Yesterday all the Parties to the Tribunal adopt their written final addresses.

The Panel Judge thereafter adjourned for later date to deliver judgement.

What we'll consider here is a dissect on Atiku ground of appeal at the Tribunal.

Join us as we move on

From the final address of Buhari/APC/INEC, it’s clear that they have a shockingly misguided view of how substantial non-compliance is proven, very shocky

In their position, they went on and on about how large the entire Nigeria is.

Buhari/APC lawyers assumed that to prove substantial non-compliance in the petition challenging the flawed and fraudulent February 23 Presidential election, Atiku had to prove non-compliance in every single Polling Unit across the country to make it substantial.

What they failed to realized is that Atiku’s legal team led by Dr. Livy Uzoukwu had ambushed them with the agreement to conduct the proceedings within a certain time - 10 days for PDP/Atiku, 5 each for each of Buhari, APC and INEC - they expected the time was short for Atiku.

The ambush snuck in from the PDP angle was that they agreed that nobody would object to evidence being tendered from the bar - rather than through witnesses.

In almost every election petition that succeeded in Nigeria - all the petitioner has done was to prove substantial non-compliance in the places where the other side won the elections massively; Buhari/APC/INEC were badly misguided in expecting PDP to prove it everywhere.

Atiku’s legal team also played on them calling up and submitting electoral documents from every PU before the election, making the other side believe this was to compare the manually collated results with the electronically collated ones; but then shifting to just 12 states.

So basically, the results challenged at the PEPT by the Atiku team are from states where Buhari was allocated massive votes:

Bauchi
Borno
Gombe
Jigawa
Kaduna
Kano
Katsina
Kebbi
Nasarawa
Niger
Yobe and
Zamfara.

APC failes to take note of even their own various court cases at the various levels.


Here are some few of those states

OYINLOLA VS AREGBESOLA

In upturning the election of Olagunsoye Oyinlola, the courts cancelled 10 LGAs which were PDP strongholds (Osogbo and Ife areas) and declared Aregbesola winner based on the 20 remaining LGAs where his party had won massively.

Substantial non-compliance wasn’t proven across Osun.

OSUNBO VS OSHIOMOLE

In upturning Osunbor’s election in Edo, Oshiomhole only had to prove substantial non-compliance in PDP strongholds that had returned huge votes for Osunbor - 10 out of 18, votes were deducted and Oshiomhole declared winner on the basis of results that complied with the EA.

FAYEMI VS SEGUN ONI

In declaring Fayemi as Ekiti Governor over Segun Oni who has been declared by INEC, the courts again did not go for substantial non-compliance on the entire Ekiti, Ido-Osi and Efon Alaaye - where PDP had won massively were deducted, Fayemi declared winner after the deductions.

MIMIKO Vs AGAGU.

Funny enough Olanipekun Was Mimiko Lead Counsel

10 LGAs (mainly the Ilaje areas) where Agagu had won were cancelled for irregularities (substantial non-compliance), 7 where Mimiko won were left intact and one other.

OBASANJO VS BUHARI

Buhari’s first contest against Obasanjo irregularities were proven in Ogun, which was then cancelled but not established in other states so Ogun was cancelled but OBJ still won on the balance.

AJASIN Vs Omoboriowo 1983

Substantial non-compliance was proven from Omoboriowo’s Ekiti strongholds, which FEDECO then failed to defend,

Ajasin’s stronghold were left intact which NPN failed to challenge; and Ajasin was declared the winner after the subtractions were made.

What Buhari/APC/INEC were expecting was that Atiku would attempt to prove substantial non-compliance across Nigeria, this was their point of arguement from their final addresses confirm this.

What PDP did was to challenge results from where Buhari won massively and then INEC made a mistake.

INEC failed to defend the results it declared from those places, they only tried to probe weaknesses in testimony from PDP witnesses but called not even one person to affirm their own result.

In the final address, Atiku’s legal team calls up a strong authority to affirm this.


The smart legal option in cases where election petitions failed is that the person being challenged usually counter-challenges results from the challenger’s strongholds also or at least defends its own strongholds vigorously.

Neither INEC nor APC did this in this case.

On the burden of proof claimed by Buhari/APC/INEC lawyers,

However Atiku/PDP as the petitioners are to prove their case but established precedence in these cases is that the burden of proof shifts from side to side until one outweighs the other.

In other words: if I alleged that some Nairaland Mod are partial and partisans, I have to prove it.

Even if my proof is shabby documents and shaky testimonies from witnesses but then then the Alleged Mod fails to call his own witnesses to counter mine or present any counter-evidence, my margin of victory is very high.

In this instance: INEC did not call a single witness to debunk any assertion made by PDP/Atiku - even if the documents presented were weak, even if the oral testimonies were shabby, INEC/Buhari/APC did not present solid counters.

And there’s again strong precedence on this as seen from the final address of Atiku.

one of the cases cited is Buhari’s case against Obasanjo’s election in 2003 which was decided on in 2005.

This is another failure from Inec

On wrong collation of results

The INEC EC8 forms are the official forms for collation of results at various levels of an election.

In essence the following we're used:

Form EC8A - for Polling Unit
Form EC8B - for ward collation
Form EC8C - for LGA
Form EC8D - for State and
Form EC8E for National collation.


What Atiku/PDP allege and prove is that during the manual collation, figures were added to Buhari/APC votes in those states mentioned, and subtracted from Atiku’s votes.

And these are easily seen with mere observation of the forms from various levels of collation.


That is to say in adding together the votes from the form EC8A for the several PUs in a Ward, INEC officers wrongly and illegally inflated Buhari votes and subtracted Atiku’s own, these were shown for some EC8As, EC8Bs and EC8Cs of 10 states (excluding Zamfara).

For some of those forms, they were not stamped or signed by the Presiding Officer (as required by law), some were obviously manipulated.

So, Atiku is asking for cancellation and deduction of those votes: both for PDP and APC, based on non-compliance.

The maths was presented:

All that Atiku was able to proved in those states was that 1,740,850 to be removed from Atiku’s votes in those states, 5,686,781 to be removed from Buhari’s votes.

Then to Zamfara where INEC didn’t release all copies of the results and PDP had to rely on pink copies from its own agents in the field.

After these deduction, PDP leads.

From the foregoing, it is ebident therefore that the failure of INEC to defend the figures they announced from those states by calling their officers who conducted the election, and what PDP has presented, Atiku is having a strong case

APC/INEC/BUHARI were expecting PDP to come with only the e-collated results from the servers which existence INEC then decided to deny completely by claiming not to even have a server at all.

But PDP came and proved that with their own manual collation, wrong addition gives Atiku victory.


In addition of course PDP brought the server results also

For now

1. Buhari did ot qualify on false declaration of result under oath.

2. Buhari not having the required certificate

3. Non compliance on the part of inec to EA

4. Wrong computation of Manual form EC8 from Polling unit to national collation

5.....loading

Cc: tuniski, ChristianNorth, deji68, fergie, johnnyessencex BERNIMOORE, Ratello

You are becoming desperate.why not rest? You didsame during adeleke case and failed woefully.adeleke even had a stronger case but failed.how many threads do you want to open on this case? Is it insomnia that is driving you? Please go and sleep and stop disturbing people.
Cc afamed,yarimo,doyin2,ejimatic

engineerboat:
APC failes to take note of even their own various court cases at the various levels.


Here are some few of those states

You see that you are empty.those cases cited were all in the old dispensation when election cases stopped qt the appeal court.from 2014 when cases get to supreme court,have you seen the supreme court upheld any of those appeal court rulings? have you seen the supreme court upturn any election? Better respect yourself.
Atiku lawyers proved that the elections complied substantially with the electoral act so stop wallowing in self deceit

engineerboat:
OBASANJO VS BUHARI

Buhari’s first contest against Obasanjo irregularities were proven in Ogun, which was then cancelled but not established in other states so Ogun was cancelled but OBJ still won on the balance.

This case will go the same way

engineerboat:
AJASIN Vs Omoboriowo 1983

Substantial non-compliance was proven from Omoboriowo’s Ekiti strongholds, which FEDECO then failed to defend,

Ajasin’s stronghold were left intact which NPN failed to challenge; and Ajasin was declared the winner after the subtractions were made.

Obsolete

engineerboat:
What Buhari/APC/INEC were expecting was that Atiku would attempt to prove substantial non-compliance across Nigeria, this was their point of arguement from their final addresses confirm this.

What PDP did was to challenge results from where Buhari won massively and then INEC made a mistake.

INEC failed to defend the results it declared from those places, they only tried to probe weaknesses in testimony from PDP witnesses but called not even one person to affirm their own result.

In the final address, Atiku’s legal team calls up a strong authority to affirm this.


The smart legal option in cases where election petitions failed is that the person being challenged usually counter-challenges results from the challenger’s strongholds also or at least defends its own strongholds vigorously.

Neither INEC nor APC did this in this case.

Inec does not need to defend anything afterwards atiku proved nothing.you just like atiku's lawyers are not smart.counter challenging results in areas where atiku won only reinforces the case of the petitioner that the elections were not free and fair.
The weaknesses found in atiku's case is enough and will settle the matter

engineerboat:
On wrong collation of results

The INEC EC8 forms are the official forms for collation of results at various levels of an election.

In essence the following we're used:

Form EC8A - for Polling Unit
Form EC8B - for ward collation
Form EC8C - for LGA
Form EC8D - for State and
Form EC8E for National collation.


What Atiku/PDP allege and prove is that during the manual collation, figures were added to Buhari/APC votes in those states mentioned, and subtracted from Atiku’s votes.

And these are easily seen with mere observation of the forms from various levels of collation.


That is to say in adding together the votes from the form EC8A for the several PUs in a Ward, INEC officers wrongly and illegally inflated Buhari votes and subtracted Atiku’s own, these were shown for some EC8As, EC8Bs and EC8Cs of 10 states (excluding Zamfara).

For some of those forms, they were not stamped or signed by the Presiding Officer (as required by law), some were obviously manipulated.

So, Atiku is asking for cancellation and deduction of those votes: both for PDP and APC, based on non-compliance.

The maths was presented:

This is balderdash,rubbish,hogwash.these were not from the form ec8a but from the electronic copy of atiku's server result.none of these copies or samples were shown to the court or demonstrated before the court during the witness testimonies,they were simply dumped on the court.no judge will go through all these hogwash.moreover,atiku and his witnesses have contradicted themselves in several fronts.

engineerboat:
For now

1. Buhari did ot qualify on false declaration of result under oath.

2. Buhari not having the required certificate

3. Non compliance on the part of inec to EA

4. Wrong computation of Manual form EC8 from Polling unit to national collation

5.....loading

Buhari is qualified to contest elections

Atiku never alleged forgery and bihari has successfully proved that he's educated up to school cert level

The results were correctly computed and collated.

Atiku clearly failed to prove that hes a nigerian citizen by birth

He failed to reply to apc application that his case will be struck out

He will lose without even the judges hearing the main case.up buhari,down Atiku

engineerboat:
From the final address of Buhari/APC/INEC, it’s clear that they have a shockingly misguided view of how substantial non-compliance is proven, very shocky

In their position, they went on and on about how large the entire Nigeria is.

Wole Olanipekun and Fagbemi have a misguided view of how substantial non-compliance is proven??

Continue fooling yourself.

The All Progressives Congress (APC) and its 2019 presidential candidate, President Muhammadu Buhari, on Wednesday, August 21, informed the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal (PEPT) that Atiku Abubakar has not denied claims by the party that he is not Nigerian.

Making their final submissions before the tribunal the APC and President Buhari prayed the court to dismiss petition by Abubakar and the Peoples Democratic Party against the results of the 2019 presidential election, Igbere TV reports.

Speaking before the tribunal, counsel to the president, Wole Olanipekun, said the petition brought before the tribunal by the PDP and Atiku failed to lead any reasonable evidence to support their claim.

Olanipekun said the petitioners who have claimed that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had a server with which it worked with to deliver the election results, they have failed to identify it and show the court where it is located.

Also speaking, Lateef Fagbemi, counsel to the APC said all issues raised against Atiku’s qualification to contest for allegedly not being a Nigerian by birth, were not challenged by either Atiku himself or the PDP. “On the qualification of the first petitioners (Atiku). In spite of all we put before the court, they provided nothing to the contrary."

“What we need is minimal proof. Nothing was put forward in the petitioners’ written address to counter this. And, I must commend them, because they have nothing to offer," Fagbemi said. He said the third respondent has discharge the burden on that and that the issue of the 1st petitioner’s non-qualification is effectively dealt with in the APC's written address.

“To fault INEC’s position, they have the burden to show substantial non-compliance. They failed to do this. The implication therefore, is that there was substantial compliance with the Electoral Act in the conduct of the last presidential election,”‎ Fagbemi added.

https://www.legit.ng/amp/1255458-breaking

garfield1:
You are becoming desperate.why not rest? You didsame during adeleke case and failed woefully.adeleke even had a stronger case but failed.how many threads do you want to open on this case? Is it insomnia that is driving you? Please go and sleep and stop disturbing people.
Cc afamed,yarimo,doyin2,ejimatic

. The PDP prayed that Atiku be declared winner or a rerun on 10 states. No election tribunal can declare or winner .deduct votes .It can only order a rerun. The writer of the above thread gave examples of states elections where results were cancelled before the use of revised electoral laws. Is there any precedent in presidential election?Obasanjo vrs Buhari Awolowo vrs Shagari Fakae vrs Obj Buhari vrs Jonathan all went in favour of respondents.This is not a surprise because non compliance must be proved beyond any reasonable doubt.In the case of Atiku there were contradictions in the testimony of all the witnesses.Even the inec server was not logically proved. All was doctored testimony.The tribunal must accept all evidences but it does not mean they are tenable. In my opinion all of them hold no water.By implication of supreme court judgement on Tuesday if there is no inec server what else again? INEC is not mandated by law to present witnesses .it is an umpire. No witness for INEC in Osun tribunal. This was emphasised and accepted at the appeal court later. A good part 1 law student should know that Atiku case has evidential and technical failures.It is the simplest case so far to be determined in the history of presidential election in Nigeria. It will forever be a mirage for the opposition to win at the presidential election tribunal in Nigeria.

garfield1:

This is balderdash,rubbish,hogwash.these were not from the form ec8a but from the electronic copy of atiku's server result.none of these copies or samples were shown to the court or demonstrated before the court during the witness testimonies,they were simply dumped on the court.no judge will go through all these hogwash.moreover,atiku and his witnesses have contradicted themselves in several fronts.

Wake up to reality stop fooling about.

Seems you're following the proceeding from your illusioned BMCO mud m-house.

Wake up morning don break

agabusta:



Wole Olanipekun and Fagbemi have a misguided view of how substantial non-compliance is proven??

Continue fooling yourself.

Go back to sleep.

Seem sleep still dey worry you