There are mainly two grounds on which a candidate can go to an election tribunal,that is by claiming electoral malpractices or by alleging wrongful collation at the collation centre.the parameters for proving electoral are difficult to meet,it is a huge and almost impossible task.it must be done polling unit by polling unit,voters and polling agents from all the units must be called to testify and the evidences must be proven beyond reasonable doubt and also show show how this will affect the outcome of the result.the law recognizes that elections are not perfect that is why the clause compliance and non compliance was added.even the supreme court acknowledges that this is near impossible in wike vs dakuku 2016 supra and udom vs umana supra...the supreme court has never upturned any guber election because of electoral malpractices.only the tribunal and appeal court have done this.

Now,it is more simpler to prove incorrect collation or computation of results.an applicant will only need to tender the polling unit result sheets and the ward result sheets and if necessary the lg result sheets.when this is done,the copy given to the police will also be crucial.it is far simpler proving wrong collation than electoral malpractices.that is how adekunle ajasin won his case in 1983..voters and unit agents are not necessarily needed...

Uzodinma before hand saw this as a clever man that he was and simply took advantage.he simply copied what ajasin did.now,according to the law,it is assumed that elections hold everywhere on election day and that everything is free and fair and regular.it is now left for an aggrieved party to prove that elections did not hold.usually,inec and the winning party are the one defending and on the side of the law.but uzodinma upturned this.he simply agreed that elections held and results were declared and that inec illegally cancelled the results in 338 units where he won overwhelmingly were not calculated.only presiding officers have the powers to cancel unit results or the courts but inec did not follow this rule.uzodinma simply predicted what inec will do and took preemptive measures.when polling results are in dispute,the copy of the police will help break the tie.see uchendu vs sekibo 2016,nnadi vs ezike 2009 supra,kakih vs Pdp... In the eyes of the law,uzodinma result sheets where legal and correct whether pdp or all parties scored zero or there was over voting.according to the evidence act 2011,where a legal document has been executed in several parts,each part is correct and needs no certification or scrutiny...all inec needed to do at the tribunal was to get the court to cancej those results by presenting the original blank copy and thoroughly examining it for errors.they didn't do this,instead they alleged forgery without any prove.forgery is a serious allegation that needs prove beyond doubt not just by mere allegations.again,they alleged that elections did not hold in those disputed units falling into the trap of electoral malpractices.instead of defending wrongful collation,they were talking about non holding of elections.they were using the formula for proving electoral malpractices instead of incorrect collation...

They now tried to correct their mistakes at the supreme court when it was too late.in law,new or fresh issues that were not raised at the lower courts cannot be raised in the apex court...therefore,uzodinma results from 338 units remain lawful since he possessed ec8a which formed a prima facie evidence.in dariyw vs frn 2015,the supreme court stated that " prima facie means establishment of a legally required rebuttable presumption "

That uzodinma took 4th does not matter.according to the electoral act,any candidate can challenge an election result whether he took 2nd or last.only the winner is barred from petitioning.the first runner up nwosu failed to prove his case plus the supreme court in another ruling disqualified him so technically,he was out araraume also failed to prove his case and was knocked out.moreover,both nwosu and araraume never claimed that they got over 300,000 votes like hope so hope had more votes eventually...

That the court declared that nwosu was apc candidate was irrelevant because he was never party or part of that case.in law,parties arw bound by their pleadings and a ruling cannot affect a non party.the case was specifically between aa vs nwosu.apc was never party to it.pdp raised that judgment at the supreme court without obtaining leave of the court and it was rightly dismissed...

Finally,hope actually got 25% in two third of imo.in another of my thread,I did the collation and discovered that he actually got 25% in 19 lgas.even in the declaratory reliefs read by JSC kekere ekun,she admitted that uzodinma satisfied the spread.

The lower courts judges totally misunderstood and misapprehended the case.they took into accounts matters in which they shouldn't have considered ans simply arrived at an erroneous conclusion.


Mynd44
Kahal
Kyase
Abduljaffet
Meleszenawi
Agboriotejoye
Zoedew
Ejimatic

Where this one from wake up again?

This abokey mugu don carry come again?

Even Hope ozodimgba knows he criminally stole Imo mandate through the abokey-run supreme court. He has never called himself an 'elected governor'. Go and verify what I have said here.

If he calls himself an elected governor during state executive meeting, everyone in that meeting will either burst into laughter or almost die trying to suppress their laughter. The bloody 419er knows he will sound like a jester.

FakeUnity:
This abokey mugu don carry come again?

Even Hope ozodimgba knows he criminally stole Imo mandate through the abokey-run supreme court. He has never called himself an 'elected governor'. Go and verify what I have said here.

If he calls himself an elected governor during state executive meeting, everyone in that meeting will either burst into laughter or almost die trying to suppress their laughter.

Please,read the above topic very well

Offorgerald15:
Where this one from wake up again?

Please sir,can you for a moment keep your hatred for apc aside and objectively peruse the post?

garfield1:


Please,read the above topic very well

Long story short- supreme abracadabra foisted Uzodinma on Imo people.

The next governor will remove his name and picture from the list of ELECTED GOVERNORS in Imo state, till we make a law mandating incumbent governors to create a list of 'Supreme court appointed' govenors and put up their pictures.



C'est fini!

FakeUnity:


Long story short- supreme abracadabra foisted Uzodinma on Imo people.

The next governor will remove his name and picture from the list of ELECTED GOVERNORS in Imo state, till we make a law mandating incumbent governors to create a list of 'Supreme court appointed' govenors and put up their pictures.



C'est fini!

Pure ipobian rubbish.swerve please

garfield1:


Pure ipobian rubbish.swerve please

E pain your zombie skull gan.

Ewu Apc- Alqaeda people's congress.

garfield1:
There are mainly two grounds on which a candidate can go to an election tribunal,that is by claiming electoral malpractices or by alleging wrongful collation at the collation centre.the parameters for proving electoral are difficult to meet,it is a huge and almost impossible task.it must be done polling unit by polling unit,voters and polling agents from all the units must be called to testify and the evidences must be proven beyond reasonable doubt and also show show how this will affect the outcome of the result.the law recognizes that elections are not perfect that is why the clause compliance and non compliance was added.even the supreme court acknowledges that this is near impossible in wike vs dakuku 2016 supra and udom vs umana supra...the supreme court has never upturned any guber election because of electoral malpractices.only the tribunal and appeal court have done this.

Now,it is more simpler to prove incorrect collation or computation of results.an applicant will only need to tender the polling unit result sheets and the ward result sheets and if necessary the lg result sheets.when this is done,the copy given to the police will also be crucial.it is far simpler proving wrong collation than electoral malpractices.that is how adekunle ajasin won his case in 1983..voters and unit agents are not necessarily needed...

Uzodinma before hand saw this as a clever man that he was and simply took advantage.he simply copied what ajasin did.now,according to the law,it is assumed that elections hold everywhere on election day and that everything is free and fair and regular.it is now left for an aggrieved party to prove that elections did not hold.usually,inec and the winning party are the one defending and on the side of the law.but uzodinma upturned this.he simply agreed that elections held and results were declared and that inec illegally cancelled the results in 338 units where he won overwhelmingly were not calculated.only presiding officers have the powers to cancel unit results or the courts but inec did not follow this rule.uzodinma simply predicted what inec will do and took preemptive measures.when polling results are in dispute,the copy of the police will help break the tie.see uchendu vs sekibo 2016,nnadi vs ezike 2009 supra,kakih vs Pdp... In the eyes of the law,uzodinma result sheets where legal and correct whether pdp or all parties scored zero or there was over voting.according to the evidence act 2011,where a legal document has been executed in several parts,each part is correct and needs no certification or scrutiny...all inec needed to do at the tribunal was to get the court to cancej those results by presenting the original blank copy and thoroughly examining it for errors.they didn't do this,instead they alleged forgery without any prove.forgery is a serious allegation that needs prove beyond doubt not just by mere allegations.again,they alleged that elections did not hold in those disputed units falling into the trap of electoral malpractices.instead of defending wrongful collation,they were talking about non holding of elections.they were using the formula for proving electoral malpractices instead of incorrect collation...

They now tried to correct their mistakes at the supreme court when it was too late.in law,new or fresh issues that were not raised at the lower courts cannot be raised in the apex court...therefore,uzodinma results from 338 units remain lawful since he possessed ec8a which formed a prima facie evidence.in dariyw vs frn 2015,the supreme court stated that " prima facie means establishment of a legally required rebuttable presumption "

That uzodinma took 4th does not matter.according to the electoral act,any candidate can challenge an election result whether he took 2nd or last.only the winner is barred from petitioning.the first runner up nwosu failed to prove his case plus the supreme court in another ruling disqualified him so technically,he was out araraume also failed to prove his case and was knocked out.moreover,both nwosu and araraume never claimed that they got over 300,000 votes like hope so hope had more votes eventually...

That the court declared that nwosu was apc candidate was irrelevant because he was never party or part of that case.in law,parties arw bound by their pleadings and a ruling cannot affect a non party.the case was specifically between aa vs nwosu.apc was never party to it.pdp raised that judgment at the supreme court without obtaining leave of the court and it was rightly dismissed...

Finally,hope actually got 25% in two third of imo.in another of my thread,I did the collation and discovered that he actually got 25% in 19 lgas.even in the declaratory reliefs read by JSC kekere ekun,she admitted that uzodinma satisfied the spread.

The lower courts judges totally misunderstood and misapprehended the case.they took into accounts matters in which they shouldn't have considered ans simply arrived at an erroneous conclusion.

Your layman explanation forgot to include that the result sheets he presented contained no other party except APC and PDP. Your explanation did not also cover the fact that some of the PU results exceeded the number of registered voters in those PUs.
Lastly, it is a lie that the tribunal court did not examine Uzodinma's evidence. They did and found it defective. Not only that, It is preposterous for a court whether SC or not to declare that an election held when INEC who is given the mandate to conduct elections claim it did not. This can also be applied to a WAEC candidate claiming to sit for WAEC in a school whereas WAEC says they did not conduct exams in that school. It makes the candidate go above the examining body. What the SC has unwittingly said is that INEC has the capacity to be partisan, a situation that is not envisaged by the same constitution they relied on. The SC was also wrong to have relied on a copy produced by the police who do not conduct elections when the body that conducts elections already declared it did not conduct any such elections.
A more important fact is that the SC itself had already disqualified Nwosu after declaring him the candidate of APC for that election. By that judgement, APC did not have a candidate for elections since the window for substitution had passed before the judgement was given and Uzodinma was never sent as a replacement for Nwosu by the APC. The primary that produced Nwosu is different from that which produced Uzodinma. So if Nwosu was disqualified, according to the electoral law, the person who came second in the congress that elected Nwosu should have become APC flagbearer.
This judgment only reminds one of the famous 2/3 judgment of the early 80s.

He won by technicalities in court, he never won an election, he has also proved so by the way imo state has become

Agboriotejoye:


Your layman explanation forgot to include that the result sheets he presented contained no other party except APC and PDP. Your explanation did not also cover the fact that some of the PU results exceeded the number of registered voters in those PUs.
Lastly, it is a lie that the tribunal court did not examine Uzodinma's evidence. They did and found it defective. Not only that, It is preposterous for a court whether SC or not to declare that an election held when INEC who is given the mandate to conduct elections claim it did not. This can also be applied to a WAEC candidate claiming to sit for WAEC in a school whereas WAEC says they did not conduct exams in that school. It makes the candidate go above the examining body. What the SC has unwittingly said is that INEC has the capacity to be partisan, a situation that is not envisaged by the same constitution they relied on. The SC was also wrong to have relied on a copy produced by the police who do not conduct elections when the body that conducts elections already declared it did not conduct any such elections.
A more important fact is that the SC itself had already disqualified Nwosu after declaring him the candidate of APC for that election. By that judgement, APC did not have a candidate for elections since the window for substitution had passed before the judgement was given and Uzodinma was never sent as a replacement for Nwosu by the APC. The primary that produced Nwosu is different from that which produced Uzodinma. So if Nwosu was disqualified, according to the electoral law, the person who came second in the congress that elected Nwosu should have become APC flagbearer.
This judgment only reminds one of the famous 2/3 judgment of the early 80s.

Let him keep avoiding the obvious.
Maybe he thinks naira land is filled with secondary school students with no brains.

very stupid and satanic comment

Agboriotejoye:
Your layman explanation forgot to include that the result sheets he presented contained no other party except APC and PDP. Your explanation did not also cover the fact that some of the PU results exceeded the number of registered voters in those PUs.

Lastly, it is a lie that the tribunal court did not examine Uzodinma's evidence. They did and found it defective. Not only that, It is preposterous for a court whether SC or not to declare that an election held when INEC who is given the mandate to conduct elections claim it did not.

This can also be applied to a WAEC candidate claiming to sit for WAEC in a school whereas WAEC says they did not conduct exams in that school. It makes the candidate go above the examining body. What the SC has unwittingly said is that INEC has the capacity to be partisan, a situation that is not envisaged by the same constitution they relied on.

The SC was also wrong to have relied on a copy produced by the police who do not conduct elections when the body that conducts elections already and also declared it did not conduct any such elections.

A more important fact is that the SC itself had already disqualified Nwosu after declaring him the candidate of APC for that election. By that judgement, APC did not have a candidate for elections since the window for substitution had passed before the judgement was given and Uzodinma was never sent as a replacement for Nwosu by the APC.

The primary that produced Nwosu is different from that which produced Uzodinma. So if Nwosu was disqualified, according to the electoral law, the person who came second in the congress that elected Nwosu should have become APC flagbearer.This judgment only reminds one of the famous 2/3 judgment of the early 80s.

Very brilliant analysis.The OP is just trying in futility to justify an illegality.The panel of justice that passed this SC ruling will forever go down in infamy.They will one day stand before the good Lord-who does not tolerate injustice to answer for this illegality.

Okay

Racoon:
"...We have an unprecedentedly total fascist takeover of the judiciary, the kind that compelled the Supreme Court to award nullified rigged votes to APC’s Hope Uzodinma even if by doing so the Supreme Court created an astonishing numerical incongruity where the Supreme Court’s final vote tally is now greater than the number of people INEC accredited to vote!..."

If you take into account the number of people accredited from the 338 units,you will get the final tally

garfield1:
There are mainly two grounds on which a candidate can go to an election tribunal,that is by claiming electoral malpractices or by alleging wrongful collation at the collation centre.the parameters for proving electoral are difficult to meet,it is a huge and almost impossible task.it must be done polling unit by polling unit,voters and polling agents from all the units must be called to testify and the evidences must be proven beyond reasonable doubt and also show show how this will affect the outcome of the result.the law recognizes that elections are not perfect that is why the clause compliance and non compliance was added.even the supreme court acknowledges that this is near impossible in wike vs dakuku 2016 supra and udom vs umana supra...the supreme court has never upturned any guber election because of electoral malpractices.only the tribunal and appeal court have done this.

Now,it is more simpler to prove incorrect collation or computation of results.an applicant will only need to tender the polling unit result sheets and the ward result sheets and if necessary the lg result sheets.when this is done,the copy given to the police will also be crucial.it is far simpler proving wrong collation than electoral malpractices.that is how adekunle ajasin won his case in 1983..voters and unit agents are not necessarily needed...

Uzodinma before hand saw this as a clever man that he was and simply took advantage.he simply copied what ajasin did.now,according to the law,it is assumed that elections hold everywhere on election day and that everything is free and fair and regular.it is now left for an aggrieved party to prove that elections did not hold.usually,inec and the winning party are the one defending and on the side of the law.but uzodinma upturned this.he simply agreed that elections held and results were declared and that inec illegally cancelled the results in 338 units where he won overwhelmingly were not calculated.only presiding officers have the powers to cancel unit results or the courts but inec did not follow this rule.uzodinma simply predicted what inec will do and took preemptive measures.when polling results are in dispute,the copy of the police will help break the tie.see uchendu vs sekibo 2016,nnadi vs ezike 2009 supra,kakih vs Pdp... In the eyes of the law,uzodinma result sheets where legal and correct whether pdp or all parties scored zero or there was over voting.according to the evidence act 2011,where a legal document has been executed in several parts,each part is correct and needs no certification or scrutiny...all inec needed to do at the tribunal was to get the court to cancej those results by presenting the original blank copy and thoroughly examining it for errors.they didn't do this,instead they alleged forgery without any prove.forgery is a serious allegation that needs prove beyond doubt not just by mere allegations.again,they alleged that elections did not hold in those disputed units falling into the trap of electoral malpractices.instead of defending wrongful collation,they were talking about non holding of elections.they were using the formula for proving electoral malpractices instead of incorrect collation...

They now tried to correct their mistakes at the supreme court when it was too late.in law,new or fresh issues that were not raised at the lower courts cannot be raised in the apex court...therefore,uzodinma results from 338 units remain lawful since he possessed ec8a which formed a prima facie evidence.in dariyw vs frn 2015,the supreme court stated that " prima facie means establishment of a legally required rebuttable presumption "

That uzodinma took 4th does not matter.according to the electoral act,any candidate can challenge an election result whether he took 2nd or last.only the winner is barred from petitioning.the first runner up nwosu failed to prove his case plus the supreme court in another ruling disqualified him so technically,he was out araraume also failed to prove his case and was knocked out.moreover,both nwosu and araraume never claimed that they got over 300,000 votes like hope so hope had more votes eventually...

That the court declared that nwosu was apc candidate was irrelevant because he was never party or part of that case.in law,parties arw bound by their pleadings and a ruling cannot affect a non party.the case was specifically between aa vs nwosu.apc was never party to it.pdp raised that judgment at the supreme court without obtaining leave of the court and it was rightly dismissed...

Finally,hope actually got 25% in two third of imo.in another of my thread,I did the collation and discovered that he actually got 25% in 19 lgas.even in the declaratory reliefs read by JSC kekere ekun,she admitted that uzodinma satisfied the spread.

The lower courts judges totally misunderstood and misapprehended the case.they took into accounts matters in which they shouldn't have considered ans simply arrived at an erroneous conclusion.


Mynd44
Kahal
Kyase
Abduljaffet
Meleszenawi
Agboriotejoye
Zoedew
Ejimatic

One question to kill all this rubbish u wrote .. according to the so called supreme Court ...who is the candidate of APC ? Hope ? LMAO answer oooh

garfield1:
If you take into account the number of people accredited from the 338 units,you will get the final tally

"....Lastly, it is a lie that the tribunal court did not examine Uzodinma's evidence. They did and found it defective. Not only that, It is preposterous for a court whether SC or not to declare that an election held when INEC who is given the mandate to conduct elections claim it did not.

This can also be applied to a WAEC candidate claiming to sit for WAEC in a school whereas WAEC says they did not conduct exams in that school. It makes the candidate go above the examining body. What the SC has unwittingly said is that INEC has the capacity to be partisan, a situation that is not envisaged by the same constitution they relied on.

The SC was also wrong to have relied on a copy produced by the police who do not conduct elections when the body that conducts elections already and also declared it did not conduct any such elections.

A more important fact is that the SC itself had already disqualified Nwosu after declaring him the candidate of APC for that election. By that judgement, APC did not have a candidate for elections since the window for substitution had passed before the judgement was given and Uzodinma was never sent as a replacement for Nwosu by the APC...."(Credits: Agboriotojoye)

"The true test of a fair hearing is the impression of a reasonable person who was present at the trial whether from his observation justice has been done’”.-(Niki Tobi JSC).

Agboriotejoye:


Your layman explanation forgot to include that the result sheets he presented contained no other party except APC and PDP. Your explanation did not also cover the fact that some of the PU results exceeded the number of registered voters in those PUs.
Lastly, it is a lie that the tribunal court did not examine Uzodinma's evidence. They did and found it defective. Not only that, It is preposterous for a court whether SC or not to declare that an election held when INEC who is given the mandate to conduct elections claim it did not. This can also be applied to a WAEC candidate claiming to sit for WAEC in a school whereas WAEC says they did not conduct exams in that school. It makes the candidate go above the examining body. What the SC has unwittingly said is that INEC has the capacity to be partisan, a situation that is not envisaged by the same constitution they relied on. The SC was also wrong to have relied on a copy produced by the police who do not conduct elections when the body that conducts elections already declared it did not conduct any such elections.
A more important fact is that the SC itself had already disqualified Nwosu after declaring him the candidate of APC for that election. By that judgement, APC did not have a candidate for elections since the window for substitution had passed before the judgement was given and Uzodinma was never sent as a replacement for Nwosu by the APC. The primary that produced Nwosu is different from that which produced Uzodinma. So if Nwosu was disqualified, according to the electoral law, the person who came second in the congress that elected Nwosu should have become APC flagbearer.
This judgment only reminds one of the famous 2/3 judgment of the early 80s.

You are making the same mistake the lower court made.did the other parties excluded from that results complain? Pdp or inec cannot complain for them,sorry.in the absence of any other counter sheet,the available sheet remain lawful no matter the defect.moreover,result sheets that were riddled with over voting were less than 20...the supreme court did not invent laws or assume,it simply followed the law and age long precedents.doing otherwise amounts to illegality.inec's word or statement cannot be taken hook,line and sinker.since it alleged forgery and no holding of elections,it must go through the stress parties go through and it failed to prove it.
The constitution envisaged that inec cannot be perfect and elections will not be totally free and fair that is why it set a minimum standard at substantial compliance.inec is being accused of cheating.because it is the electoral body,the court should believe her automatically? No.the right thing to do according to precedent is to call for the police copy which is recognised by the electoral act.

You are treating the matter as a regular case of violence,electoral malpractice just as the lower courts did.it is totally different.the electoral act has already set out prerequisites for proving and defending incorrect collation.

I already told you that apc and hope were never party to the case that disq nwosu.again,the matter was never raised at the lower courts but was raised as a fresh matter at the apex court without leave of court rendering it illegal...

In all,the apex court followed the law.if you have any misgivings, call for an amendment

Racoon:
"....Lastly, it is a lie that the tribunal court did not examine Uzodinma's evidence. They did and found it defective. Not only that, It is preposterous for a court whether SC or not to declare that an election held when INEC who is given the mandate to conduct elections claim it did not.

This can also be applied to a WAEC candidate claiming to sit for WAEC in a school whereas WAEC says they did not conduct exams in that school. It makes the candidate go above the examining body. What the SC has unwittingly said is that INEC has the capacity to be partisan, a situation that is not envisaged by the same constitution they relied on.

The SC was also wrong to have relied on a copy produced by the police who do not conduct elections when the body that conducts elections already and also declared it did not conduct any such elections.

A more important fact is that the SC itself had already disqualified Nwosu after declaring him the candidate of APC for that election. By that judgement, APC did not have a candidate for elections since the window for substitution had passed before the judgement was given and Uzodinma was never sent as a replacement for Nwosu by the APC...."(Credits: Agboriotojoye)

"The true test of a fair hearing is the impression of a reasonable person who was present at the trial whether from his observation justice has been done’”.-(Niki Tobi JSC).

The judgment was unanimous.stop coying and pasting robotically

mrvitalis:

One question to kill all this rubbish u wrote .. according to the so called supreme Court ...who is the candidate of APC ? Hope ? LMAO answer oooh

You are a reasonable fellow,dont disappoint me.the law recognizes hope as the candidate of apc,apc recognises hope.who are you to say otherwise? Pdp raised the issue of hope's candidacy when it was too late in the day.they should have started at the tribunal or at worst appeal.the apex court has no original jurisdiction in election matters and that issue of candidacy was already overtaken by events

garfield1:


You are a reasonable fellow,dont disappoint me.the law recognizes hope as the candidate of apc,apc recognises hope.who are you to say otherwise? Pdp raised the issue of hope's candidacy when it was too late in the day.they should have started at the tribunal or at worst appeal.the apex court has no original jurisdiction in election matters and that issue of candidacy was already overtaken by events

Ok supreme Court recognized roachas inlaw as APC candidate then disqualified him for being candidates of two political parties

Was that not the judgement ? So where did hope become the Candidate from

mrvitalis:

Ok supreme Court recognized roachas inlaw as APC candidate then disqualified him for being candidates of two political parties

Was that not the judgement ? So where did hope become the Candidate from

Understand the issues at hand.both faction held different factions,that which produced uzodinma was more legal and recognised by nwc of apc.two high courts legitimized each factions.nobody appealed from apc.a faction of nwosu party aa then took him to court saying his candidacy was invalid since a high court declared that he was apc candidate.they refused to produce the judgment of another court which recognized hope...can you see the mischief? The supreme court was misled to rule and apc was never a party to that case.uzodinma was never disq therefore his candidacy remained untouched.moreover in that nwosu primary,hope came 2nd..

Moreover,only a member of a particular party can cause the invalidation of that party's candidature not an outsider

garfield1:


Understand the issues at hand.both faction held different factions,that which produced uzodinma was more legal and recognised by nwc of apc.two high courts legitimized each factions.nobody appealed from apc.a faction of nwosu party aa then took him to court saying his candidacy was invalid since a high court declared that he was apc candidate.they refused to produce the judgment of another court which recognized hope...can you see the mischief? The supreme court was misled to rule and apc was never a party to that case.uzodinma was never disq therefore his candidacy remained untouched.moreover in that nwosu primary,hope came 2nd..

Moreover,only a member of a particular party can cause the invalidation of that party's candidature not an outsider

nah oga hope didn't come second

I don't know who gave u this assignment but they robbery of supreme Court can't be explained

mrvitalis:
nah oga hope didn't come second

I don't know who gave u this assignment but they robbery of supreme Court can't be explained

Whether he came second or not doesn't matter.there is no robbery.apc won imo.no matter how I explain, you will still refuse to understsnd.your mind is made up.in future,try and be more open minded

garfield1:


Whether he came second or not doesn't matter.there is no robbery.apc won imo.no matter how I explain, you will still refuse to understsnd.your mind is made up.in future,try and be more open minded

LMAO

garfield1:



You are making the same mistake the lower court made.did the other parties excluded from that results complain? Pdp or inec cannot complain for them,sorry.in the absence of any other counter sheet,the available sheet remain lawful no matter the defect.moreover,result sheets that were riddled with over voting were less than 20...the supreme court did not invent laws or assume,it simply followed the law and age long precedents.doing otherwise amounts to illegality.inec's word or statement cannot be taken hook,line and sinker.since it alleged forgery and no holding of elections,it must go through the stress parties go through and it failed to prove it.
The constitution envisaged that inec cannot be perfect and elections will not be totally free and fair that is why it set a minimum standard at substantial compliance.inec is being accused of cheating.because it is the electoral body,the court should believe her automatically? No.the right thing to do according to precedent is to call for the police copy which is recognised by the electoral act.

You are treating the matter as a regular case of violence,electoral malpractice just as the lower courts did.it is totally different.the electoral act has already set out prerequisites for proving and defending incorrect collation.

I already told you that apc and hope were never party to the case that disq nwosu.again,the matter was never raised at the lower courts but was raised as a fresh matter at the apex court without leave of court rendering it illegal...

In all,the apex court followed the law.if you have any misgivings, call for an amendment

That your first statement just off me. Who verifies election results? Is it the parties, the police or INEC? Between INEC and the police, who is well placed to be impartial in electoral matters? The police is a part of the executive. Yet you say the Police are well placed to produce missing election results. You do realize that the electoral law says all the parties' polling agents should be given a copy of the result along with the police while INEC keeps the original copy. Next thing, only one party and the police produce the results for an election and you say that is in accordance with the law. May I ask if the police are empowered to conduct elections or declare election results? The constitution empowers INEC to ensure minimum compliance not the police. If the body saddled with ensuring minimum compliance says the election did not even hold, it bewilders one how the Police becomes a counter agency to that.

Again, even one fake result should invalidate the whole, not to mention 20. If one questionable result comes from the police, I don't see how accepting it is justified.

May I ask what amendments you feel I should ask for?

Agboriotejoye:


That your first statement just off me. Who verifies election results? Is it the parties, the police or INEC? Between INEC and the police, who is well placed to be impartial in electoral matters? The police is a part of the executive. Yet you say the Police are well placed to produce missing election results. You do realize that the electoral law says all the parties' polling agents should be given a copy of the result along with the police while INEC keeps the original copy. Next thing, only one party and the police produce the results for an election and you say that is in accordance with the law. May I ask if the police are empowered to conduct elections or declare election results? The constitution empowers INEC to ensure minimum compliance not the police. If the body saddled with ensuring minimum compliance says the election did not even hold, it bewilders one how the Police becomes a counter agency to that.

Again, even one fake result should invalidate the whole, not to mention 20. If one questionable result comes from the police, I don't see how accepting it is justified.

May I ask what amendments you feel I should ask for?

You are using commonsense or logic in judging legal matters.it is not so.these are agelong practices and precedents.there is nothing you can do about it.all I am trying to do is to educate the people that the supreme court were not bribed or manipulated,they simply followed the law.it has been so since omoboriowo vs ajasin 1983 supra.

Inec like the police are part of the executive.in rigging elections,inec are the first to be bribed even before the police.most of the malpractices works in collusion with them...
Most rigging takes place at the collation centres not at the polling units.therefore,the original copy taken by inec is usually tampered with at the collation centres hence that of the police alongside an aggrieved party copy is enough.. .
One fake result cannot invalidate all results.each polling unit is different and treated differebtly according to the law.each polling unit is unique and are treated differently.any rigging established in polling a concerns polling unit A.if you have any allegations about unit B,you establish it....

See below

[b]Based on the foregoing, what is rather clear from the state of pleadings of the parties, is that while the Appellants on the one hand, have the burden of proving the reduction, omission or exclusion of their results from collation, the Respondents on the other hand, have the burden of proving that the 388 polling unit result sheets relied upon by the Appellants are forged, having so clearly alleged the crime of forgery, which is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. See Section 135 of the Evidence Act, 2011. Case law on this subject is in their legions.

Apart from the foregoing, it is also clear that the Respondents in their Replies denied the existence of an un-collated 388 polling units’ results, which the Appellants asserted were omitted from the collated results; but what did the Appellants as Petitioners at the tribunal had to do? At the trial, the Appellants put Form EC8A issued in the said 388 polling units in issue and the Respondents did not at the hearing adduce any evidence in proof of the allegation of forgery of the said 388 polling units. In ADELAJA vs. FANOKI (1990) 2 NWLR (PT. 131) 137 @ 153, paras B – D, the apex Court, per KARIBI-WHYTE, JSC, held thus:

“…Where the complaint is that no such document exists, the proof of the existence of the document will be conclusive as to its validity, except where the person challenging the existence of the document is able to show further that the document so proved to exist is a forgery. In such a circumstance, it is well settled that the onus of such proof rests on he who alleges. See Section 137(2) Evidence Act. In such a case since a crime is alleged, the burden is on him who alleges to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. 1st Respondent having not led evidence to show that Exhibit “A” is a forgery has not discharged the burden of proof to show that Exhibit “A” is a forgery.”

Apart from the issue of failure to prove forgery, the Respondents in addition failed to comply with the provisions of Paragraph 12(2) and 15 of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2010 by pleading what they claimed to be the “genuine” results to enable the tribunal compare the two sets of results for the purpose of determining, which of the two is the authentic result from the 388 polling units. For the avoidance of any doubt, Paragraphs 12(2) and 15 of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2010, provide thus:

“12 (2): Whether the respondent in an election petition, complaining of undue return and claiming the seat or office for the petitioner intends to prove that the claim is incorrect or false, the respondent in his reply shall set out the facts and figures clearly and distinctly disproving the claim of the petitioners.

15: When a petitioner claims the seat alleging that he has the highest number of valid votes cast at the election, the party defending the election or return at the election shall set out clearly in his reply the particulars of the votes, if any, which he objects to and the reasons for his objection against such votes, showing how he intends to prove at the hearing that the petitioner is not entitled to succeed.”

In a nutshell, what paragraph 12(2) demands of a Respondent, is much more than the Reply merely joining issues with the Petitioner. It requires averring to additional facts and so does paragraph 15, which requires that a Respondent shall specifically state as follows:

(i) the particulars of votes he objects to;

(ii) the reason or reasons for his objection against such votes; and

(iii) show how he intends to establish at the trial that the Petitioner was not entitled to succeed or be returned.

Given the above state of pleadings and the fact that issue was only joined on whether or not the Respondents excluded scores due to the Appellants from 388 polling units and not on whether election took place in those units, there is no gainsaying the fact that the trial tribunal was in a grave misconception of the dispute it was invited to resolve between the parties when it held:

“So how can the Petitioners prove this unlawful exclusion of results in the said 388 polling units … if the polling units’ agents of the stated polling units were not called to testify as to the facts that election did take place in their respective polling units …”
(Under lined, mine for emphasis).

From the above passage, to suggest that the tribunal did not misconceived Appellants’ case as one questioning the holding of election at unit levels is to merely beg the question. Based on the state of pleadings before the tribunal, it is at once clear that the Appellants’ case did not challenge the holding of election or otherwise at units and that Respondents did not also make non-holding of election an issue in their respective Replies; but rather that the issue joined was on exclusion of unit results (Form EC8A) from Ward Collated Results (Form EC8B) and for which proof was only required of what is in issue and not otherwise. See the case of YAKASSAI vs. INCAR MOTORS (NIG) LTD (1975) LPELR-3509 (SC) where the apex Court had this to say on the subject:

“The law is that in all civil matters where pleadings are filed, the Court should only consider matters in respect of which issues have been joined by the parties in their pleadings. We think that unless the pleadings are amended it is not open to the Court to introduce fresh issues, which do not arise from the pleadings, as that course of action would tend to defeat the very purpose for which pleadings are requested in civil matters.”

The trite position of the law is that pleadings are the pillars upon which a party’s case is founded and they form the parameters of a party’s case at the trial Court. Parties, as well as the Courts are bound by the parties’ pleadings and neither the Court nor the parties can go outside the pleadings. See the case of ANYAFULU & ORS vs. MEKA & ORS (2014) LPELR- 22336, where the apex Court, once again per KEKERE-EKUN, JSC Pp. 34 – 35; paras. E – A, had this to say:

“Litigation is fought on pleadings. They are the pillars upon which a party’s case is founded. Not only do they give the other side notice of the case they are to meet at the trial, they also define the parameters of the case. In other words, parties are bound by their pleadings…See: Nwokorobia vs. Nwogu (2009) 10 NWLR (1150) 553; Shell B. P. vs. Abedi (1974) 1 SC 23; Ebosie vs. Phil-Ebosie (1976) 7 SC 119; George vs. Dominion Flour Mill Ltd. (1963) 1 ALL NLR 71.”

Again, in OYEWUSI & ORS vs. OLAGBAMI & ORS (2018) LPELR- 44906, per KEKERE-EKUN, JSC Pp, 27 – 28, paras. F – B, the Supreme Court held as follows:

“Another important principle of law is that both the parties and the Court are bound by the pleadings filed in a particular suit. The parties cannot go outside their pleadings to introduce evidence nor can the Court go outside the pleadings to decide the issues in controversy in the matter. It is equally trite that evidence given on facts not pleaded goes to no issue.”
[/b]

Concerning copies of result sheets given to the police,see below

[b]The evidential value of copies of election results given to Police Officers during election was underscored by this Court in NNADI vs. EZIKE (1999) 10 NWLR (PT. 622) 229 at 238 paras D-G where it was held:

“In my considered view, Forms given to Police Security cum observers at the polling booth as directed by the provisions of paragraph 34 of Schedule 4 to Decree No. 5 of 1999, constitute an internal solid in-built control mechanism or measure designed to unravel unlawful cancellations, alterations, mutilations and jogging of figures during elections. I agree completely with J.H.C. Okolo, Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, that such result as produced by the Police are the best and tenable available source to test the veracity of the party’s contentions on the issue of what in fact were the actual scores made by the contending parties. To jettison the Forms given to the Police under any guise is like throwing discretion to the winds as it were…”

It will be important to note that Paragraph 33 of Schedule 4 of Decree NO.5 of 1999 is in pari-materia with Section 63(3) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) and paragraph 22(c) (vi) of INEC Guidelines for 2019 General Elections. The said Section 63(3) of the Electoral Act 2010 provides thus:

“63(3): The Presiding Officer shall give to the polling agents and police officer, where available a copy each of the completed forms after it has been duly signed as provided in subsection (2) of this section.”[/b]

garfield1:


You are using commonsense or logic in judging legal matters.it is not so.these are agelong practices and precedents.there is nothing you can do about it.all I am trying to do is to educate the people that the supreme court were not bribed or manipulated,they simply followed the law.it has been so since omoboriowo vs ajasin 1983 supra.

Inec like the police are part of the executive.in rigging elections,inec are the first to be bribed even before the police.most of the malpractices works in collusion with them...
Most rigging takes place at the collation centres not at the polling units.therefore,the original copy taken by inec is usually tampered with at the collation centres hence that of the police alongside an aggrieved party copy is enough.. .
One fake result cannot invalidate all results.each polling unit is different and treated differebtly according to the law.each polling unit is unique and are treated differently.any rigging established in polling a concerns polling unit A.if you have any allegations about unit B,you establish it....

See below

[b]Based on the foregoing, what is rather clear from the state of pleadings of the parties, is that while the Appellants on the one hand, have the burden of proving the reduction, omission or exclusion of their results from collation, the Respondents on the other hand, have the burden of proving that the 388 polling unit result sheets relied upon by the Appellants are forged, having so clearly alleged the crime of forgery, which is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. See Section 135 of the Evidence Act, 2011. Case law on this subject is in their legions.

Apart from the foregoing, it is also clear that the Respondents in their Replies denied the existence of an un-collated 388 polling units’ results, which the Appellants asserted were omitted from the collated results; but what did the Appellants as Petitioners at the tribunal had to do? At the trial, the Appellants put Form EC8A issued in the said 388 polling units in issue and the Respondents did not at the hearing adduce any evidence in proof of the allegation of forgery of the said 388 polling units. In ADELAJA vs. FANOKI (1990) 2 NWLR (PT. 131) 137 @ 153, paras B – D, the apex Court, per KARIBI-WHYTE, JSC, held thus:

“…Where the complaint is that no such document exists, the proof of the existence of the document will be conclusive as to its validity, except where the person challenging the existence of the document is able to show further that the document so proved to exist is a forgery. In such a circumstance, it is well settled that the onus of such proof rests on he who alleges. See Section 137(2) Evidence Act. In such a case since a crime is alleged, the burden is on him who alleges to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. 1st Respondent having not led evidence to show that Exhibit “A” is a forgery has not discharged the burden of proof to show that Exhibit “A” is a forgery.”

Apart from the issue of failure to prove forgery, the Respondents in addition failed to comply with the provisions of Paragraph 12(2) and 15 of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2010 by pleading what they claimed to be the “genuine” results to enable the tribunal compare the two sets of results for the purpose of determining, which of the two is the authentic result from the 388 polling units. For the avoidance of any doubt, Paragraphs 12(2) and 15 of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2010, provide thus:

“12 (2): Whether the respondent in an election petition, complaining of undue return and claiming the seat or office for the petitioner intends to prove that the claim is incorrect or false, the respondent in his reply shall set out the facts and figures clearly and distinctly disproving the claim of the petitioners.

15: When a petitioner claims the seat alleging that he has the highest number of valid votes cast at the election, the party defending the election or return at the election shall set out clearly in his reply the particulars of the votes, if any, which he objects to and the reasons for his objection against such votes, showing how he intends to prove at the hearing that the petitioner is not entitled to succeed.”

In a nutshell, what paragraph 12(2) demands of a Respondent, is much more than the Reply merely joining issues with the Petitioner. It requires averring to additional facts and so does paragraph 15, which requires that a Respondent shall specifically state as follows:

(i) the particulars of votes he objects to;

(ii) the reason or reasons for his objection against such votes; and

(iii) show how he intends to establish at the trial that the Petitioner was not entitled to succeed or be returned.

Given the above state of pleadings and the fact that issue was only joined on whether or not the Respondents excluded scores due to the Appellants from 388 polling units and not on whether election took place in those units, there is no gainsaying the fact that the trial tribunal was in a grave misconception of the dispute it was invited to resolve between the parties when it held:

“So how can the Petitioners prove this unlawful exclusion of results in the said 388 polling units … if the polling units’ agents of the stated polling units were not called to testify as to the facts that election did take place in their respective polling units …”
(Under lined, mine for emphasis).

From the above passage, to suggest that the tribunal did not misconceived Appellants’ case as one questioning the holding of election at unit levels is to merely beg the question. Based on the state of pleadings before the tribunal, it is at once clear that the Appellants’ case did not challenge the holding of election or otherwise at units and that Respondents did not also make non-holding of election an issue in their respective Replies; but rather that the issue joined was on exclusion of unit results (Form EC8A) from Ward Collated Results (Form EC8B) and for which proof was only required of what is in issue and not otherwise. See the case of YAKASSAI vs. INCAR MOTORS (NIG) LTD (1975) LPELR-3509 (SC) where the apex Court had this to say on the subject:

“The law is that in all civil matters where pleadings are filed, the Court should only consider matters in respect of which issues have been joined by the parties in their pleadings. We think that unless the pleadings are amended it is not open to the Court to introduce fresh issues, which do not arise from the pleadings, as that course of action would tend to defeat the very purpose for which pleadings are requested in civil matters.”

The trite position of the law is that pleadings are the pillars upon which a party’s case is founded and they form the parameters of a party’s case at the trial Court. Parties, as well as the Courts are bound by the parties’ pleadings and neither the Court nor the parties can go outside the pleadings. See the case of ANYAFULU & ORS vs. MEKA & ORS (2014) LPELR- 22336, where the apex Court, once again per KEKERE-EKUN, JSC Pp. 34 – 35; paras. E – A, had this to say:

“Litigation is fought on pleadings. They are the pillars upon which a party’s case is founded. Not only do they give the other side notice of the case they are to meet at the trial, they also define the parameters of the case. In other words, parties are bound by their pleadings…See: Nwokorobia vs. Nwogu (2009) 10 NWLR (1150) 553; Shell B. P. vs. Abedi (1974) 1 SC 23; Ebosie vs. Phil-Ebosie (1976) 7 SC 119; George vs. Dominion Flour Mill Ltd. (1963) 1 ALL NLR 71.”

Again, in OYEWUSI & ORS vs. OLAGBAMI & ORS (2018) LPELR- 44906, per KEKERE-EKUN, JSC Pp, 27 – 28, paras. F – B, the Supreme Court held as follows:

“Another important principle of law is that both the parties and the Court are bound by the pleadings filed in a particular suit. The parties cannot go outside their pleadings to introduce evidence nor can the Court go outside the pleadings to decide the issues in controversy in the matter. It is equally trite that evidence given on facts not pleaded goes to no issue.”
[/b]

Ok. Let us agree together that 20 results are false. Let the 20 results be removed and check out who wins.

I still don't understand how the same SC who pronounced Nwosu the valid candidate of APC and then disqualified him turns around to declare Hope of the APC validly elected. It used to be said that you cannot probate and reprobate?!

And what is law with no logic

The legal practice itself is founded on common law which is based on common practice so what exactly are you on about? Can you share the philosophy behind law?

Agboriotejoye:


Ok. Let us agree together that 20 results are false. Let the 20 results be removed and check out who wins.

I still don't understand how the same SC who pronounced Nwosu the valid candidate of APC and then disqualified him turns around to declare Hope of the APC validly elected. It used to be said that you cannot probate and reprobate?!

And what is law with no logic

The legal practice itself is founded on common law which is based on common practice so what exactly are you on about? Can you share the philosophy behind law?

The faulty results were even less than 20.they were from eziama 008,umuopu hall,umuozu townhall,umuchoko sec sch,umunkwo 013,umuopara unit 2,obudi/aro,umusa PRI school,eziama 006.they totalled 7456.remove that number from 310,000 yourself.

I already discussed the candidacy issue in Garfield vs mrvitalis 27/9/2021..but for purpose of emphasis,matters arising from a party primaries can only be taken to court by a candidate who participated in that primary.matters of apc primaries can only he petitioned by those who contested.any decision taken outside this is null.again,apc were not a party to the very case between nwosu vs Aa.it did not concerned them.again, the judge never disqualified uzodinma.he only said nwosu was candidate of apc to reemphasize his double candidature which is illegal according to the electoral act.in the eyes of the law,he was never a candidate of apc nor AA.moreover,this ruling was academic and overtaken by events.

Concerning the parameters in proving exclusion of results,see below



[b]Against the backdrop of the forgoing, it would be appropriate to note that had the tribunal properly appreciated the issue joined between the parties, it would have been clear to it that a complaint of exclusion of results is proved by the:

1. Tendering of Forms EC8A, which were excluded;

2. Tendering of Forms EC8B from which the results in Form EC8A were excluded:

3. Testimony of PW1 – PW54 and;

4. Positive evidence elicited from the Respondents’ witnesses RW1– RW5.

The trial tribunal would also have been guided by the decision in NWOBODO vs. ONOH (Supra); OMOBORIOWO vs. AJASIN (Supra); UDUMA vs. ARUNSI (Supra) and especially the more recent decision of this Court in SEKIBO vs. UCHENDU (Supra), where it was the Petitioner who tendered polling unit results from 1,632 polling units. It is settled law that where the decision of a trial Court is shown, as in the instant case to be perverse, it becomes a bounden duty of the Appellate Court to allow the Appeal and set aside the perverse decision. See UDENGWU vs. UZUEGBU (Supra) and LADEJOBI vs. OGUNTAYO (Supra)

[/b]


Look at the brilliant summary from justice Fred oho...

[b]It is clear that from the state of the pleadings of the parties, while the Appellants had the burden of proving the reduction, omission or exclusion of their results from collation, the Respondents had the burden of proving that the 388 polling unit result sheets relied upon by the Appellants are forged. From the printed records, to therefore suggest that the Appellants succeeded to the hilt in discharging the burden of proof placed on them with regards to the exclusion of results, is to state the obvious. This is against the backdrop of the fact that the Respondents who alleged forgery, a criminal offence, woefully failed to adduce any scintilla of evidence in proof of the allegation. As if this was not enough, at the hearing of the Petition, the Respondents failed to comply with the provisions of paragraph 12 (2) and 15 of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act by pleading what they claimed to be the “genuine” results to enable the Tribunal compare the two sets of results for the purpose of determining, which of the two sets of results was the authentic result from the 388 polling units, since the Respondents disputed the authenticity of the results tendered before the tribunal.

The consequence of neglect to, or failure to comply with the provisions of paragraphs 12(2) and 15 of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2010 is that the 388 polling unit results tendered by the Appellants are deemed not challenged or controverted. See AGAGU & ORS vs. MIMIKO & ORS (2009) LPELR 21149 (CA); HASSAN vs. TUMU [1999] 10 NWLR (PT. 624) 700, 710, and 712.

Having taken a very careful consideration of the state of pleadings of the parties, the evidence adduced before the tribunal, it is clear that for the Appellants succeeded in establishing their entitlement to the main reliefs sought in their Petition and I so hold. This Appeal hereby succeeds per force and it is accordingly allowed.[/b]


More on the police copy

[b]It is beyond argument or debate that the Petition and the Replies to the Petition were basically grounded on Form EC8A all the parties pleaded and listed the polling unit results. They are therefore relevant to the resolution of the issues in dispute in the Petition. The police copies are particularly relevant and admissible where as in this case, the Respondents raised the issue of the authenticity of the results in their pleadings. The copies given to the police are in those circumstances relevant and tenable to test the veracity of the parties’ contention on the issue of what in fact transpired.

Once again in the case of NNADI vs. EZIKE (Supra), the importance of Police copies of election results has received a boost and its prominence highlighted when this Court had this to say on the subject:

“The tribunal had a duty to do even justice between the parties; shun of all unnecessary technicalities. The tribunal should have aimed at doing substantial justice to unearth the truth of the matter. This should have indeed, impelled the admissibility of those returns as necessary and indispensable tool in the process of its determination even if the returns were not pleaded. I strongly feel that the trial tribunal goofed in rejecting the Police returns. I don’t want to say that it committed a serious blunder. The rejection of Police returns is completely out of order. And so for the purpose of this appeal I shall deal with them as returns 1 – 56 both inclusive. I according rectify the trial tribunal’s error. See the case of NAB Ltd vs. Shuaibu (1991) 14 NWLR (Pt. 186) 450 vide Order 1 r 20 subparagraph 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules 1981: ‘The Court shall have power to draw inference of facts and to give any judgment and make any order which ought to have been given or made and or make such further or other orders as the case may require; including any order as to cost…I shall now look at the effect of the wrong rejection Returns 1 -56 both inclusive. In deed to balance them with returns tendered by the Petitioners on the one hand and those tendered by the Respondents on the other hand.”[/b]