*REVISITING THE PETER OBI JUDICIAL ENTERTAINMENT*

By Michael Chibuzo

Less than 3 months ago, I authored a four-part series where I dissected the petition filed by the Labour Party Presidential Candidate in the last general elections, Mr. Peter Obi challenging the victory of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu in February 25th Presidential Election. In that series, I opined that Obi's petition is the most watery Presidential Election Petition ever in our democratic history and went on to dissect the entire petition to prove it.

From the ongoing proceedings at the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal (PEPT), it is glaring that my submissions are proving to be correct. Mr. Peter Obi and the Labour Party hinged their petition on three grounds namely:

1. That the 2nd Respondent (Bola Tinubu) was at the time of election not qualified to contest.

2. That the election of the 2nd Respondent (Bola Tinubu) was invalid by reason of corrupt practices or non-compliance with the provisions of the6 Electoral Act 2022

3. That the 2nd Respondent (Bola Tinubu) was not duly elected by majority of the lawful votes cast in the election.

For the ground 1, the petitioners contended that President Bola Tinubu was not qualified to contest because his running mate, Sen. Kashim Shettima had double nomination - one as Senatorial Candidate for Borno Central and the other as Vice Presidential Candidate. The petitioners also further contended that President Bola Tinubu was not qualified to contest for president due to a fine of $460,000 handed by a US District Court of Illinois on October 4, 1993.

As the hearing of Obi's petition was underway, the Supreme Court delivered judgment in a suit instituted by the PDP seeking the disqualification of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu on the ground of double nomination of his running mate, Sen. Kashim Shettima. In the unanimous judgment of a 5-man panel of the Supreme Justices, the apex court held that apart from the suit being statue barred, the PDP lacked the locus standi to challenge the nomination process of another political party.

Part of the judgment read:

*"the position of the law has always been that no political party can challenge the nomination of a candidate of another political party. The position did not change in section 285(14)(c) of the constitution. No matter how pained or disgruntled a political party is with the way and manner another political party is conducting or has conducted its affairs concerning its nomination of candidates for any position, it must keep mum and remain an onlooker for he lacks locus standi to challenge such nomination in court.*

*Section 285(14)(c) of the constitution only allows a political party to challenge the decisions and activities of INEC disqualifying its own candidate from participating in an election.”*

In addition to the above judgment, Amina Augie JSC affirmed that Shettima did not participate in any Vice Presidential primary and was merely appointed by the Presidential Candidate of the APC pursuant to his powers in Section 142 of the 1999 Constitution as his associate. The Supreme Court by that judgment simply rendered one leg of the ground 1 of Peter Obi's petition useless even before the tribunal had commenced hearing fully.

It was therefore funny that during the hearing, in trying to prove their double nomination case, all Mr. Peter Obi's legal team could do was to bring two new TVs to the court room to play the video of when the then APC Presidential Candidate, Bola Ahmed Tinubu visited President Muhammadu Buhari in Daura to inform him of his choice of Sen. Kashim Shettima as his running mate. The LP legal team simply wanted to prove that as at that day when Tinubu made the announcement, Shettima was still Borno Central Senatorial Candidate of the APC and therefore according to them amounted to double nomination even if it was for a brief moment! What a logic! ...

The other leg of the ground 1 is the issue of $460,000 fine allegedly handed by the US District Court of Illinois on October 4, 1993 to President Bola Tinubu. On this, I still maintain my stand that President Bola Tinubu cannot be disqualified by virtue of Section 137 (1) paragraphs (d) and (e) because whatever fine the US Court handed to President Bola Tinubu, it was not a conviction or fine by a Nigerian Court neither was it registered in Nigeria. Even if we assume without conceding to the fact that the court was in Nigeria or that President Bola Tinubu was indeed guilty of any crime and convicted, Section 137 (1e) barred him from running for office for 10 years only. The said court case Obi is relying on happened 29 years ago. So, in essence, ground 1 of Obi's petition is simply dead and waiting to be buried by the Tribunal in its judgment.

For ground 2 of Peter Obi's petition, the way his legal team has been going about trying to prove that the election of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu was invalid by reason of corrupt practices and non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act has been hilarious and entertaining to say the least. Like I pointed out in part 2 and 3 of my earlier series on the Obi petition, of all the allegations of rigging and reallocation of votes in his petition, they could only present specific figures for two states (Rivers and Benue) as what they believe were the real scores.

During the pre-hearing, Obi said he will call 50 witnesses to testify and prove his case including some star witnesses and 'experts'. However, Obi's legal team ended up calling only 13 witnesses before closing their case. The witnesses include:

1. Barr. Lawrence Ukechukwu
2. Anthony Chinwo (JP Morgan Chase Software Engineer).
3. Lucky Ukpewo (Channels TV Senior Reporter).
4. Lummie Edevbie (Arise TV Director of Operations).
5. Ijeoma Osamor (AIT Broadcaster).
6. Prof. Eric M. Ofoedu (Professor of Mathematics).
7. Ms Clarita Ogar (a Cloud Engineer).
8. Mr. Chibuike Ugwuoke (a cyber security expert).
9. Onoja Sunday (an election observer).
10. Kefas Iya (an ad-hoc staff of INEC).
11. Emmanuel Edet (Head of Legal Services, NITDA)
12. Yunusa Tanko (LP Presidential Campaign Spokesperson).
13. Peter Emmanuel Yari (an INEC adhoc staff from Kaduna).

The testimony of almost all the 13 witnesses called by Obi's legal team revolves around electronic transmission of results and the IREV portal. They are trying hard to prove that the Presidential Election was not credible as a result of the inability of INEC, due to technical glitches, to carry out 'live transmission' of the results from the polling units to the IREV portal. They started by issuing subpoenas on TV channel personnel from Channels, AIT and Arise TV to come and testify that they reported where INEC Chairman promised electronic transmission of election results.

They also brought a cloud Engineer allegedly working with Amazon Web Services who was also a Labour Party House of Reps Aspirant to testify that Amazon Web Services that hosted INEC servers did not suffer any glitches on the day of the Presidential election. Only two INEC adhoc workers were subpoenaed by Obi's legal team and they didn't come to testify that the results they declared at the polling unit were changed but to testify that they couldn't transmit the picture of result sheet to the IREV portal in real time.

The star witness called by Obi's legal team, Professor of Mathematics, Eric M. Ofoedu to analyse the results declared by INEC and eventually uploaded in the IREV portal presented calculations in only TWO states (Rivers and Benue), to prove that Obi won the election. During cross examination, he was asked why present only the two states to which he responded that he simply picked the two states randomly and would have analysed more states if he had more time. The professor further stated that 18,088 polling unit results uploaded into the IREV portal were blurred.

The LP House of Rep Aspirant, Ms Clarita Ogar that claims to be a Cloud Engineer with Amazon Web Services in her testimony made a mess of Obi's case as she effectively admitted during cross-examination that she was not sent by Amazon Web Services to represent it and therefore not speaking for them. She was also presented with facts publicly available showing that Amazon Web Services have experienced multiple worldwide glitches in the past including in December 2022 to which she admitted.

She was also reminded by Wole Olanipekun SAN that she sued INEC for omitting her name from the register after complaining that she made several efforts to upload her particulars on INEC portal but it failed due to a network glitch and stated in her affidavit then that the INEC site crashed. She agreed. So in essence she believes INEC site crashed during her own upload last year but did not experience any glitch on the day of the Presidential election without any proof outside the publicly available health status of Amazon Web Services which according to her did not indicate AWS experienced any network glitch on February 25th.

Perhaps the most entertaining witness of the Labour Party Presidential Candidate in the petition is Yunusa Tanko who was their Campaign Spokesperson. LP built their case around electronic transmission of results and Yunusa while being led in evidence stated that LP filed a suit against INEC seeking the court to compel INEC to transmit results electronically and that the court in a judgement delivered on January 23rd, 2023 refused all the reliefs that were sought by the party as the court held that nothing in the Electoral Act stipulated how INEC should transmit election results and that the high court, while dismissing the suit, further held that INEC was at liberty to prescribe the manner the election results should be transmitted.

During cross-examination, Mr. Yunusa was reminded that he did not state any figure to indicate the number of unlawful votes that were credited to President Tinubu and the APC as he alleged in the affidavit he deposed in his statement on oath. He insisted that votes were simply allocated to all Presidential Candidates by INEC and that If the results were uploaded as required by the law, his party would have gotten more votes than what was allocated to it. He went further to tell the court that his wish was for the entire result of the election to be voided, including the votes “allocated” to the presidential candidate of his party, Mr. Peter Obi!

When asked to confirm that Obi scored about 95.07 percent of votes in Anambra state, Mr. Yunusa Tanko said: “I have not seen it.” He went further to say: "We are not satisfied with the outcome of election, that is why we are here in court. How do we know the actual votes we got when the results are yet to be uploaded on the IReV portal, four months after the election held?" He was further asked to tell the court the total figure of votes that were unlawfully allocated to President Tinubu, to which he replied: “Our expert witness has already presented the figures in his evidence before this court. I am not a mathematician and I am not good in calculations.” Mind you, the expert witness he was referring to was Prof. Ofoedu who had earlier said he did calculations for only Rivers and Benue states due to lack of time.

Finally, when Yunusa was asked what he wanted the court to do with results that were scored by Alhaji Atiku Abubakar of the PDP, who came second in the election, he said: “We are challenging the entire results of the election and if they are cancelled, it affects results that were allocated to all the candidates, including votes scored by Atiku. What an entertaining witness! If what you want is for the entire election to be cancelled (due to an unsubstantiated allocation of votes), why then the noise about recovering a 'stolen mandate'?

Unfortunately for the petitioners, this their obsession with 'live transmission' of election resultsand their relentless attempt to make transmission of results the sole determining factor that confers legitimacy on the results declared has met a solid brick wall even before the conclusion of the hearing of their petition. The Supreme Court while delivering in the Oyetola vs Adeleke case declared in page 14 of the judgment that *"the evidence required to prove non-accreditation, improper accreditation and over voting under under the Electoral Act 2022 are the BVAS, the Register of Voters and the Polling Unit result in INEC Form EC8A by virtue of S.47(1)(2) and 51(2) of the Electoral Act 2022, Regulations 14, 18, 19(b)(i-iv), (e)(i-iii) and 48(a) of the INEC Regulations and Guidelines for the conduct of Elections 2022."*

In fact, the Supreme Court in that judgment further stated that the result viewing portal IREV is just to the public at large the opportunity to view the polling unit results on the election day. It even alluded to the fact that INEC electronic database and by extension the IREV portal CANNOT be a COMPLETE and ACCURATE of the number of voters accredited and of the number of votes cast on an election day because it is not the direct record of these numbers and contains only the numbers transmitted to it from the BVAS. So that if the BVAS malfunctions and is unable to INSTANTLY TRANSMIT as it was recording because of lack of internet connectivity, failure of INEC officials to press the submit button properly and loss of power in the battery, what is recorded in the BVAS will not be in the database and consequently the IREV (for the scanned form EC8A).

So, Mr. Peter Obi and LP should understand that the physical form EC8A from the 176,846 polling units in Nigeria and the accompanying 176,846 BVAS machines OUGHT TO BE their primary evidence for proving any corrupt practices and non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act. Obi's legal team did not tender the form EC8A they got from their agents from 176,846 polling units in the country neither did they tender the BVAS accreditation certificate for each of the 176,846 polling units in the country to prove their allegations of over voting in some places and wrong allocation of votes to President Tinubu. What they brought before the Tribunal was 18,088 blurred results they downloaded from the IREV portal, which is simply useless in determining any electoral fraud without the corresponding physical form EC8As and BVAS record of each of the polling units.

The funny thing is that at each juncture when they tendered these useless exhibits (boxes of blurred IREV printout, videos of Tinubu's visit to Buhari and INEC Chairman's press conference assuring of electronic transmission of results) before the tribunal, and the tribunal naturally admits them in evidence as is the standard practice in litigations, their supporters will erupt in jubilation with a Renewed Hope that they're closer to 'retrieving their stolen mandate'. You will see many ignorant supporters boasting that Obi was more prepared for the Tribunal case than the elections and that APC did not see Obi coming. Hilarious.

Finally, in their Ground 3 as outlined in paragraph 81 of their petition, Peter Obi and the LP were contending that the interpretation of Section 134(2)b of the constitution is such that a candidate with the highest number of votes MUST score at least 25% of the votes in the FCT in addition to 24 other states of the federation to be declared winner. They therefore stated that since the 2nd Respondent, President Bola Tinubu did not score up to 25% of the votes cast in the FCT, he is not duly elected. On this same subject matter, five individuals that described themselves as residents of the FCT instituted a suit at the Federal High Court Abuja seeking to stop the inauguration of the President, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu on May 29th, 2023 since he did not score up to 25% of the votes cast in the FCT. The Presiding judge, Inyang Ekwo rightly dismissed the suit and fined thelawyer representing the plaintiffs the sum of N10 million.

Even though Justice Inyang Ekwo did not rule on the issue of 25% in the FCT itself, it is very clear that it is a non-issue to start with as I extensively dissected in part 3 of my earlier series on the Obi petition. However let me reiterate here that the essence of Section 134(2)b of the Constitution is simply to ensure national spread and prevent one section of the country being dominant. It will therefore negate the essence of the provision if getting at least 25% of the votes cast in the FCT is a compulsory criteria to be declared winner. This in effect means FCT voters will now be more important than voters from the entire 36 states since a candidate can secure 25% of the votes in the 36 states but may fail to reach that threshold in the FCT and going by that flawed logic, such candidate will not be declared a winner because FCT voters are holding him hostage. This is definitely not the intention of the Constitution.

Section 299 of the 1999 Constitution on its own conferred the status of a state to the FCT and provided that it be treated as if it were a state wherever it is mentioned in the Constitution. Therefore the judicial voyage of Obi on the 25% in the FCT question will definitely end up fruitless. The other judicial fishing expeditions of Obi's legal team especially as it relates to alleged dual citizenship of the President and their obsession with his certificates equally shows how shallow the Obi petition is. It is simply a clever way to remain in the news and keep his Obidients engaged ahead of the next time he will contest for president. Well, the circus will soon come to an end.


Mynd44
Nplfmod
Obinoscopy
Seun
Dominique
Efewestern
Topaz
Afamed
Parakimana
Supremos
Helinues
Omenka
Yarimo
Penguin2
Buddha3
Calmobserver
Zoedew
Fergie001
Vicdom
Kelvinginzie
Aaa593
Bayelsaowei
Ruggedtimi
Bennycollins
Sionkpo
Norwichsailor
Digitron
Workch
Wegevv
Politeactivist
ifnobeGod2

Better entertainment

The mofo no get case

Obi has lost. He can never be president. Atiku has lost too

duro4chang:
Obi has lost. He can never be president. Atiku has lost too

Yes oh

Omo e long oo

My position on this case has long been made public. I think the case will help our polity but to think Tinubu will be removed or there may be a re-run is wishful thinking.

Oyetola v Adeleke SC judgement loading......

All manners of undesirable elements and hacks have been paid to spread mindless propaganda in the media in a futile attempt to make Peter Obi take his eyes off the ball...

But that will not happen.

Impunity will never be allowed to become the normality.

Peter Obi, the new clown comedian in town

helinues:
Peter Obi, the new clown comedian in town

Bola Ahmed is a heroin lagbaja

What we have so far in the tribunal is Obi's presentation, destroyed by his witnesses.

Beginning July 3rd we will see respondent lawyers begin to use facts to flog the petitioner

fergie001:
My position on this case has long been made public. I think the case will help our polity but to think Tinubu will be removed or there may be a re-run is wishful thinking.

Oyetola v Adeleke SC judgement loading......

Yes,it will help expand the horizon and some other politicians but will not help obi and atiku based on how they approached the case

BabaRamota1980:
What we have so far in the tribunal is Obi's presentation, destroyed by his witnesses.

Beginning July 3rd we will see respondent lawyers begin to use facts to flog the petitioner

Yes but expect defence lawyers to also fumble under heavy cross examination

UnusualEmissary:
Omo e long oo

A very delightful serving to the brain.

senatordave1:


Yes,it will help expand the horizon and some other politicians but will not help obi and atiku based on how they approached the case

You think their lawyers don't know it's almost 'dead'? They are lawyers, it's their job and something might stick (you know).

fergie001:

You think their lawyers don't know it's almost 'dead'? They are lawyers, it's their job and something might stick (you know).

Uzoukwu from his body language knows but ofcourse won't tell obi the truth.uche even brought the Chicago angle in a last gap attempt.

Your brother gen gold chibuisi has been favoured

One thing I always try to do is to read through articles and read in between lines so that I will get the full message and that’s what I did with this article.

Now reading through this, I saw where the writer made allusion to Adeleke vs Oyetola case where Supreme Court ruled that the BVAS, the Electoral Register and the Form EC8A are the primary sources of evidence of what happened at the elections.

Then he went on to claim that Obi was only able to present 18,088 blurred result sheets that was downloaded from IREV which is a False claim.

First, Obi presented INEC Certified Form EC8A for all the Polling Units for all the states he’s contesting its votes.

Again, he presented INEC Certified forms EC8B, EC8C and EC8D for all those states. I didn’t see him mention this the body of lies he called an article.

Then, the 18,088 blurred IREV results presented in court by LP is INEC certified, and not downloaded from IREV.

On 25% FCT, Justice Inyang Ekwo said that the reason for his decision was that the case was already before the Presidential Election Petition Court which is a higher court and therefore denies his court of jurisdiction. How does that mean that it was settled?

On Shettima’s Double Nomination, the Supreme Court called the PDP a meddlesome interloper because as of the time it instituted the case, it lacked the locus standi to do so but that changed after the election because fellow candidates in the election were now bestowed with locus. Again, PDP filed the case out of time.

I’m not here to say that Obi’s case is watertight or that the courts will declare him president, but spreading outright falsehoods as against the true happenings in court is a deliberate attempt to misinform the public and probably lay the ground for the Judiciary to give dubious judgment.

Penguin2:
One thing I always try to do is to read through articles and read in between lines so that I will get the full message and that’s what I did with this article.

Now reading through this, I saw where the writer made allusion to Adeleke vs Oyetola case where Supreme Court ruled that the BVAS, the Electoral Register and the Form EC8A are the primary sources of evidence of what happened at the elections.

Then he went on to claim that Obi was only able to present 18,088 blurred result sheets that was downloaded from IREV which is a False claim.

First, Obi presented INEC Certified Form EC8A for all the Polling Units for all the states he’s contesting its votes.

Again, he presented INEC Certified forms EC8B, EC8C and EC8D for all those states. I didn’t see him mention this the body of lies he called an article.

Then, the 18,088 blurred IREV results presented in court by LP is INEC certified, and not downloaded from IREV.

On 25% FCT, Justice Inyang Ekwo said that the reason for his decision was that the case was already before the Presidential Election Petition Court which is a higher court and therefore denies his court of jurisdiction. How does that mean that it was settled?

On Shettima’s Double Nomination, the Supreme Court called the PDP a meddlesome interloper because as of the time it instituted the case, it lacked the locus standi to do so but that changed after the election because fellow candidates in the election were now bestowed with locus. Again, PDP filed the case out of time.

I’m not here to say that Obi’s case is watertight or that the courts will declare him president, but spreading outright falsehoods as against the true happenings in court is a deliberate attempt to misinform the public and probably lay the ground for the Judiciary to give dubious judgment.

He is actually right.a inec documents are certified,irev is simply the online copy of the original which has been certified already.the problem here is that you are not listening or reading the case line by line being detailed.obi tendered form ec8a,ec8b etc but he never made reference to them, linked them or analysed them or gave life to them as he did to the irev.the prof was commissioned to look,tabulate,analyse only irev copies which is secondary evidence.he failed to compare them with the physical copies.why is there no analysis or tabulation of the physical copies? Probably because they did and tinubu still won.

Concerning shettima,apart from it purely being an internal affair of a party,the apex court clearly said shettima was never even guilty of double nomination and attacked pdp for trying to mislead them.
For the fct matter,obi abandoned it.in any case,the court I know will not rule otherwise

Penguin2:
One thing I always try to do is to read through articles and read in between lines so that I will get the full message and that’s what I did with this article.

Now reading through this, I saw where the writer made allusion to Adeleke vs Oyetola case where Supreme Court ruled that the BVAS, the Electoral Register and the Form EC8A are the primary sources of evidence of what happened at the elections.

Then he went on to claim that Obi was only able to present 18,088 blurred result sheets that was downloaded from IREV which is a False claim.

First, Obi presented INEC Certified Form EC8A for all the Polling Units for all the states he’s contesting its votes.

Again, he presented INEC Certified forms EC8B, EC8C and EC8D for all those states. I didn’t see him mention this the body of lies he called an article.

Then, the 18,088 blurred IREV results presented in court by LP is INEC certified, and not downloaded from IREV.

On 25% FCT, Justice Inyang Ekwo said that the reason for his decision was that the case was already before the Presidential Election Petition Court which is a higher court and therefore denies his court of jurisdiction. How does that mean that it was settled?

On Shettima’s Double Nomination, the Supreme Court called the PDP a meddlesome interloper because as of the time it instituted the case, it lacked the locus standi to do so but that changed after the election because fellow candidates in the election were now bestowed with locus. Again, PDP filed the case out of time.

I’m not here to say that Obi’s case is watertight or that the courts will declare him president, but spreading outright falsehoods as against the true happenings in court is a deliberate attempt to misinform the public and probably lay the ground for the Judiciary to give dubious judgment.

The Batists are shivering already because the amount of evidence Obi brought against the concain trafficker is too weighty. You can see the headless mobs runnings helter skelter looking for anything to console their already tensed faces and temper.

senatordave1:


Yes but expect defence lawyers to also fumble under heavy cross examination

You mean petitioner witnesses.

It will be a cake walk for respondents lawyers.

senatordave1:


Yes but expect defence lawyers to also fumble under heavy cross examination

As it is defense lawyers don't need to struggle so much again as the petitioner's witnesses have done majority for them. The less witness they call now, the better for them before Obi's lawyer will capitalize on a slip up from one of them to to the table.



We learn every day.

soojar:


As it is defense lawyers don't need to struggle so much again as the petitioner's witnesses have done majority for them. The less witness they call now, the better for them before Obi's lawyer will capitalize on a slip up from one of them to to the table.



We learn every day.

Yes though the judges have already made up their minds and written their rulings. slip ups from the defense won't do anything for it is settled that a petitioner will succeed on the strength of his case and not on defensive weaknesses

senatordave1:


He is actually right.a inec documents are certified,irev is simply the online copy of the original which has been certified already.the problem here is that you are not listening or reading the case line by line being detailed.obi tendered form ec8a,ec8b etc but he never made reference to them, linked them or analysed them or gave life to them as he did to the irev.the prof was commissioned to look,tabulate,analyse only irev copies which is secondary evidence.he failed to compare them with the physical copies.why is there no analysis or tabulation of the physical copies? Probably because they did and tinubu still won.

Concerning shettima,apart from it purely being an internal affair of a party,the apex court clearly said shettima was never even guilty of double nomination and attacked pdp for trying to mislead them.
For the fct matter,obi abandoned it.in any case,the court I know will not rule otherwise

When they are done with presentation of evidences, there will be written address where LP will breathe more life into those documents.

You guys should stop telling lies and trying to deceive people about what is going on in court.

Your article said Obi didn’t present Form EC8A, and I showed you proof that he presented INEC certified form EC8A for all the polling units in all the states he’s contesting. He didn’t stop at that, he also presented forms EC8B, EC8C and EC8C so that the courts can look at them and determine if INEC’s final results necessarily follows from what happened at polling units.

Now, you are claiming those evidences were dumped in court.

Which one are you saying? That they were not presented at all or that life was not breathed into them?

Penguin2:

When they are done with presentation of evidences, there will be written address where LP will breathe more life into those documents.

You guys should stop telling lies and trying to deceive people about what is going on in court.

Your article said Obi didn’t present Form EC8A, and I showed you proof that he presented INEC certified form EC8A for all the polling units in all the states he’s contesting. He didn’t stop at that, he also presented forms EC8B, EC8C and EC8C so that the courts can look at them and determine if INEC’s final results necessarily follows from what happened at polling units.

Now, you are claiming those evidences were dumped in court.

Which one are you saying? That they were not presented at all or that life was not breathed into them?

Written or oral addresses are formalities,pure summary of everything parties in court want,a breakdown of all you have presented and your pleadings.nothing new.the truth is that the judges have formulated their judgment already if you pay close attention to what happened in court.each of the judges have a writing book where they write their findings whenever a witness is being examined or when lawyers are explaining matters,issues and evidences.when a new evidence is tendered,they only tag it and stop there.a case is decided purely or almost on what a petitioner presents.

No one said obi didn't present unit,ward or lga results.he tendered them but failed to expatiate, reference,analyse or point out their findings on them like they did on irev results,AWS etc.tge judges are not father Christmas and will not descend into the arena to assist you prove your case.you must prove your own case

Why are they always afraid?

This guy is very sound, bar any law term, All he said made a psychological sense

Paid to write nonsense.Why are you afraid.

I have never seen convincing evidence like that of labour party.

Ceenaija:
Paid to write nonsense.Why are you afraid.

I have never seen convincing evidence like that of labour party.

Give examples

Didn’t we all enjoy the drama? Are you not entertained by Giringori and his team of court jesters led by the Freemason cultist?

Senatordave1 Peter Obi is a very bad Leader

He should have conceded defeat long ago

and asked the Mob to accept it Magnanimously

and not be Violent

It is not all who stand for Elections that Win


Buhari Stood for Elections 4 times before winning

Awolowo stood many times but never became President

Even Tinubu spent 24 years preparing for it

Why are abgadorians having sleepless nights over Peter Obi's court case
I thought una say Obi's case na failed case? 🤣 🤣 🤣

Obi's case is the weakest.

Obi's case is watery.

Obi's case is a walkover.

Yet 90% of your last 100 comments is on Peter Obi.

This is a case of telling yourself something over and over again because you desperately want to believe it.

Even we that are OBIdients and active during the court case have moved on to our normal lives until our next court date. But look what we have here.

senatordave1:


Written or oral addresses are formalities,pure summary of everything parties in court want,a breakdown of all you have presented and your pleadings.nothing new.the truth is that the judges have formulated their judgment already if you pay close attention to what happened in court.each of the judges have a writing book where they write their findings whenever a witness is being examined or when lawyers are explaining matters,issues and evidences.when a new evidence is tendered,they only tag it and stop there.a case is decided purely or almost on what a petitioner presents.

No one said obi didn't present unit,ward or lga results.he tendered them but failed to expatiate, reference,analyse or point out their findings on them like they did on irev results,AWS etc.tge judges are not father Christmas and will not descend into the arena to assist you prove your case.you must prove your own case

The article you posted said Obi did not present form EC8A in court. Neither was any mention made of Obi’s presentation of Forms EC8B, EC8C and EC8D.

So, you need to pull the article down for being replete with lies and replace it with another one that captures the true happenings in court while you leave the judges to worry about what they will do with the evidence laid before them.

Meanwhile, saying that the judges have decided on their judgment while the case is still on is like saying that a Medical Doctor has decided what the sickness is while samples are still at the Laboratory.

Does that make sense?