kk2027:
Tell emilokan to rule naija no be by force

Nigerians were thrown into mourning since Tuesday because of one man's ambition

For the first time in history, a president was declared and no one is jubilating anywhere

Where are the imaginary 8 million people that voted emilokan

challoxxx:


This is a very good question I was hoping to ask myself but let me put it in perspective.

There are over 176800 polling units in Nigeria so even if you have skirmishes in 10000 polling units across the country….it is still less than 6% of the PU so most probably not substantial. I doubt we had skirmishes in up to 5000PU

But let’s watch and see.

Fathai:
it is only you and your family that will fight because me as a Yoruba man will not join you to fight a war of a stolen mandate.

ethikallyright:
THE OPPOSITIONS’ CHANCES ARE SLIM AT THE TRIBUNAL: A LEGAL OPINION


I hereby congratulate His Excellency Bola Ahmed Tinubu of the All Progressive Congress (APC) who was declared the President-elect of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on the 1ST of March 2023 in accordance with the provisions of section 134 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.

The major opposition parties are not satisfied with the outcome of the February 25th 2023 election and have vowed to approach the Election Tribunal to clear their doubts. Based on conversations on the streets and virtual society, my legal opinion on select issues are discussed briefly below.

Legal Issues

1. Where does the Presidential Election Tribunal start and who are the judges that make up the tribunal?

2. Whether images/pictures of result sheets will be admissible by the tribunal as evidence?

3. Whether the election will be declared void or cancelled because the regulations guiding transmission of the results was not complied with?

4. Whether 25% of votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory is a prerequisite to become the President of Nigeria?


1. Where does the Presidential Election Tribunal start and who are the judges that make up the tribunal?

Section 239 (1)(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 establishes the Court of Appeal of Nigeria as the Presidential Election Tribunal (See also section 130(2)(b) of the Electoral Act 2022). The venue of the court will most likely be the Court of Appeal (Abuja Judicial Division). Not less than 3 justices of the Court of Appeal will be members of the Presidential Election Tribunal (see section 247 of CFRN 1999). The tribunal must have been set up 30 days before the elections in accordance with section 130 (3)(a) of the Electoral Act 2022.


2. Whether images/pictures of result sheets will be admissible by the tribunal as evidence?

The answer is no. Pictures of results taken or downloaded whether by party agents or electorates will not be admissible as evidence in court. The admissible documentary evidence in court is the result sheet itself as will be presented by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) (See sections 86, 88 and 102 of the Evidence Act 2011). Since the result sheet is a public document (section 102 of the Evidence Act), if it is missing a certified true copy will be tendered in accordance with section 90 (1) ( c ) of the Evidence Act. Electronic evidence from the BVAS system or Ires/INEC’s website can only be tendered by INEC because only the Commission can satisfy the conditions of tendering Electronic Evidence laid down by Section 84 of the Evidence Act and emphasized in the case of Kubour v. Dickson.


3. Whether the election will be declared void or cancelled because the regulations guiding transmission of the results was not complied with?

The answer is most likely no although it is subject to the discretion of the tribunal. Section 135(1) of the Electoral Act 2022 is quoted below:

“An election shall not be liable to be invalidated by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of this Act if it appears to the Election Tribunal or Court that the election was conducted substantially in accordance with the principles of this Act and that the non-compliance did not affect substantially the result of the election.”

The provision quoted above means that even if INEC does not conduct the election exactly as stated in the Act, the election will be valid as long as the provisions violated did not affect the result of the election “substantially”.

4. Whether 25% of votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory is a prerequisite to become the President of Nigeria?

The answer is no. Section 134 of CFRN 1999 states that a candidate must not have “less than one-quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the States in the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja” to become the President of Nigeria. That provision must be read together with section 299 of the same constitution which gives the FCT, Abuja, the status of a state. The court of Appeal will not deviate from the decision of the Supreme Court in Bakare v. Ogundipe (2021) where the supreme court reiterated the status of the FCT Abuja as a state in accordance with section 299 of CFRN 1999. Even in the classical case of Shagari V. Awolowo, the Supreme Court of Nigeria counted “Lagos State” which was then the seat of government as a state to determine whether the candidates had 25% in the required states.

Patriottt:
Weakling talking about 1967

Freshtruth:
The funniest thing is that you can't boast of 3 square meal a day you be devil self?

IamANigerianMan:

Says by lawyer who never won any case in his lifetime

ethikallyright:
THE OPPOSITIONS’ CHANCES ARE SLIM AT THE TRIBUNAL: A LEGAL OPINION


I hereby congratulate His Excellency Bola Ahmed Tinubu of the All Progressive Congress (APC) who was declared the President-elect of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on the 1ST of March 2023 in accordance with the provisions of section 134 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.

The major opposition parties are not satisfied with the outcome of the February 25th 2023 election and have vowed to approach the Election Tribunal to clear their doubts. Based on conversations on the streets and virtual society, my legal opinion on select issues are discussed briefly below.

Legal Issues

1. Where does the Presidential Election Tribunal start and who are the judges that make up the tribunal?

2. Whether images/pictures of result sheets will be admissible by the tribunal as evidence?

3. Whether the election will be declared void or cancelled because the regulations guiding transmission of the results was not complied with?

4. Whether 25% of votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory is a prerequisite to become the President of Nigeria?


1. Where does the Presidential Election Tribunal start and who are the judges that make up the tribunal?

Section 239 (1)(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 establishes the Court of Appeal of Nigeria as the Presidential Election Tribunal (See also section 130(2)(b) of the Electoral Act 2022). The venue of the court will most likely be the Court of Appeal (Abuja Judicial Division). Not less than 3 justices of the Court of Appeal will be members of the Presidential Election Tribunal (see section 247 of CFRN 1999). The tribunal must have been set up 30 days before the elections in accordance with section 130 (3)(a) of the Electoral Act 2022.


2. Whether images/pictures of result sheets will be admissible by the tribunal as evidence?

The answer is no. Pictures of results taken or downloaded whether by party agents or electorates will not be admissible as evidence in court. The admissible documentary evidence in court is the result sheet itself as will be presented by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) (See sections 86, 88 and 102 of the Evidence Act 2011). Since the result sheet is a public document (section 102 of the Evidence Act), if it is missing a certified true copy will be tendered in accordance with section 90 (1) ( c ) of the Evidence Act. Electronic evidence from the BVAS system or Ires/INEC’s website can only be tendered by INEC because only the Commission can satisfy the conditions of tendering Electronic Evidence laid down by Section 84 of the Evidence Act and emphasized in the case of Kubour v. Dickson.


3. Whether the election will be declared void or cancelled because the regulations guiding transmission of the results was not complied with?

The answer is most likely no although it is subject to the discretion of the tribunal. Section 135(1) of the Electoral Act 2022 is quoted below:

“An election shall not be liable to be invalidated by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of this Act if it appears to the Election Tribunal or Court that the election was conducted substantially in accordance with the principles of this Act and that the non-compliance did not affect substantially the result of the election.”

The provision quoted above means that even if INEC does not conduct the election exactly as stated in the Act, the election will be valid as long as the provisions violated did not affect the result of the election “substantially”.

4. Whether 25% of votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory is a prerequisite to become the President of Nigeria?

The answer is no. Section 134 of CFRN 1999 states that a candidate must not have “less than one-quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the States in the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja” to become the President of Nigeria. That provision must be read together with section 299 of the same constitution which gives the FCT, Abuja, the status of a state. The court of Appeal will not deviate from the decision of the Supreme Court in Bakare v. Ogundipe (2021) where the supreme court reiterated the status of the FCT Abuja as a state in accordance with section 299 of CFRN 1999. Even in the classical case of Shagari V. Awolowo, the Supreme Court of Nigeria counted “Lagos State” which was then the seat of government as a state to determine whether the candidates had 25% in the required states.

TheOldGods:
I have a simple question, if a person records someone killing somebody over a video, or a picture and takes it to court, as form of evidence, will the court reject it based on it's a picture and video and not a valid proof?

I expect your answer. Thanks.

ethikallyright:


Videos/ pictures may be evidence of voters attacks. Oral evidence may be given to prove that voters were attacked.

However, regarding the results, documentary evidence is required.

You do not prove that you're a graduate in court by showing the court a picture of you holding your Bachelor's degree certificate on your convocation day. You prove that you are a graduate of a University by tendering the certificate/degree issued by your alma mater in court. If you can't find the original certificate, the next thing you can tender is a certified true copy of the certificate issued by your university.

You don't even prove that you are married statutorily in court by showing the court a photograph of your wedding or calling oral evidence. You prove in court that you are married by tendering your marriage certificate as evidence.

Those things are for the media.

That's the law. A public document is proven in court by tendering primary evidence- the document itself. In this case, the result itself.

TheOldGods:
what I asked you didn't answer, you went round and round yet didn't answer anything. If there is a murder case, and the victim is burried and body never to be found, but there are video evidence and pictures showing the person committing the crime, will the court trash the case to the dustbin based on your own conclusions that A: the court needs primary evidence which is the body of the victim. So can we now say, because there is no body seen, the pictures could be doctored and the videos fake therefore case has been thrown to the dustbin?

ethikallyright:


Go back to what I wrote. I answered your question in the first paragraph setting an instance where oral, real or secondary evidence may be accepted. Videos, pictures etc may be admissible to prove voters' intimidation or abuse.

As long as it has to do with results, only primary evidence that is the result itself (as written and signed on paper) is admissible.

TheOldGods:
You have shot yourself back in the foot. [color=#990000]there is primary evidence already glaring at you. Even without any pictures, not uploading the results online already is breach of trust, and is already nulled. Contrary to your opinion, according to inec law, as amended, the presiding officer shall transmit the result directly from the polling unit in a manner prescribe by the commission. And the commission came out and released a press meeting, written in black and white, that the results will be transmitted to the irev portal in real time. [/color]

ethikallyright:


Lol. I don't want to reduce my IQ, so I'll pass.

ethikallyright:
THE OPPOSITIONS’ CHANCES ARE SLIM AT THE TRIBUNAL: A LEGAL OPINION


4. Whether 25% of votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory is a prerequisite to become the President of Nigeria?

The answer is no. Section 134 of CFRN 1999 states that a candidate must not have “less than one-quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the States in the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja” to become the President of Nigeria. That provision must be read together with section 299 of the same constitution which gives the FCT, Abuja, the status of a state. The court of Appeal will not deviate from the decision of the Supreme Court in Bakare v. Ogundipe (2021) where the supreme court reiterated the status of the FCT Abuja as a state in accordance with section 299 of CFRN 1999. Even in the classical case of Shagari V. Awolowo, the Supreme Court of Nigeria counted “Lagos State” which was then the seat of government as a state to determine whether the candidates had 25% in the required states.

kk2027:
Tell emilokan to rule naija no be by force

Nigerians were thrown into mourning since Tuesday because of one man's ambition

For the first time in history, a president was declared and no one is jubilating anywhere

Where are the imaginary 8 million people that voted emilokan

seunmsg:


Let us see how Peter Obi and Atiku will convince the court that non transmission of results from polling units to IREV substantially affected the result of the election.