of accused of.’ Sometimes they tend to be very comical,” he added.

    Also in the book is issue of faulty parallelism, which deals with structural balancing of sentences. The rule is that how you start a sentence is how you end it. You don’t begin with active voice and end with passive voice. There is need for consistency in structure of sentences.

    On proper use of punctuation marks, he said: “There are other things we don’t pay attention to like run on sentences. This is when there are no proper punctuations or conjunctions in sentences that run on. Again, stalemate must not be broken with hyphen. Also, when you put a hyphen in ‘follow up’ it becomes a noun and no longer a verb or adjective.

    “These errors occur among writers at all levels.I have edited for university for over 20 yearsand I have been in broadcasting as quality control, served at UN office where I did editing. All through the various professions at international scenes, you find these mistakes across board. So, it means sufficient attention is not paid to it. The book is for anybody who writes. But, those who write very well are the ones who will rarely enjoy the essence of the book.”

    He explained that these errors are not peculiar to journalists in Nigeria alone because writers who are native speakers of English in Europe, Australia and America do commit same errors. He added that the problem is everywhere and the native speaker still needs to learn the rules. “If he does not learn the rules, he cannot write well.To avoid these errors, you must know the rules. It does not matter if you have 10 PhD’s. For those who claim ‘that’s my style,’ it is their own way of manipulating the rules. There is no style that violates the rules. Again, you don’t stop checking,” he said.

    He recalled that the book took root in his time in broadcasting, especially, Broadcasting Service of Ekiti State as Director of Programmes. “Also, I was reading the news too.

    I found time to edit the bulletin, which many did not like then. As I was doing that, I was compiling notes and it got so voluminous to the extent it took a shape of a book. There and then I classified the types of errors.

    “The outline I used for a lecture snowballed into what I fleshed up for the book. Also, I kept notes while I was at the UN. All these sharpened my dexterity in editing. It took about ten years to put together. I started it in 2007,” he said.

    On whether he considered dropping the project for any reason, he said: “I never thought of giving up on the book. But I don’t have the social clout to launch the book the Nigerian way. The book is in many major book stores in university towns. Also, I have done engagements on the book as a way to grow awareness for the book.

  • A revised Electoral Manual

    A revised Electoral Manual

    The Nigerian political scene is a pundit’s nightmare, with its immense capacity to shock. Consider the Ekiti State scenario. Many months after we all had concluded that the governorship election had been won and lost, a fellow showed up on television the other day to spill the beans, relaying graphic details of the plot that gave Ayo Fayose the governorship mantle. It all sounded so incredible, like a story in the hands of a master fiction writer, but the Fayose camp, which could have debunked Tope Aluko’s facts and figures, abandoned the message and went after the messenger. Now, the author of “the Great Confession” says his life is under threat.

    More shocks were to follow, with the Supreme Court nullifying the positions of the lower courts in the Rivers, Akwa Ibom and Taraba governorship elections, among others. Many politicians, exasperated and perplexed by their perception of justice in contradistinction to judgment, have contacted “Editorial Notebook” for advice, paving the way for that bestseller, “An electoral Manual”, which has been revised at least twice, to undergo another makeover.

    Here then is another revised edition of the manual, which will, no doubt, be of great help to those who intend not just to contest an election but to win and defend their hard earned victory.

    Always remember that every election is a war. You need an army of yours – well funded. If you have a President who cares little about the  ambush-and-finish-off politics that is common here, the better for you. The Armed Forces will simply look the other way as your troops make mincemeat of your opponents on the eve of the election.

    How? Simple. Get your boys (your opponents will scorn them as thugs and roughnecks and bad boys and criminals and hoodlums; never mind; the end, as they say, justifies the means) to visit the homes of some key members of the opposing party, fire some shots and spill as much blood as possible. You will be surprised that the next day, only a few stubborn supporters of your  opponents will have the guts to come out for voting.

    The field is, automatically, open for you and all your agents to manipulate the accreditation – card reader or no card reader–, stuff the ballot and award the votes in the score forms you must have kept in a secure place for this great day. Some of your opponent’s supporters will complain that the card reader is not working and, in frustration, walk away. Better for you.

    At the end of it all, reporters will seek your view on the exercise. You will, of course, praise it as the best in recent times. “Kudos to INEC; they have really improved. Materials arrived early and accreditation was orderly. Voting was peaceful,” you will tell the nosey fellows.

    Your opponent will cry like a baby whose lollipop has been snatched by an inconsiderate elderly fellow. He will scream murder and say that the ballot was rigged and that his supporters were murdered. Be calm.

    In no time, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) will declare you winner of the election. Your opponent will, naturally, disagree. His supporters will mount some street protests and malign INEC and its ever-dutiful officials, who will, of course, stand their ground and ask the aggrieved party to go to the tribunal – the only organ that can change the verdict.

    Go to church for thanksgiving and testify to how faithful the Almighty has been to you. After you have been sworn in as governor, do not abandon the path of rectitude. Go from one church to another, praying for victory in the upcoming legal battles. Your opponents will say you have turned yourself into a prayer project as Pentecostal giants lay hands on your balding head. Never mind. All is well.

    Then build up an unassailable war chest. Get the House of Assembly to approve that you borrow some billions – for what you will call some esoteric names, such as “Operation Zero Tolerance for Potholes” and “No More Refuse”. Critics, those idle fellows who abuse the rights of others by insisting that all behaviours must conform with their narrow standards, will call you reckless and spendthrift. Don’t reply. Afterall, the House is behind you.

    Head for Abuja to tidy up that end. Then there will be so much noise about you being found loitering around the office of the Chief Justice. Yes. Don’t you have the right to movement? Isn’t that office a public place? Don’t you have some issues the CJN ought to have settled and what is wrong in a reminder?

    Go back home and get set for the tribunal. You can cause panic in the camp of your opponent by threatening to unleash on the tribunal 10,000 witnesses who will testify that your election was free, fair and credible.

    Hire an army of good lawyers, those called SANs, who will storm the tribunal with facts and figures and summon witnesses to swear that you were indeed the people’s choice. Your opponent may call hundreds of witnesses; don’t be intimidated. If you can get 10, that is okay.

    At the end of it all, the tribunal may, in its limited wisdom, call your witnesses a bunch of liars and declare that you failed to prove beyond doubt that the trophy was rightly handed over to you and that a new election should be organised within 90 days. Don’t be downcast. Reject the judgment and head for the court of Appeal.  It is, after all, a marathon and not a dash.

    The SANs, aforementioned, will rise to condemn the tribunal and tell the court how it erred in law a thousand times to nullify your election, how it failed to prove that you cheated, how you perpetrated no violence (even if there was violence, weren’t you and your supporters the victims?), how some of your votes were unjustly cancelled and how you believe the court will play its role as the last hope of the common man by restoring the mandate , which thousands of your people freely gave you.

    But a note of caution: even the best of lawyers know that Homo proponit sed Deus disponit (that is to say, “man proposes, God disposes”). The Court of Appeal may find no merit in your lawyers’ fine arguments, their marvelous erudition and impeccable logic. “The appellant has not convinced this court that his case has merit and the appeal fails and I so declare,” His Lordship may say.

    Be courageous. Nothing good comes easy. To the Supreme Court you head. Again, your lawyers will deliver your case, deploying all manner of syllogisms, obfuscations and verbosity to impress their Lordships. By now, your opponent and his supporters should be thinking that it is all over, signed, sealed and waiting to be delivered. But for you, it has just begun. Go round and throw in everything.

    Thereafter, relax. You can even boast a little by saying you are sure the Supreme Court will right all the wrongs against you. After all, by now, you know what many do not know- that not all legal battles are won in the court room. Tell your supporters to get set for a carnival.

    To the consternation of all, including your opponents and all those legal giants who had predicted your fall, the Supreme Court will pronounce your election  valid.

    It will say that the card reader, one of the  planks on which your opponent’s case was built, is a stranger to the Electoral Act and that he failed to prove the allegation of rigging as he did not bring witnesses from all the polling units where the so-called irregularities took place.

    Besides, the eminent jurists will say the allegation of violence holds no water. Where are the victims who claimed to have had their heads smashed? People died; yes, but where is the proof? How many died and where are their death certificates, which must be authenticated by a certified forensic expert. Where are the doctors, nurses, morgue attendants, ambulance drivers and all others who can help the court determine that indeed there was violence? Was the violence substantial enough to affect the outcome of  the election? Whose fault?

    These allegations are criminal and must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The court cannot do this for the party making the allegations as it is trite in law that El incumbit probation qui dicit, non qui negat. That is to say “he who asserts must prove”.

    Disenfranchisement? This allegation must also be proven polling unit by polling unit and the police report must be consistent with that of the witnesses.

    Now you can mount a road show, revealing how the long and tortuous journey ended the way it did. At a thanksgiving service, you can dance, raise  your hands and sing:

    He has given me victory, I will lift Him higher

    Jehovah, I will lift Him higher

    The Lord has given me victory, I will lift  Him higher,

    Jehovah, I will lift Him higher

    You can then reveal how you have enjoyed the fruits of obedience, how an elder statesman would wake you up at night and tell you who to visit and you obeyed without questions. “I took all the advice and here we are today,” you will gleefully tell your excited audience. Applause. Applause.

    Your opponents will claim that, going by your utterances, you had foreknowledge of the judgment. In fact, some people will say that you “climbed onto the governor’s seat over bodies” and that you swam in blood to the Government House. Such hyperboles are common at  times like these. Just ignore them all.

    If you have suspended any member of your team who you are afraid could spill the beans, as Aluko did, quickly recall the fellow.

    So dear all, “here we are”. One more word. All rights reserved. No part of this manual may be reproduced, transmitted or stored in a retrieval system in any form or by any means without the permission of the copyright holder.

  • Card reader not a substitute for manual voting, says Supreme Court

    Card reader not a substitute for manual voting, says Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court has resolved the controversy over card reader and its status in electoral jurisprudence. It has held that the machine has not effectively replaced manual accreditation of registered voters in an election.

    It also said the card reader’s report alone was insufficient to prove allegations of over voting and non-compliance.

    The court is of the view that for a petitioner to prove electoral irregularities or non-compliance with the Electoral Act, he must call at least a witness from every polling unit affected, who must tender election results from the polling unit and be cross-examined.

    The court gave this explanation while making public its reasons for upholding the election of Dave Umahi as governor of Abia State in its earlier January 27, judgment. It gave its reasons on February 5 in the appeal marked: SC/1004/2015 brought against Umahi by Labour Party’s Edward Okereke.

    Okereke had, in his petition at the election tribunal, alleged non-compliance and over-voting. The tribunal and the Court of Appeal dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove his case –  a decision the Supreme Court upheld on January 27.

    Justice Nweze said the apex court chose to uphold the lower court’s decision because Okereke failed woefully to prove his case. He noted that the appellant failed to tender, along with card reader reports, voters’ register.

    He said Okereke failed to call witnesses from each of the voting points affected, but merely dumped result sheets from the polling units on the trial tribunal without calling the makers of such documents as witnesses.

    Justice Centus Nweze, who read the lead judgment, explained that since the National Assembly has not deleted the provision of Section 49 of the Electoral Act (2010), which allows manual accreditation, it would be wrong for any petitioner to seek to rely solely on the report of the card reader (which is intended as a supplementary measure to the already provided means of accreditation) to prove over-voting.

    “Even with the introduction of the said device, that is the card reader machine, the National Assembly, in its wisdom, did not deem it necessary to bowdlerise the said analogue procedure in Section 49 of the Electoral Act so that the card reader procedure would be the sole determinant of a valid accreditation process. It stands to reason that the card reader was meant to supplement voters’ register and was never designed or intended to supplant, displace or supersede it.

    “Put differently, what the lower court was saying, in effect, was that the petitioner failed to prove his allegations of non-compliance because he did not tender the voters’ register, statement of results in the appropriate forms, which would  show the number of registered accredited voters and the number of actual voters; and he did not relate each of the documents (he tendered) to the specific areas of his case in respect of which the documents were tendered, and show that the figures representing the over-voting , if removed, would result in his victory,” Justice Nweze said.

    Justice Nweze’s position in the Okereke case was earlier taken by the court in its January 8, 2016 judgment in the appeal marked: SC/907/2015: Shinkafi and another vs Yari and others (over the Zamfara governorship dispute).

    Justice John Okoro, who gave the lead judgment in the case, noted that the grouse of the appellants was mainly that there was over-voting and that because of that there was substantial non-compliance with the Electoral Act.

    “To prove over-voting, the law is trite that the petitioner must tender the voters’ register. The court must also see the statement of result in the appropriate forms which would show the number of registered accredited voters and number of actual voters, and  must also relate each of the documents to the specific area of the case in respect of which documents were tendered,”  he said, adding that an appellant must also show that figures, representing over-voting, if removed, would result in victory for the petitioner.

    “There is no doubt that a petitioner is entitled to contend that an election or return in an election be invalidated by reason of corrupt practices or non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act.

    “For a petitioner to succeed on this ground, he has to prove (a): that the corrupt or non-compliance took place: (b): that the corrupt practice or non-compliance substantially affected the result of the election.

    “There is need for a petitioner, who alleges over-voting to lead concrete evidence to show that there was indeed over-voting and that it inured to the winner of the contest.

    “Without doubt, over-voting in an election can be in favour of either the appellant, the respondent or other contestants, who participated and lost out at the election, but are not parties to the petition.

    “Therefore, the onus is on the petitioner to show that the over-voting was in favour of the respondent and that it was as a result of the over-voting that the 1st respondent won the election. This is why the law requires the petitioner to lead evidence right from the polling unit in order to show that the alleged over-voting was solely to the advantage of the respondent,” Justice Okoro said.

    Although many petitioners have complained abourt the inadequacy of time, lawyers have however agreed with the apex court’s position on the requirements of proof, but disagreed on the time limitation for the determination of election petitions.

    Joseph Nwobike (SAN) blamed the appellants for their failure to make strong cases before the court. Sebastine Hon (SAN) suggested a relaxation of the time limit for the determination of election petitions.

    Nwobike was of the view that the Supreme Court’s decisions so far amounted to an endorsement of INEC’s improvement in the conduct of election. He said the apex court deserved commendation.

    “To my mind, INEC did  a wonderful job in 2015. I say so because apart from being a voter myself, I participated in a number of election petitions, both those involving the National Assembly and governorship elections. So, I can say with all sense of responsibility that INEC did a wonderful job.

    “It is some of the tribunals and some of the panels of the Court of Appeal that were trying to confuse issues. But what the Suprme Court did was to validate what INEC did, in most cases, and to encourage INEC to continue to do a better job.

    “For the avoidance of doubt, the card reader is not part of our electoral system as set out in the provisions of the Electoral Act. Card reader accreditation regime was introduced as an addendum. And the Supreme Court stated that point very clearly – to the effect that the none-use of the card reader cannot be used to support an allegation of the none-compliance with the Electoral Act.

    “The non-use of the card reader cannot, in any way, be a basis for an election to be nullified.  So, I think what the Supreme Court did is fantastic and we must continue to pray for them and to bless them so that they will continue to render good judgments in Nigeria,” Nwobike said.

    He disagreed with those who think the 180-day provision limits the opportunity for petitioners to prove his case. He argued that a serious petitioner should always maximize the time allocated to him.

    “The primary responsibility of proving allegation of commission of crime is that of the person who alleges. So, if you are a petitioner and the ground of your petition is that there were malpractices at the polling stations or voting points, it is your responsibility to prove. How you go about it is not the business of any person.

    “The time limit is sufficient. There is no time constraint at all. I was involved in it. In fact, some tribunals sat from 9am to 9pm, with only an hour break. So to suggest there was insufficient time is to beg the question,” Nwobike said..

    On his part, Hon argued that decisions reached by court of law are based on many factors, which include the quantum of proof (which is the most decisive of all the factors), the position of the law, and the idiosyncrasies of the Justices.

    “My experience shows that there could be public outcry against certain decisions, but when it comes to tendering of evidence and proving and disproving of facts, it is a different ball game. For instance, the court has held several times that, for you to prove electoral malpractices, you must  call witnesses from each of the polling units affected, either voters or people, who witnessed what you are complaining about.

    “What we have seen are instances where a petitioner calls just one witness to prove irregularities in several local governments or polling units. Clearly, that was insufficient.

    “In spite of public outcry, the Justices cannot use their private knowledge of certain facts to reach decisions. Connected to that is that precedents have been laid down. They have to follow these precedents, except they are formally invited to overrule themselves. In none of these cases have the Supreme Court been invited to overrule its previous positions on those issues.

    “Looking at the issue from the surface, one may query why it appears the Supreme Court is giving a stamp of authority to what INEC did. But you should know that what happens on the field is different from what happen in the courtroom.

    “Sometime, you could field your star witness and when he gets to the witness box, he messes you up.  He messes up the entire case. But, the man on the street, who did not know what happened within the courtroom, thinks that these things actually happened, why is this particular decision being reached this way?

    “So, that is the best explanation I can give. I do not think the Supreme Court has decidedly resolved to toe a particular line by refusing to remove a sitting governor, or so. I believe that when a strong case is made, the court will decide otherwise,” Hon said.

    On the argument that there is little a petitioner could do within the few days allocated to him within the 180 days the tribunal has to determine a petition, Hon argued for the need to review this provision to allow parties sufficient time to present cases.

  • Ekiti bans manual labour at school hours

    Ekiti State government has outlawed manual labour by pupils of public primary and secondary schools during school hours.

    The academic session starts today.

    In the past, pupils used the first week to cut grasses and clear bushes on the premises, which made many of them to stay away.

    A statement yesterday by the Commissioner for Education, Science and Technology, Mr. Jide Egunjobi, said academic work was expected to begin on resumption day, adding that “there will be no cutting of grasses, except during break or after school hours.”

    The statement said public schools had been directed to engage in agriculture, noting that holding of inter-house sports must not extend beyond first term.

    Stressing that the government had increased the war against truancy, cult activities, lateness and examination malpractices, the statement said it had directed schools to complete JSS3 and SSS3 syllabuses by the end of second term to ensure revision in third term.

    The commissioner urged stakeholders, including parents, guardians, teachers and pupils to complement government’s efforts at restoring education to its pride of place.