I believe this ambush tactics by LP is genius. It is better to give the respondents only one day or more precisely, half a day to prepare their questions rather than filling their witness details earlier in the court so the opponents can then have more time to make thorough research and preparation.
quote author=senatordave1 post=123967385]


You are not getting it.court does not work on suspicion,doubt,assumptions or speculations but on clear proofs.obi lawyers must seek out what inec is hiding or they fail.in the absence of clear cut evidence,their case fails.

Secondly, giving the respondents a day to cross examine works for only the respondents because the more the question the witness,the more he stutters,shakes,trembles,contradicts himself,bring out doubts,double speak,speculate which rubbished his written deposition.the less the witness is questioned,the better for the petitioners as the witness can easily escape probe and scrutiny and his written statement is deemed true before the judges.
In other words,stop consoling yourself.this is 89 minutes and obi is losing 0-6[/quote]

I believe this ambush tactics by LP is genius. It is better to give the respondents only one day or more precisely, half a day to prepare their questions rather than filling their witness details earlier in the court so the opponents can then have more time to make thorough research and preparation.
quote author=senatordave1 post=123967385]

[b]
You are not getting it.court does not work on suspicion,doubt,assumptions or speculations but on clear proofs.obi lawyers must seek out what inec is hiding or they fail.in the absence of clear cut evidence,their case fails.

Secondly, giving the respondents a day to cross examine works for only the respondents because the more the question the witness,the more he stutters,shakes,trembles,contradicts himself,bring out doubts,double speak,speculate which rubbished his written deposition.the less the witness is questioned,the better for the petitioners as the witness can easily escape probe and scrutiny and his written statement is deemed true before the judges.
In other words,stop consoling yourself.this is 89 minutes and obi is losing

IamV:



1ST RESPONDENT CROSS-EXAMINATION:

Keys :
Q= questions by the cross examiner
A= Answer[s] by the witness

Q. You are a very experienced cyber security and risk expert

A. Yes

Q. Because of that you'll be reasonably familiar with the cyber security situation in Nigeria.

A. I'll appreciate if you are exact.

Q. If there's a problem, you'll be familiar with that.

A. Depends

Q. On para 9, you talked about ISO 27001 standard.

A. Yes

Q. That ISO certification is not a statutory requirement for organizations by INEC

A. You're wrong, it is a requirement.

First, let me salute IAMV for his effort and work here. Brother, I greet you. Abundance in health follow you. Abundance in wellness follow you. Abundance in growth and happiness follow you.


Now, the bold is inaccurate. All ISO quality certifications are proof that the holder is compliant with the class of certification they hold. In a competitive market it isa good credential to have and to prove class of service but there is no mandate for it, and those without it are not penalized. They might be blacklisted from certain eligibilities, but there are always loop holes around such barriers.

INEC is NOT mandated to have that ISO.
Also, court should reprimand that witness for his manner of response. It is rude and also foul in court protocol.

GoodGovernance:


That is where substantial non compliance comes in.

I wonder why people are ignoring section 64(4) of the electoral act.

The failure to transmit results FROM the polling units in all over 700,000 polling units,contrary to provisions of 64(4),is enough evidence for substantial non compliance with the electoral total act.

Cancellation of the election, is more likely than than declaring Obi the winner.

Was it not what we called for immediately it was obvious that there were discrepancies between the numbers being announced and the numbers that were got at the polling units?

senatordave1:


Truth is tinubu won

As a matter of fact I and my family members voted for Tinubu.

IamV:


Q. You can't tell also if the results of those 3 Forms EC8A were properly collated or not.

A. That was not for me today, I only presented facts. I didn't see the collation, I cannot answer to that

Q. All you did was on your computer ?

A. Yes

Q. you're familiar with Away web services ?

A. a bit familiar

Q. the aws security model is a shared model between aws and the client.

A. you're correct this time

Q. that means aws guarantees the security of its infrastructure ?

A. if you're speaking to that component, yes.
There are 3 components Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability. Availability is the responsibility of AWS

Q. You're familiar with cloud trail ?

A. Yes

Q. The cloud trail on application deployed by INEC will tell the availability of INEC infrastructure

A. That's correct.

Examiner is using this Cyber Security Expert to negate testimony given by AWS Cloud expert two days ago.

senatordave1:


Not true sir.once a matter is internal,it cannot be taken to a tribunal.section 84 of the electoral act clearly deals with nomination and it makes it purely a party affair.again,the only qualification matter that can be taken to tribunal are those that are constitutional.double nomination is purely an electoral act offence

The Counsel that represented LP in that case was reprimanded by Justice of the Supreme Court for introducing deception and fraud in his submission. The Justices pointed to facts revealing that Shettima withdrew his nomination, APC submitted list of new candidates to INEC and also alerted INEC of a new date for a new primary. All happened before deadline on 14th of July.

The case was thrown out and victory awarded to Apc and Shettima.

Let me find it to post for you, be right back...

senatordave1:

Inec regulations states that you can only defer to irev copies in the absence of the physical

Can you quote it

Majesty7:


You guys are just slow and daft. He was asked a question. Saying he doesn't know implies that he knew nothing

If he has issues with the announcement, it is better to say "according to INEC"... With that he might prove something but saying blantly that he didn't know shows he never follow the event just a blind supporter believing in his own rubbish. Wait and see. This is a national issue and mind games can send you to jail. Till then

They are correcting you but still arguing. The best answer is fro him to say he doesn't know. If he says he knows, it means he has interest and if he says as declared by INEC, it means, he's bias. Expert witness is there to argue or talk on issue pertaining to his field of endeavour and not what is outside his field. Take correction and move on.

sreamsense:

You know he is an IT expert, he knows well about logic because everything about computer is logic. However, handling 12 polling unit due to time factor I guess out of 176,846 is too negligible to show any serious positive direction to his research and for the fact that he didn't interrogate with those that matters to extract more factual data to aid his research has rubbished everything he presented because his data are not reliable enough. LP has lost this case already even before formal ruling takes place except you like to dwell in lies

Clown

Godsplan89:
Welcome here, this is an opportunity to get your data at a very affordable price
Get 25gb worth of data for all network for just #2000 now!!!
It can be shared too and works generally
Message 09160392479

You have started again abi?!!!

Peter Obi is seeking the relief from the Tribunal to:
1. Declare him the winner after disqualifying Tinubu and nullifying the votes recorded for Tinubu as wasted
2. Declare a re-run after disqualifying Tinubu

1. For Peter Obi to prove he actually won the election and not by technicalities then all the evidences being presented must be coherent and show clearly that the result declared by INEC is a rigged one and then present the actual result from the acceptable documents which is the Form EC8s. Forget all the noise about IReV and blurred results, no sensible tribunal will cancel such an election on technicalities of IReV failed to upload real time as if that changed whats is recorded on the EC8s. No election is ever perfect and even Peter Obi's second term election was termed as flawed, Obansanjos' two elections were flawed, YarAdua's election was reported as flawed, but they were all upheld as long as the issues encountered were not significant enough to affect the overall outcome. Moreover PO has to prove that he also had more number of votes than Atiku after Tinubu's votes has been nullified. Has anyone here seen his lawyers prove this point?

2. If Obi is banking on technicalities to ask for a rerun, then the court would need to uphold the Shettima's double nomination and the 25% of FCT arguments both of which are dead on arrival. In any case, can you imagine a re-run between Atiku and Obi? Massive landslide for Atiku definitely.

This case is not about sentiment, it is about proving his case beyond reasonable doubt necessary for the court to grant either of the relief he is seeking. Forget not that the Tribunal has set the tone for the hearing right from the onset... that they would not entertain intangible technicalities. So best of luck to him and his lawyers in proving that Obi actually won more votes that Tinubu and Atiku, or convincing the court to cancel the election and order a rerun, but they should be reminded that elections are not cancelled just based on the claim of irregularities.... it has to be so massive and widespread enough for this to happen

collinx:
I believe this ambush tactics by LP is genius. It is better to give the respondents only one day or more precisely, half a day to prepare their questions rather than filling their witness details earlier in the court so the opponents can then have more time to make thorough research and preparation.
quote author=senatordave1 post=123967385]


You are not getting it.court does not work on suspicion,doubt,assumptions or speculations but on clear proofs.obi lawyers must seek out what inec is hiding or they fail.in the absence of clear cut evidence,their case fails.

Secondly, giving the respondents a day to cross examine works for only the respondents because the more the question the witness,the more he stutters,shakes,trembles,contradicts himself,bring out doubts,double speak,speculate which rubbished his written deposition.the less the witness is questioned,the better for the petitioners as the witness can easily escape probe and scrutiny and his written statement is deemed true before the judges.
In other words,stop consoling yourself.this is 89 minutes and obi is losing 0-6

Waste of time, ambush tactics indeed, only Obi took them to court, only them want to ambush the defendants in not giving them enough time to destroy their useless frivolous case?

They the defense don’t need much time, PDP & LP/PDP no get case.

Running from themselves, chasing shadows.

Since this tribunal starts,ineec,Apc,nd tinubu/shettima have been objecting, when are they going to respond,we dey look nah

talented321:
Peter Obi and Jagaban are the same peole, they are just decamping from party to another. But jagaban patiently waited for his time.

Ode

I blame the two ode that born you

chariiks:
Ode

IamV:


The court now adjourns till tomorrow, Friday June 23, 2023 at 2pm for continuation of hearing.


-----------
Thank you all for keeping the thread going.
My beautiful & handsome audience, you're all appreciated.

Tomorrow, we go HARDER !

For now,you all take care and do have a great day.

I missed your update yesterday and it made me restless. Thank you for continuing today. God bless you.

senatordave1:


I predicted atiku vs buhari

I'm glad u said predicted.

Dreal1247:
Everybody knows the truth. Tinubu made it clear that people didn't vote for him. Mamood Yakubu actually imposed him on Nigerians. The question is,"Can the court give us the needed justice in this case?". The end shall provide the much needed answer.

This your mumu really get levels

IfnobeGod20:

He's not an election expert, he needs not doing that. He's a cyber security expert and an election expert. If he do that he has rubbish his work.

However 12 units are like a drop in a river

senatordave1:


You are using 12 to determine 176,000? Sir are you ok? Or you just want to console and comfort yourself

Mr. Man, you're confusing election expert to expert witness. He wasn't hired to collate results of the election.

GoodGovernance:


Your ignorance is probably deliberate or you truly do not understand the legal implication of a CTC which is as valid as the original.

Once you've certified a copy of a document as a replica of the original,what else?
The court is no longer interested in the original because the CTC.is tenable in court,for God's sake!!!

The headache is that of INEC and not peter Obi or the court!

I gave you an example an example of a ctc being rejected,you are still talking thrash.shift jor

Akwamkpuruamu:


I love your illusory tales by moonlight

Synonymous with dumbidients

IfnobeGod20:

Mr. Man, you're confusing election expert to expert witness. He wasn't hired to collate results of the election.

His analysis is too minute

saintbillion:

I'm glad u said predicted.

I am a specialist in predictions

YourMrBoo:


Can you quote it

Go to section 93

collinx:
I believe this ambush tactics by LP is genius. It is better to give the respondents only one day or more precisely, half a day to prepare their questions rather than filling their witness details earlier in the court so the opponents can then have more time to make thorough research and preparation.
quote author=senatordave1 post=123967385]

[b]
You are not getting it.court does not work on suspicion,doubt,assumptions or speculations but on clear proofs.obi lawyers must seek out what inec is hiding or they fail.in the absence of clear cut evidence,their case fails.

Secondly, giving the respondents a day to cross examine works for only the respondents because the more the question the witness,the more he stutters,shakes,trembles,contradicts himself,bring out doubts,double speak,speculate which rubbished his written deposition.the less the witness is questioned,the better for the petitioners as the witness can easily escape probe and scrutiny and his written statement is deemed true before the judges.
In other words,stop consoling yourself.this is 89 minutes and obi is losing

It is a bad tactics to give the respondents more time.the lesser their time to cross examine,the better

BabaRamota1980:


Examiner is using this Cyber Security Expert to negate testimony given by AWS Cloud expert two days ago.

Exactly.i noticed this.he was busy using him to kill his testimony and that of the AWS expert.he confirmed that glitch is possible and that there is client provider secrecy

GoodGovernance:


It seems you do not even understand the meaning of certified true copy.

When you certify blurred document as a true copy of the original,what does that imply?

That the original too is blurred!!!

This is big indictment on the part of INEC.

No Sir/Ma

Those are certified true copies of the UPLOADED forms.

The ORIGINALS may not be blurred, and are likely NOT BLURRED since LP would have gleefully present that instead and closed this case

GoodGovernance:


Have you read 64(4). Combined with 60?

I would be disappointed if you have a legal background.

Yes I have Sir

60.—(1) The Presiding officer shall, after counting the votes at the polling
unit, enter the votes scored by each candidate in a form to be prescribed by
the Commission as the case may be.
(2) The form shall be signed and stamped by the presiding officer and
counter signed by the candidates or their polling agents where available at the
polling unit.
(3) The presiding officer shall give to the polling agents and the police
officer where available a copy each of the completed forms after it has been
duly signed as provided under subsection (2).
(4) The presiding officer shall count and announce the result at the
polling unit.
(5) The presiding officer shall transfer the results including total number
of accredited voters and the results of the ballot in a manner as prescribed by
the Commission.
(6) A presiding officer who wilfully contravenes any provision of this
section commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not more than
N500,000 or imprisonment for a term of at least six months.


And 64


64.—(1) The presiding officer shall endorse the word “rejected” on the
ballot paper rejected under section 52 (1) of this Act and for any other reason,
and the ballot papers shall not be counted except otherwise allowed by the
returning officer who may overrule the presiding officer.
(2) If an objection to the decision of a presiding officer to reject a ballot
paper is raised by a candidate or a polling agent at the time the decision is
made, the presiding officer shall add to the word “rejected”, the phrase “but
objected to”.
(3) The presiding officer shall prepare a statement on rejected ballot
papers, stating the number rejected, the reason for rejection and their serial
number, and he or she shall on request, allow a candidate or a polling agent to
copy the statement.
(4) A collation officer or returning officerat an election shall collate and
announce the result of an election, subject to his or her verification and
confirmation that the—
(a) number of accredited voters stated on the collated result are correct
and consistent with the number of accredited voters recorded and transmitted
directly from polling units under section 47 (2) of this Act ; and
(b) the votes stated on the collated result are correct and consistent with
the votes or results recorded and transmitted directly from polling units
under section 60 (4) of this Act


Just humour me since I obviously don't have legal experience, and you are potentially a SAN Sir/Ma;

show me BVAS or iRev in this law wholly quoted.

senatordave1:


I have stated here timelessly that almost all obi fans do not know jack about the law.they are simply seeing things from a commonsensical and a moral perspective

You always claim you know all but in the long run, you know nothing. I said, the guy looks more like a hostile witness. I didn't say, he comes as a hostile witness. Know the difference. As he was vehemently countering his question. You heard how one of the respondents said, he was agreed and he would not go further to ask any question again.

LADEMINUS:



A hostile witness is one that goes against the person he is testifying for. For the guy to be a hostile witness, he will have been going against LP

Did you read my commit very well? I said, more like a hostile witness because of the way he was countering all questions asked.
Please read very well before you start reading meaning to comment.