Blindersoff:


Tell that to 388 polling units

OK sir, but you know I'm telling you the truth.
Okorocha and nwosu were in full control of orlu zone during that election, Uzodinma was like orphan in orlu zone then

NgeneUkwenu:


Let's even assume that INEC pleaded "damage" and it was accepted by the court....Then INEC should ordered a rerun in those areas rather than declare IHEDIOHA winner when the the total number of cancelled votes were higher that the margin between the Winner and the Losers?

Do you honestly believe INEC didn't know what they did in Imo State?

They knew and part of what they did was to inflate the votes gotten by Ihedioha.

Now that Uzodinmas votes were returned, the total votes now showed that the initial total votes were already inflated.

I am sure INEC would pretend they did not see that rather than coming forward to explain because they know they are complicit with Ihedioha

[s]

NgeneUkwenu:


Let's even assume that INEC pleaded "damage" and it was accepted by the court....Then INEC should ordered a rerun in those areas rather than declare IHEDIOHA winner when the the total number of cancelled votes were higher that the margin between the Winner and the Losers?

Do you honestly believe INEC didn't know what they did in Imo State?

[/s]

NORSYK:


OK sir, but you know I'm telling you the truth.
Okorocha and nwosu were in full control of orlu zone during that election, Uzodinma was like orphan in orlu zone then

If Uche Nwosu and Okorocha were in full control of Orlu zone, where did the 388 PUs come from?



Spin another tale let me hear

Imo judgement was based on false grounds, say Ihedioha’s lawyers

The legal team of Emeka Ihedioha, former governor of Imo state, says election did not hold in the 388 polling units excluded by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in the Imo governorship poll.

Hope Uzodinma, candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the governorship election, had said INEC denied him victory by excluding the votes he garnered from the 388 polling units.

In its ruling, the apex court said INEC was wrong to have excluded results of the 388 polling units during collation.

Uzodinma, APC candidate, had come fourth when the electoral commission declared the final tally in the March election.

But in a statement, Rotimi Peter, one of the counsels of Ihedioha, said the supreme court ignored well-established principles of law that had guided its previous decision in similar cases.

He said the people of Imo were short-changed by the apex court.

Below is the full statement:

[b]1.01 On 14.1.2020, the Supreme Court heard the appeal filed by Senator Hope Uzodinma and APC (numbered as shown above) against the judgment of the Court of Appeal affirming the victory of Emeka Ihedioha and the PDP in the Imo State Governorship election on 9.3.2019.

1.02 The Court of Appeal had, on 19.11.2019, affirmed the judgment of the Governorship election tribunal which dismissed the petition of Senator Uzodinma and APC against the return of Emeka Ihedioha and PDP at the Imo State governorship election held on 9.3.2019.

1.03 Soon after hearing oral arguments of senior counsel for the parties, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment and allowed it, and ordered, amongst others, that Senator Uzodinma be sworn in as the Governor of Imo State.



1.04 Since the delivery of the judgment, commentators have rendered all kinds of opinions on the facts of the case and the judgment of the Supreme Court. Some of the commentators are legal practitioners who were not involved in any professional manner with the case from its inception at the election tribunal up to its conclusion at the Supreme Court. Their comments or opinions now in the public domain, expectedly, are shallow and uninformed and are capable of misinforming the public.

1.05 It has, therefore, become imperative to put the record straight for the benefit of the reading public, even if it would not reverse the unfortunate decision of the Supreme Court and the obvious injustice it has occasioned.

2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE 2.01 In the result of the Imo State Governorship election held on 9.3.2019, INEC declared that Emeka Ihedioha scored the highest number of votes – 273,404 amongst all the candidates and met the constitutional requirements, and was returned. The other three candidates coming behind him were credited with the following votes: Uche Nwosu (AA): 190,364
Ifeanyi Araraume (APGA): 114,676
Hope Uzodinma (APC): 96,458

2.02 Each of these candidates filed an election petition at the tribunal premised on different grounds. Senator Uzodinma’s petition was premised largely on the false ground that elections were conducted in certain 388 polling units, but the results of the elections which he had copies of (and which were favourable to him) were wrongly excluded by INEC in their collation of results of the election; that if those results were taken into account, he would have won the election.

2.03 The respondents in the petition, including INEC, denied the above allegations and characterised the purported results as false in their respective replies to the petition. Two short examples may be provided here. In paragraph 8i of Ihedioha’s reply to the petition, it is averred inter alia:” . . . Petitioners have embarked on a scheme to introduce false result sheets into the result of the election. They are thus put to the strictest proof of the origin of the result, the existence of the polling units as well as the distribution of election materials to those purported Polling Units.”



2.04 In paragraph 7c of INEC’s reply, it is averred inter alia: “The 3rd Respondent did not omit to record and reckon with votes due to the Petitioners as alleged. . . and any such showing results are fictitious and suborned.”

2.05 It is thus clear from the foregoing, and having regard to decided cases, particularly of the Supreme Court, that the petitioners had the burden of proving the conduct of elections in those polling units, the results emanating from them and the impact those results would have on the result of the election as declared.

2.06 At the hearing of the petition, Senator Uzodinma and APC called 54 witnesses out of which only 28 were polling unit agents. No ward collation agent was called as a witness. Senator Uzodinma himself testified as PW11. His State Collation agent testified as PW51 and a certain police officer testified as PW54. The other 23 witnesses were local government collation agents and sundry witnesses.

2.07 It is noteworthy that purported results of the election, relied on by the petitioners, were tendered from the Bar in bags and sacks! They remained there throughout the trial, except for the few which were specifically mentioned by the 28 polling unit agents. PW54, a Deputy Commissioner of Police, whose presence and testimony were challenged by the respondents, tendered documents in a pack which he described as result sheets from 366 polling units. He did not open any of them or refer specifically to them. He admitted, in cross-examination, that he did not know the figures they contained or the polling units they were concerned with.

2.08 It is, again, noteworthy that the 28 polling unit agents and PW11 admitted, in cross-examination, that the result sheets which they identified were not legible or did not contain the scores of all the political parties which contested the election. The 28 polling agents also admitted that those purported result sheets did not contain any entry to show the number of ballot papers issued to the respective polling units; the number of ballot papers used and unused in those polling units. Many of the sheets did not show the names and signatures of the presiding officers, and the date of issuance. In some of them, the dates written on them were before or after 9.3.2019.

2.09 PW11 admitted in cross-examination, when confronted with his chart in the petition, that some of the results he listed showed over voting.

3. JUDGMENTS OF THE COURTS

3.01 It was because of the foregoing facts and evidence that the election tribunal, in its judgment, agreed with the respondents that the petitioners did not prove the existence of other results from the so-called 388 polling units. In respect of the evidence of PW54, the police officer, the tribunal, again, agreed with the respondents that he had no locus to be a witness and that his evidence was worthless as he could not tie his testimony to any of the documents he presented. The tribunal held that the petitioners merely dumped documents on the tribunal without relevant oral evidence.3.02 In making these pronouncements, the tribunal relied on the many decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal which have determined the manner such evidence as given by the petitioners should be evaluated. The tribunal, therefore, dismissed the petition.

3.03 At the Court of Appeal, the petitioners complained that the tribunal was in error in dismissing the petition and, in particular, in denouncing the presence of PW54 as a witness and rejecting his evidence. The respondents offered opposing arguments.



3.04 The Court of Appeal, in its majority decision of 4-1, agreed with the petitioners that PW54 was a competent witness, but affirmed the decision of the tribunal that his evidence had no probative value. It dismissed the appeal. The minority judgment upheld the complaints of the petitioners and held that they had proved their case, but it did not say, significantly, the number of additional votes which the petitioners proved in order to show that they had scored a majority of lawful votes cast in the election.

3.05 The petitioners, aggrieved with the decision of the Court of Appeal, appealed to the Supreme Court. Ihedioha, aggrieved with the portion of the decision that PW54 was a competent witness, also appealed to the Supreme Court, and his appeal was numbered as SC.1470/2019.
3.06 As stated above, on 14.1.2020, the Supreme Court heard arguments on the appeals and delivered a judgment soon after. The petitioners’ appeal was allowed, but Ihedioha’s appeal was struck out.

4. REMARKS4.01 In allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court did not state the new scores which the petitioners proved from the 388 polling units, especially having regard to the following facts: (a) that only 28 polling unit agents out of the 388 polling units testified and they admitted that the result sheets had all the vices itemised earlier; (b) that PW11 also admitted over voting apparent in some of the results in the chart in the petition; (c) that more than 90% of result sheets were neither identified nor referred to by any witness; (d) that the respondent, particularly, INEC denied the existence of those result sheets and tendered documentary evidence to show that election did not hold in 388 polling units;

(e) that PW54 tendered purported result sheets that were less than the number of polling units mentioned in the petition; (f) that PW54 did not open or read any of the purported result sheets and stated clearly that he did not know the figures or scores they contained or whether there were “mutations or tampering” in them, and that the documents were not submitted to him.

4.02 The Supreme Court did not state that it has computed the new scores, local government by local government, and determined that the petitioners had satisfied the requirements of section 179(2) of the Constitution before it arrived at the decision that Senator Uzodinma should be sworn-in as the new Governor of Imo State.

4.03 In reaching its decision, the Supreme Court ignored well-established principles of law that had guided its previous decision in similar cases. Perhaps, it is better to state that the Court turned those decisions upside down thereby creating the impression of a double standard.

4.04 Two recent decisions of the Supreme Court easily come to mind. The first decision, SC. 409.2019: PDP v. INEC & Others was delivered on 24.5.2019. It was in respect of the Ekiti State governorship election.
4.05 The second decision, SC. 1211/2019: Atiku Abubakar v. INEC (unreported) was delivered on 15.11.2019. At pages 62-63 of the judgment, the Supreme Court reiterated, thus:Before I conclude on this issue, let me state that whenever documents are tendered from the Bar in election matters, the purport is to speed up the trial in view of time limitation in election matters. Such tendering is not the end itself but a means to an end. The makers of such tendered documents must be called to speak to those documents and be cross-examined on the authenticity of the documents. The law is trite that a party who did not make a document is not competent to give evidence on it. It is also the tested position of the law that where the maker of the document is not called to testify, the document would not be accorded probative value by the Court. That indeed is the fate of Exhibit P80 and P24.
4.06 If the decisions in the above cases were applied to the appeal of Senator Uzodinma and APC, the outcome would have been a dismissal of the appeal. It is a matter of concern and conjecture that the Supreme Court, inexplicably, chose to chart a new, strange course in their decision. Unfortunately, the Court did not indicate that it would give reasons for the decision. That would have offered the Court the opportunity to explain the basis of the decision and state the fate of the long-established principles of law it had led the legal profession and the public to believe were trite.
4.07 In the absence of the explanation, it would be difficult for practitioners and the litigating public to respect decisions of the Supreme Court thereby encouraging disregard of the rule of law.



4.08 Before concluding this piece, it is needful to draw attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in SC. 1384/2019: Ugwumba Uche Nwosu v. Action Peoples Party (unreported) delivered on 20.12.2019, during the pendency of the appeals being discussed.

4.09 The first two paragraphs of the judgment are remarkable. They read:This Appeal deals purely with the issue of double nomination. The Appellant contested and won the primaries conducted by All Progressives Congress [APC] on 16/10/2018, and his name was forwarded to INEC (fourth Respondent) as the gubernatorial candidate of APC at the general election slated for 9/3/2019.​But the Appellant also contested and won the Primaries conducted by another Party, Action Alliance, and on 2/11/2018, he was issued with “a Certificate of Return & Confirmation as the duly elected Governorship Candidate” of the said Party.

4.10 The Supreme Court, therefore, held that by “allowing himself to be nominated by two political parties, the Appellant, not only did an act that is not authorised by law, which is illegal, the Electoral Act clearly says in its Section 37, that such a nomination “shall be void”.

4.11 The implication of the above judgment is that Uche Nwosu was the nominated candidate of APC in the election, but that his nomination became void because he had secured “double nomination”. It followed that if Uche Nwosu was factually the candidate of APC in the election, Senator Uzodinma could not have, validly, also be the APC candidate in the same election.

4.12 It was for this reason that Emeka Ihedioha filed an application at the Supreme Court, which was argued on 14.1.2020, contending that Senator Uzodinma and APC’s appeal should be struck out because of the implication in the above-named Supreme Court judgment.

4.13 In the judgment, the Court summarily dismissed Ihedioha’s application on the false basis that the matter of double nomination was a pre-election decision and it could not be applied to the appeal which was a post-election litigation.

4.14 The Supreme Court, in this instance, chose technicality at the expense of substantial justice and denied Ihedioha the benefit of an established legal outcome.

4.15 The effect of the foregoing is that the judgment of the Supreme Court does not reflect the justice of the case. The electorate in Imo State has been short-changed.[/b]

https://www.thecable.ng/icymi-scourt-judgement-on-imo-was-based-on-false-grounds-say-ihediohas-lawyers

may injustice overthrow all the panel members for the rest of their lives. morons calling themselves justices. Mohammed or Mahammadu doesn't matter supreme Court. fools!

PaChukwudi44:
Imo judgement was based on false grounds, say Ihedioha’s lawyers

The legal team of Emeka Ihedioha, former governor of Imo state, says election did not hold in the 388 polling units excluded by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in the Imo governorship poll.

Hope Uzodinma, candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the governorship election, had said INEC denied him victory by excluding the votes he garnered from the 388 polling units.

In its ruling, the apex court said INEC was wrong to have excluded results of the 388 polling units during collation.

Uzodinma, APC candidate, had come fourth when the electoral commission declared the final tally in the March election.

But in a statement, Rotimi Peter, one of the counsels of Ihedioha, said the supreme court ignored well-established principles of law that had guided its previous decision in similar cases.

He said the people of Imo were short-changed by the apex court.

Below is the full statement:

[b]1.01 On 14.1.2020, the Supreme Court heard the appeal filed by Senator Hope Uzodinma and APC (numbered as shown above) against the judgment of the Court of Appeal affirming the victory of Emeka Ihedioha and the PDP in the Imo State Governorship election on 9.3.2019.

1.02 The Court of Appeal had, on 19.11.2019, affirmed the judgment of the Governorship election tribunal which dismissed the petition of Senator Uzodinma and APC against the return of Emeka Ihedioha and PDP at the Imo State governorship election held on 9.3.2019.

1.03 Soon after hearing oral arguments of senior counsel for the parties, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment and allowed it, and ordered, amongst others, that Senator Uzodinma be sworn in as the Governor of Imo State.



1.04 Since the delivery of the judgment, commentators have rendered all kinds of opinions on the facts of the case and the judgment of the Supreme Court. Some of the commentators are legal practitioners who were not involved in any professional manner with the case from its inception at the election tribunal up to its conclusion at the Supreme Court. Their comments or opinions now in the public domain, expectedly, are shallow and uninformed and are capable of misinforming the public.

1.05 It has, therefore, become imperative to put the record straight for the benefit of the reading public, even if it would not reverse the unfortunate decision of the Supreme Court and the obvious injustice it has occasioned.

2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE 2.01 In the result of the Imo State Governorship election held on 9.3.2019, INEC declared that Emeka Ihedioha scored the highest number of votes – 273,404 amongst all the candidates and met the constitutional requirements, and was returned. The other three candidates coming behind him were credited with the following votes: Uche Nwosu (AA): 190,364
Ifeanyi Araraume (APGA): 114,676
Hope Uzodinma (APC): 96,458

2.02 Each of these candidates filed an election petition at the tribunal premised on different grounds. Senator Uzodinma’s petition was premised largely on the false ground that elections were conducted in certain 388 polling units, but the results of the elections which he had copies of (and which were favourable to him) were wrongly excluded by INEC in their collation of results of the election; that if those results were taken into account, he would have won the election.

2.03 The respondents in the petition, including INEC, denied the above allegations and characterised the purported results as false in their respective replies to the petition. Two short examples may be provided here. In paragraph 8i of Ihedioha’s reply to the petition, it is averred inter alia:” . . . Petitioners have embarked on a scheme to introduce false result sheets into the result of the election. They are thus put to the strictest proof of the origin of the result, the existence of the polling units as well as the distribution of election materials to those purported Polling Units.”



2.04 In paragraph 7c of INEC’s reply, it is averred inter alia: “The 3rd Respondent did not omit to record and reckon with votes due to the Petitioners as alleged. . . and any such showing results are fictitious and suborned.”

2.05 It is thus clear from the foregoing, and having regard to decided cases, particularly of the Supreme Court, that the petitioners had the burden of proving the conduct of elections in those polling units, the results emanating from them and the impact those results would have on the result of the election as declared.

2.06 At the hearing of the petition, Senator Uzodinma and APC called 54 witnesses out of which only 28 were polling unit agents. No ward collation agent was called as a witness. Senator Uzodinma himself testified as PW11. His State Collation agent testified as PW51 and a certain police officer testified as PW54. The other 23 witnesses were local government collation agents and sundry witnesses.

2.07 It is noteworthy that purported results of the election, relied on by the petitioners, were tendered from the Bar in bags and sacks! They remained there throughout the trial, except for the few which were specifically mentioned by the 28 polling unit agents. PW54, a Deputy Commissioner of Police, whose presence and testimony were challenged by the respondents, tendered documents in a pack which he described as result sheets from 366 polling units. He did not open any of them or refer specifically to them. He admitted, in cross-examination, that he did not know the figures they contained or the polling units they were concerned with.

2.08 It is, again, noteworthy that the 28 polling unit agents and PW11 admitted, in cross-examination, that the result sheets which they identified were not legible or did not contain the scores of all the political parties which contested the election. The 28 polling agents also admitted that those purported result sheets did not contain any entry to show the number of ballot papers issued to the respective polling units; the number of ballot papers used and unused in those polling units. Many of the sheets did not show the names and signatures of the presiding officers, and the date of issuance. In some of them, the dates written on them were before or after 9.3.2019.

2.09 PW11 admitted in cross-examination, when confronted with his chart in the petition, that some of the results he listed showed over voting.

3. JUDGMENTS OF THE COURTS

3.01 It was because of the foregoing facts and evidence that the election tribunal, in its judgment, agreed with the respondents that the petitioners did not prove the existence of other results from the so-called 388 polling units. In respect of the evidence of PW54, the police officer, the tribunal, again, agreed with the respondents that he had no locus to be a witness and that his evidence was worthless as he could not tie his testimony to any of the documents he presented. The tribunal held that the petitioners merely dumped documents on the tribunal without relevant oral evidence.3.02 In making these pronouncements, the tribunal relied on the many decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal which have determined the manner such evidence as given by the petitioners should be evaluated. The tribunal, therefore, dismissed the petition.

3.03 At the Court of Appeal, the petitioners complained that the tribunal was in error in dismissing the petition and, in particular, in denouncing the presence of PW54 as a witness and rejecting his evidence. The respondents offered opposing arguments.



3.04 The Court of Appeal, in its majority decision of 4-1, agreed with the petitioners that PW54 was a competent witness, but affirmed the decision of the tribunal that his evidence had no probative value. It dismissed the appeal. The minority judgment upheld the complaints of the petitioners and held that they had proved their case, but it did not say, significantly, the number of additional votes which the petitioners proved in order to show that they had scored a majority of lawful votes cast in the election.

3.05 The petitioners, aggrieved with the decision of the Court of Appeal, appealed to the Supreme Court. Ihedioha, aggrieved with the portion of the decision that PW54 was a competent witness, also appealed to the Supreme Court, and his appeal was numbered as SC.1470/2019.
3.06 As stated above, on 14.1.2020, the Supreme Court heard arguments on the appeals and delivered a judgment soon after. The petitioners’ appeal was allowed, but Ihedioha’s appeal was struck out.

4. REMARKS4.01 In allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court did not state the new scores which the petitioners proved from the 388 polling units, especially having regard to the following facts: (a) that only 28 polling unit agents out of the 388 polling units testified and they admitted that the result sheets had all the vices itemised earlier; (b) that PW11 also admitted over voting apparent in some of the results in the chart in the petition; (c) that more than 90% of result sheets were neither identified nor referred to by any witness; (d) that the respondent, particularly, INEC denied the existence of those result sheets and tendered documentary evidence to show that election did not hold in 388 polling units;

(e) that PW54 tendered purported result sheets that were less than the number of polling units mentioned in the petition; (f) that PW54 did not open or read any of the purported result sheets and stated clearly that he did not know the figures or scores they contained or whether there were “mutations or tampering” in them, and that the documents were not submitted to him.

4.02 The Supreme Court did not state that it has computed the new scores, local government by local government, and determined that the petitioners had satisfied the requirements of section 179(2) of the Constitution before it arrived at the decision that Senator Uzodinma should be sworn-in as the new Governor of Imo State.

4.03 In reaching its decision, the Supreme Court ignored well-established principles of law that had guided its previous decision in similar cases. Perhaps, it is better to state that the Court turned those decisions upside down thereby creating the impression of a double standard.

4.04 Two recent decisions of the Supreme Court easily come to mind. The first decision, SC. 409.2019: PDP v. INEC & Others was delivered on 24.5.2019. It was in respect of the Ekiti State governorship election.
4.05 The second decision, SC. 1211/2019: Atiku Abubakar v. INEC (unreported) was delivered on 15.11.2019. At pages 62-63 of the judgment, the Supreme Court reiterated, thus:Before I conclude on this issue, let me state that whenever documents are tendered from the Bar in election matters, the purport is to speed up the trial in view of time limitation in election matters. Such tendering is not the end itself but a means to an end. The makers of such tendered documents must be called to speak to those documents and be cross-examined on the authenticity of the documents. The law is trite that a party who did not make a document is not competent to give evidence on it. It is also the tested position of the law that where the maker of the document is not called to testify, the document would not be accorded probative value by the Court. That indeed is the fate of Exhibit P80 and P24.
4.06 If the decisions in the above cases were applied to the appeal of Senator Uzodinma and APC, the outcome would have been a dismissal of the appeal. It is a matter of concern and conjecture that the Supreme Court, inexplicably, chose to chart a new, strange course in their decision. Unfortunately, the Court did not indicate that it would give reasons for the decision. That would have offered the Court the opportunity to explain the basis of the decision and state the fate of the long-established principles of law it had led the legal profession and the public to believe were trite.
4.07 In the absence of the explanation, it would be difficult for practitioners and the litigating public to respect decisions of the Supreme Court thereby encouraging disregard of the rule of law.



4.08 Before concluding this piece, it is needful to draw attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in SC. 1384/2019: Ugwumba Uche Nwosu v. Action Peoples Party (unreported) delivered on 20.12.2019, during the pendency of the appeals being discussed.

4.09 The first two paragraphs of the judgment are remarkable. They read:This Appeal deals purely with the issue of double nomination. The Appellant contested and won the primaries conducted by All Progressives Congress [APC] on 16/10/2018, and his name was forwarded to INEC (fourth Respondent) as the gubernatorial candidate of APC at the general election slated for 9/3/2019.​But the Appellant also contested and won the Primaries conducted by another Party, Action Alliance, and on 2/11/2018, he was issued with “a Certificate of Return & Confirmation as the duly elected Governorship Candidate” of the said Party.

4.10 The Supreme Court, therefore, held that by “allowing himself to be nominated by two political parties, the Appellant, not only did an act that is not authorised by law, which is illegal, the Electoral Act clearly says in its Section 37, that such a nomination “shall be void”.

4.11 The implication of the above judgment is that Uche Nwosu was the nominated candidate of APC in the election, but that his nomination became void because he had secured “double nomination”. It followed that if Uche Nwosu was factually the candidate of APC in the election, Senator Uzodinma could not have, validly, also be the APC candidate in the same election.

4.12 It was for this reason that Emeka Ihedioha filed an application at the Supreme Court, which was argued on 14.1.2020, contending that Senator Uzodinma and APC’s appeal should be struck out because of the implication in the above-named Supreme Court judgment.

4.13 In the judgment, the Court summarily dismissed Ihedioha’s application on the false basis that the matter of double nomination was a pre-election decision and it could not be applied to the appeal which was a post-election litigation.

4.14 The Supreme Court, in this instance, chose technicality at the expense of substantial justice and denied Ihedioha the benefit of an established legal outcome.

4.15 The effect of the foregoing is that the judgment of the Supreme Court does not reflect the justice of the case. The electorate in Imo State has been short-changed.[/b]

https://www.thecable.ng/icymi-scourt-judgement-on-imo-was-based-on-false-grounds-say-ihediohas-lawyers

Trash.


The only way you prove that a result sheet was fake,is by providing documentary evidence of the original or a valid report of cancellation,not by mere saying it is fake.

A mere denial by INEC can only be accepted by a compromised lower court,not the Supreme Court!


I sense a grand conspiracy between INEC and PDP/Ihedioha.

RareDiamond:
Nawa for this ridiculously unjust judgement by the Supreme Court. This judicial rascality must stop.

Still on the Supreme Court ruling on Imo Guber Election: (Why the Supreme Court must reverse itself)

The law is settled as decided by the same Supreme Court in Buhari v. INEC (2008); that "weight can hardly be attached to a document tendered in evidence by a witness who cannot or is not in a position to answer questions on the document. One of such persons the law identifies is the one who did not make the document. Such a person is adjudged in the eyes of the law as ignorant of the content of the document”.

Questions for the CJN, Justice Tanko and other Supreme Court Justices:

1. Does the Supreme Court have powers to formulate and allocate votes as election results?

2. Were the said results certified by INEC as required by law?

3. Did Hope Uzodinma call 388 witnesses from the 388 polling units to speak to the results to obviate the principle of dumping which the Supreme Court used against the PDP and her candidate, Atiku Abubarka, in the last Presidential Appeal.

4. Were the presiding officers and or party agents of the 388 polling units called to testify by Uzodinma/APC, who were the Petitioners?

5. What are the figures from each of the various 388 polling units generated and allocated to Hope Uzodinma/APC by the Supreme Court?

6. Is the Supreme Court saying that all the votes from the alleged 388 polling units were for the APC alone in an election that was contested by over 70 candidates?

Did you bother to read the judgement?

Blindersoff:


If Uche Nwosu and Okorocha were in full control of Orlu zone, where did the 388 PUs come from?



Spin another tale let me hear

You and I know that those polling units are ghost units, how could Uzodinma have defeated nwosu in his strog hold like Orlu, Nkwere, Isu, Nwangele, Njaba and Orsu?
Okorocha was in full control of his Ideato south and north, Irona was in full charge of his Oguta and Ohaji.
Uzodinma was only in control of his Oru east and west

Blindersoff:
Here’s the summary of this ruling

1. Hope alleged that duly signed results from 388 PUs were excluded
2. He provided these duly signed results as evidence
3. INEC said those were not results from those PUs
4. Ok, show the real results na..they could not
5. SC to INEC/Ihedioha: Gerarahia!

You are so on point. Simple and straight to the point.

GoodGovernance:



Trash.


The only way you prove that a result sheet was fake,is by providing documentary evidence of the original or a valid report of cancellation,not by mere saying it is fake.

A mere denial by INEC can only be accepted by a compromised lower court,not the Supreme Court!


I sense a grand conspiracy between INEC and PDP/Ihedioha.

Now you see the big picture

NORSYK:


You and I know that those polling units are ghost units, how could Uzodinma have defeated nwosu in his strog hold like Orlu, Nkwere, Isu, Nwangele, Njaba and Orsu?
Okorocha was in full control of his Ideato south and north, Irona was in full charge of his Oguta and Ohaji.
Uzodinma was only in control of his Oru east and west

Ghost units? Yet INEC could not provide evidence for the LIVING UNITS

Spin another tale

gidgiddy:


In other words, INEC has to prove its own results

If you took time to read the judgment, you would see that the SC relied on the document tendered by the DCP (who was summoned by the court).

Why did they rely in it? The SC noted this www.nairaland.com/attachments/10936809_img20200124105932_jpegfbaf6ccd80c3abe970a5a79ff64d733a

www.nairaland.com/attachments/10936810_img20200124105935_jpege7d2b9bcd8dddea3b9569a6bf8a352a1

www.nairaland.com/attachments/10936814_img20200124105939_jpeg5e5f9d40cff69367d2a925e4cf3c98e1

Sometimes, you just need to sit down and read. It will differentiate you from many others.

Leo3333:


Oga, so how then did the Total Number of Votes exceed the Total Number of Accredited Voters?
Whose figure do we trust? INEC's or SC's

Waiting.

if inec can omit results for 388 PU, then it's logical that they did not include those accredited in these affected PU. This implies that the total accredited voters earlier given by inec is clearly incorrect .

lahizak:

Put on a weak defence? INEC dont even need to bring out d original result b4 dey could claim dat d document wit him is fake? Truth is dat INEC proved beyond reasonable doubt dat d document is fake but tge judges decided dat wat INEC said does not matter, is wat dey want dey will do hence d saying dat INEC did not prove beyond doubt. And paid or not, INEC is still independent, so d jugdes should av atleast heed their word. Finally, im guessing now dat d supreme court has made their statements and their judgement is now public, more legal minds in d country and outsude d country will analyze it and we shall all read. Im sure this is not d last we will hear about this issue. Lastly, ot rly seems APC need Imo state badly 4 one reason or the other. And funny enough all d 7 judges were uninanimous on this topic dat generate such huge outrage, dat means sumtin is fishy, the only time judges are unanimous is when issues are straightforward which obviously dis is not, wonder how not even 1 judge vote against it. Strange

Bro read the judgement.

According to this SC judgement, INEC did not prove their case at all, not to even talk of proving beyond reasonable doubts.

INEC called no witness.

INEC did not claim or prove that their were no elections at those polling units or that there were violent or that the original results were damaged.

INEC just claimed the results were not genuine but they didn't tender the genuine results...

If there is any miscarried of justice in this case, blame INEC and Ihedioha's lawyers.

NORSYK:


You and I know that those polling units are ghost units, how could Uzodinma have defeated nwosu in his strog hold like Orlu, Nkwere, Isu, Nwangele, Njaba and Orsu?
Okorocha was in full control of his Ideato south and north, Irona was in full charge of his Oguta and Ohaji.
Uzodinma was only in control of his Oru east and west

oga the cancellation was done in uzodimma stronghold that oru east and or west

nzube89:
oga the cancellation was done in uzodimma stronghold that oru east and or west

Lol you meant the over 200,000 votes were from Oru east and west?

ObaIgwe1:


Bro read the judgement.

According to this SC judgement, INEC did not prove their case at all, not to even talk of proving beyond reasonable doubts.

INEC called no witness.

INEC did not claim or prove that their were no elections at those polling units or that there were violent or that the original results were damaged.

INEC just claimed the results were not genuine but they didn't tender the genuine results...

If there is any miscarried of justice in this case, blame INEC and Ihedioha's lawyers.

Read the account of Alex Otti's lawyer Ken Ahia SAN ,


I was not going to respond on this matter no matter how goaded cos, because I was involved. The judgment and that of Abia did not come to me as a surprise but rather as a rude disappointment in our hallowed judiciary. However , in other to educate others like Mike, I wish to disagree with you on legal points.

First , in the case of Abia which was based on documentary evidence collected from INEC, public documents paid for and obtained from INEC,a party to the petition, the Scrt held that we should have called polling unit by polling units witnesses to prove the allegation, in Imo results DISPUTED by INEC tendered by a single policeman was accepted and relied on. Hope did not call witnesses from all those polling units. The POS did not testify.

Secondly, it is not correct that Ihedioha did not cross Appeal. He did . The case was listed as no 9 for hearing on 13/1/2020 as SC/1470/2019, RT HON. Emeka Ihedioha vs Sen Hope Uzodinma& 3 ors.

Finally, it is not true that it is only at the polling center that results can be rejected. See the guidelines 2019 by the provisions of paragraph 28(c)(i)-(iv) which reads;

i) Review the figures against reports from the polling units;

ii) Request explanation(s) from the Presiding Officer(s) concerned, the circumstances of the inconsistency;

iii) Accept the results form if satisfied with the explanations; and

iv) If not satisfied locate the point of discrepancy, resolve the discrepancy and request the Presiding Officer to endorse.

Just for our information. So if the SC will not accept results from INEC duly certified as authentic in Abia appeal on the ground that the witnesses were not called, but proceeded to accept result tendered by one policeman , not certified, also denounced by INEC, then the thing smelling is not fish.

smirn:

if inec can omit results for 388 PU, then it's logical that they did not include those accredited in these affected PU. This implies that the total accredited voters earlier given by inec is clearly incorrect .

Did INEC ever say it omitted any result?
Even if they did, does it make any sense to you that every single eligible voter opted for the APC?

Please quit defending this glaring robbery.

Supreme Court decision is Final


What's all this wailing about.

Imo is APC

APC is Imo


Ihedioha should go into cat fish farming and forget politics

RareDiamond:
Nawa for this ridiculously unjust judgement by the Supreme Court. This judicial rascality must stop.

Still on the Supreme Court ruling on Imo Guber Election: (Why the Supreme Court must reverse itself)

The law is settled as decided by the same Supreme Court in Buhari v. INEC (2008); that "weight can hardly be attached to a document tendered in evidence by a witness who cannot or is not in a position to answer questions on the document. One of such persons the law identifies is the one who did not make the document. Such a person is adjudged in the eyes of the law as ignorant of the content of the document”.

Questions for the CJN, Justice Tanko and other Supreme Court Justices:

1. Does the Supreme Court have powers to formulate and allocate votes as election results?

2. Were the said results certified by INEC as required by law?

3. Did Hope Uzodinma call 388 witnesses from the 388 polling units to speak to the results to obviate the principle of dumping which the Supreme Court used against the PDP and her candidate, Atiku Abubarka, in the last Presidential Appeal.

4. Were the presiding officers and or party agents of the 388 polling units called to testify by Uzodinma/APC, who were the Petitioners?

5. What are the figures from each of the various 388 polling units generated and allocated to Hope Uzodinma/APC by the Supreme Court?

6. Is the Supreme Court saying that all the votes from the alleged 388 polling units were for the APC alone in an election that was contested by over 70 candidates?

Your argument wasn't the case before the court, the case was about INEC unlawfully and unconstitutionally taking away votes from candidates.

Where the votes come from good or bad votes or even more or less than accreditated was not the issue before the court so that argument was irrelevant before the Court.

The former Governor and his lawyers should have challenged the votes in a separate lawsuit from the beginning if truly they had issues with the votes, but they did not.

You, the PDP and the former Governor can not after the fact blame the SC for a ruling based on sound legal findings and facts put before the SC.

You can not play victim or bait and switch the Supreme Court just to fool people, tell yourself the truth, INEC is responsible for the screw up by illegally messing with the votes good or bad votes, they set in motion for what happened at the supreme court, they in effect provided the reason to remove the former governor from office and the former governor also did not separately challenge the votes from the beginning.

Kennedymac:
lol

oga I worked as an inec ad hoc staff during that election and the massive crowd that came out to vote that day surpasses the above figure u posted


are you talking about one community in ahiazu mbaise or the total accredited people in the whole LGA ur figure is fake as they could be how can an LGA with over 170,000 people produce only 9+thousand vote

But you choose to believe that imo with a population of 2.2 million registered voters had just 890,000 accredited? Are you sure your ok

NORSYK:


Read the account of Alex Otti's lawyer Ken Ahia SAN ,


I was not going to respond on this matter no matter how goaded cos, because I was involved. The judgment and that of Abia did not come to me as a surprise but rather as a rude disappointment in our hallowed judiciary. However , in other to educate others like Mike, I wish to disagree with you on legal points.

First , in the case of Abia which was based on documentary evidence collected from INEC, public documents paid for and obtained from INEC,a party to the petition, the Scrt held that we should have called polling unit by polling units witnesses to prove the allegation, in Imo results DISPUTED by INEC tendered by a single policeman was accepted and relied on. Hope did not call witnesses from all those polling units. The POS did not testify.

Secondly, it is not correct that Ihedioha did not cross Appeal. He did . The case was listed as no 9 for hearing on 13/1/2020 as SC/1470/2019, RT HON. Emeka Ihedioha vs Sen Hope Uzodinma& 3 ors.

Finally, it is not true that it is only at the polling center that results can be rejected. See the guidelines 2019 by the provisions of paragraph 28(c)(i)-(iv) which reads;

i) Review the figures against reports from the polling units;

ii) Request explanation(s) from the Presiding Officer(s) concerned, the circumstances of the inconsistency;

iii) Accept the results form if satisfied with the explanations; and

iv) If not satisfied locate the point of discrepancy, resolve the discrepancy and request the Presiding Officer to endorse.

Just for our information. So if the SC will not accept results from INEC duly certified as authentic in Abia appeal on the ground that the witnesses were not called, but proceeded to accept result tendered by one policeman , not certified, also denounced by INEC, then the thing smelling is not fish.

The cross appeal should have started at the Tribunal not the supreme court

The unfortunate thing in this particular case is that INEC proved absolutely nothing unlike the Abia case

Racoon:
Guess that is the Supreme court score board for Hope Uzodinma? [b]Displaying a disputed election vote figures on a bill board-Stupidity elevated to unimaginable lev[/b]el.

You didnt remember this when you were busy displaying that of channels

[s]

NGpatriot:




Your argument wasn't the case before the court, the case was about INEC unlawfully and unconstitutionally taking away votes from candidates.

Where the votes come from good or bad votes or even more or less than accreditated was not the issue before the court so that argument was irrelevant before the Court.

The former Governor and his lawyers should have challenged the votes in a separate lawsuit from the beginning if truly they had issues with the votes, but they did not.

You, the PDP and the former Governor can not after the fact blame the SC for a ruling based on sound legal findings and facts put before the SC.

You can not play victim or bait and switch the Supreme Court just to fool people, tell yourself the truth, INEC is responsible for the screw up by illegally messing with the votes good or bad votes, they set in motion for what happened at the supreme court, they in effect provided the reason to remove the former governor from office and the former governor also did not separately challenge the votes from the beginning.

[/s]

Leo3333:


Did INEC ever say it omitted any result?
Even if they did, does it make any sense to you that every single eligible voter opted for the APC?

Please quit defending this glaring robbery.

Where did the judgement or anyone claim that APC was the only one voted for in those cancelled PUs?

When they tell you people to read in order to avoid sounding stupid you refuse.

Right there on the second page of the judgement it clearly mentioned OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of the votes went to Uzodinma in the cancelled PUs and not that he alone got the votes.

Na wa o. This shows you did not even read the judgement

lahizak:

Educated illiterate, supreme court been d apex court threw out all oda evidences nd proves concerning this case and accept to judge on d validity of a document which d issuing body denied it belongs to them. Hence forcing a candidate on d people. Do u get d gist or ur small head still no grab?

The issuing body denied the document but couldn't prove it were false. Worse of all, the SC relied on one presented by the DCP (which the court summon)

The judgement make sense..INEC killed the ex governor..Hope team provided signed polling sheet result to the court,Iheodia team deny or rejected it,Ok show your counter,The court ask INEC to produce 388 unit cancelled result she couldn't... Hopefully..Hope is alive..

patrickmuf:
With this judgement, the idea of incumbents or money bags collaborating with INEC to cancel results in opposition strongholds will be a thing of the past.

And this what inec resorted conniving with politicians. They simply cancel results in areas they don't like, a lot of it happened in Akwa Ibom

RareDiamond:
Nawa for this ridiculously unjust judgement by the Supreme Court. This judicial rascality must stop.

Still on the Supreme Court ruling on Imo Guber Election: (Why the Supreme Court must reverse itself)

The law is settled as decided by the same Supreme Court in Buhari v. INEC (2008); that "weight can hardly be attached to a document tendered in evidence by a witness who cannot or is not in a position to answer questions on the document. One of such persons the law identifies is the one who did not make the document. Such a person is adjudged in the eyes of the law as ignorant of the content of the document”.

Questions for the CJN, Justice Tanko and other Supreme Court Justices:

1. Does the Supreme Court have powers to formulate and allocate votes as election results?

2. Were the said results certified by INEC as required by law?

3. Did Hope Uzodinma call 388 witnesses from the 388 polling units to speak to the results to obviate the principle of dumping which the Supreme Court used against the PDP and her candidate, Atiku Abubarka, in the last Presidential Appeal.

4. Were the presiding officers and or party agents of the 388 polling units called to testify by Uzodinma/APC, who were the Petitioners?

5. What are the figures from each of the various 388 polling units generated and allocated to Hope Uzodinma/APC by the Supreme Court?

6. Is the Supreme Court saying that all the votes from the alleged 388 polling units were for the APC alone in an election that was contested by over 70 candidates?

Did you take your time to read the arguments and the judgement?
I ask becos your understanding of th whole thing is far from what OP posted. Take your question 6 for instance, the SC court sac said time without number in their suission that they only deal with the crux of the matter and not to go looking for matters not brought before it. Btw, PDP had little above 1k votes from what the APC submitted in those PUs

Plus10:

Results from those polling units were marred with irregularities,that's why it was rejected.

Then they should have presented the authentic results. But come to think of it, if inec had the authentic result, then why was it different from that of PW54 (police) which the court depended on?