garfield1:


I am a specialist in Nigeria not crs

Roniyke1234:


You know nothing oga...

garfield1:


Lp has no new evidence.moreover,it's an internal party matter

garfield1:
Notwithstanding the headline,this is surely how the court will rule.this is based on what the petitioners tendered in court,their final written address and replies.just as the court combined or consolidated atiku and obi petitions,I will attempt to do so.the petition is hinged on five grounds namely;

1) That obi and atiku won the elections and that their votes were suppressed.

2) That there was massive violation of inec guidelines necessitating in irregularities which calls for outright cancellations and a rerun.

3) That tinubu should be disqualified based on a conviction or punishment by u.s court

4) That Shettima is guilty of double nomination

5) That 25% requirement in FCT is mandatory

6) That Tinubu is not qualified by being a citizen of guinea and he is also guilty of perjury and inconsistencies in his educational qualifications

Ground one: Peter obi has not proven that he won the election and has not brought any proof to that effect.all his evidences points to the fact that tinubu won and that there was irregularities.even the mathematician prof ofoedu's analysis showed the only difference in the overall results was in benue,rivers and 18,000 units that were blurred.no evidence points to peter winning.it is safe to say that obi has abandoned this prayer and wants fresh polls.
For atiku,most of his evidences points to irregularities.a watery report akin to the 2019 server debacle focusing on 26 states tendered by Sam oduntan showed he won but did not give details as to how and was based only on irev data.atiku is focusing on disqualifying tinubu and declaring himself winner or a rerun.infact,evidences presented by both petitioners shows that election was conducted peacefully and the only issue was just upload which is supposed to be manual or electronic as provided by section 60-65 EA.

Ground 2:It is settled law that one will not only prove irregularities but do so substantially and show how it affected the overall results.Lp lawyers claim Inec promised electronic transmission but has failed to prove that inec failed to transmit electronically.the only called one witness to that effect who claimed that elections was free and fair.Atiku called five adhoc staffs who also testified to that effect.this unfortunately only affects the polling units they worked as evidence in election cases are restricted to each units.inec can easily call 10 staffs who will testify that results were sucessfully transmitted.in any case,the electoral act plus a fhc judgment gives inec the leeway to transmit anyhow.The court of appeal recently ruled that by virtue of section 60 of the EA,inec can choose,vary,change it's manner of transmission at any point.In other words,both manual and electronic transmission are allowed.those witnesses that said they couldn't transmit didn't blame inec but the bvas and eventually sent the results to the collation units.the purpose of electronic transmission by virtue of section 60-65 of the EA2022 is to aid collation.no collation officer was called to testify.again,the law says the collation officer will compare the hardcopy with the transmitted results.the transmitted result that was uploaded is still on the bvas in image form so the collation staff can easily look at the bvas image and form ec8a.The EA clearly specified transmit or transfer.transfer mainly has to do with manual activities while transmit is electronic.further reading of the manual guidelines will expose more on this.

Lp also called an amazon staff to show that there was no glitch.apart from the fact that she is partisan and on her own frolic without AWS permit,she confirmed that they could be localized glitch within inec. she had no letter of employment or ID but presented a letter of work history which was downloaded a day earlier plus it was unsigned rendering it inadmissible.even if there was a glitch,it does not prove anything.the adeleke vs oyetola supra 2022 case placed reliance on physical evidence and tagged online evidences as thirdhand and unreliable.inec director provided incontrovertible evidence showing localized glitches and network issues
The only quarter concrete evidence of irregularities obi provided was from 18000 units of blurred results which was based only on irev which are secondary results.lp lawyers should have verified with primary hardcopies.if they could be a leeway, it will be from here as 9 mil voters are domiciled here and 2.5 mil voters came out during the last polls.in another rerun,fewer will come out.outside this,no substantial infraction has been proven.nothing compelling has been tendered.see okereke vs umahi 2015 supra.obi petition is full of mere allegations and averments and these are not evidence.see uzodinma vs pdp supra 2020.most of the evidences tendered were not pleaded.see the above case laws.Lp failed to provide inec top copies and a comparison with top copies from rivers showed that the irev was unreliable.in adeleke vs oyetola,jsc Agim clearly stated that the bvas and server materials could be affected by network issues,printer error,scanning issue,bad camera etc which further proves it's unreliability
To further destroy obi's case,the apex court has severally stated that guidelines cannot be a ground for election petition.see wike vs dakuku, okereke vs supra,pdp vs yari...

Ground three: No arguments has been canvassed on the fct matter so it can be seemed abandoned.but if not,a community reading of section 28,section 42 and 299 of the constitution has placed fct as a state.the body language,orbiter dictum,innuendoes of the court has shown where they will stand.again,the principle of legal ambiguity presupposes that where an ambiguity in law exists,the jurists will choose the most sensible, meaningful option for the lawmakers are not confusionists or intend to create chaos.Again,all the laws quoted by the Lp lawyers support this position.
In reality,fct is less than a state and cannot all of a sudden be elevated above a state without bringing equality first.moreover,other similar democracies do not practice such absurd voting system...section 134 of the constitution provided 2 requirements.if it intended to make Fct mandatory,a third requirement would have been separately provided below as no 3.
Again, section 22-28 states that all persons have equal voting rights likewise all voting areas.no place is superior to another.this supercedes whatever 134 may be implying because an earlier provision of the constitution supercedes a later one.section 299 sees fct as a state.the courts have severally stated that the fct is neither superior or inferior to a state.


Ground three: section 182 d and e clearly says within a period of 10 years,he has been imprisoned or convicted by any court in nigeria.tinubu forfeiture wasn't a conviction and even if,10 years has elapsed and the judgment wasn't registered in Nigeria.that subsection further states that he must be under imprisonment or a sentence flowing or arising from a conviction and tinubu is not under any conviction.civil cases do not lead to convictions.moreover,he was never charged,arraigned or found guilty of any thing.what happened was that three of his accounts were frozen via an exparte order by us authorities with links to two convicts.he now proved to the court and fbi that money in two accounts were his and the one belonging to the other remaining account wasn't his.so,in a mutual agreement supervised by the court,two accounts were unfrozen and one forfeited as part of a compromise or out of court settlement.
The Lp quoted Austin vs USA to support their case but this case was a criminal case where there was a trial and conviction.in Tims vs Indiana,the accused pleaded guilty in court and was convicted.therefore,this is inapplicable here as section 68 of the evidence act States that a foreign law will be subjected to a municipal court.the reciprocal agreement has made it mandatory for all foreign judgments to be registered.this prayer is dead.let me kill it further by stating that Obi failed to call a lawyer vested in American law.barr nwakaeti only visited america once and provided scant knowledge of the US system.he also failed to call witnesses from the us judicial or prosecuting authorities.current evidences like the 2003 letter from us embassy and his recent visits to the USA shows he has no issues there.

Ground four; the shettima issue has been buried by the supreme court.they clearly stated that it was a pre election matter and internal to a party and that it can only extend beyond if he was nominated by 2 parties.section 84 of the electoral act clearly makes nomination a pre election matter and only aspirants have locus standi.double nomination is not a constitutional matter and only constitutional matters pertaining to qualifications can be raised at a tribunal.again,the apex court found out that shettima was never guilty of double nomination and lp has no new evidence necessitating a review.

6) concerning perjury,the inec form has two questions on nationality.whether one has ever changed nationality? This is a No for tinubu.secondly,whether tinubu has ever voluntarily acquired citizenship elsewhere.this is a no because he never sought for guinean citizenship,he was only conferred and given a diplomatic passport to that effect.
On the so-called evidences supplied by atiku witness,the witness a lawyer rubbished most of them in what we call hostile testimony. Again,it is settled law that an expired document in law is inadmissible Atiku failed to call a witness from Guinea or someone vested in guinean law to testify .
The Female gender was recorded in his transcript and he never submitted transcript to inec as it's not a constitutional requirement. Again,the documents was gotten from a lawyer Mr kowtals who has no links with the schools tinubu attended.he should have called witnesses from the issuing documents as only the maker can competently prove it's authenticity.pdp and lp quoted degi vs diri to support their case but the court recently in edevbie vs sheriff stated that they have departed from that judgment.in oyetola vs adeleke,they stated that when a dispute about a document arises,the testimony of the issuing authority will settle the tie.Adekunle has been in his name and the apex court has severally ruled on name variations.Atiku failed to prove that it is not part of his name.the age differences is of no effect as the apex court noted that as far as a candidate is up to 40 years,he is good to go.see AGI vs ayade supra..

This matter will be dismissed with 1 billion naira fine to be paid by the petitioners each to each of the respondents.cooouurrrt.


Mynd44
Nplfmod
Seun
Mukina2
Penguin2
Fergie001
Obinoscopy
Casualobserver
Coolambience
Helinues
Yarimo
Quotasystem
Svoboda
Oghenaogie
Efewestern
Aiel123
Afamed
Mrvitalis
Spy360
Esseite
Silvertongue
Asobo
Donphilopus
Generalpula
Muykem
Alphagan
Iamgrey
Raumdeuter
Ejimatic
Zoedew
Litigator

Omowale2023:

It's not an internal matter after the elections has commenced. If you have evidence against a presidential candidate after the elections, you can seek redress in the Tribunal, so what you are saying is a fallacy. Go and be informed.

garfield1:
Notwithstanding the headline,this is surely how the court will rule.this is based on what the petitioners tendered in court,their final written address and replies.just as the court combined or consolidated atiku and obi petitions,I will attempt to do so.the petition is hinged on five grounds namely;

1) That obi and atiku won the elections and that their votes were suppressed.

2) That there was massive violation of inec guidelines necessitating in irregularities which calls for outright cancellations and a rerun.

3) That tinubu should be disqualified based on a conviction or punishment by u.s court

4) That Shettima is guilty of double nomination

5) That 25% requirement in FCT is mandatory

6) That Tinubu is not qualified by being a citizen of guinea and he is also guilty of perjury and inconsistencies in his educational qualifications

Ground one: Peter obi has not proven that he won the election and has not brought any proof to that effect.all his evidences points to the fact that tinubu won and that there was irregularities.even the mathematician prof ofoedu's analysis showed the only difference in the overall results was in benue,rivers and 18,000 units that were blurred.no evidence points to peter winning.it is safe to say that obi has abandoned this prayer and wants fresh polls.
For atiku,most of his evidences points to irregularities.a watery report akin to the 2019 server debacle focusing on 26 states tendered by Sam oduntan showed he won but did not give details as to how and was based only on irev data.atiku is focusing on disqualifying tinubu and declaring himself winner or a rerun.infact,evidences presented by both petitioners shows that election was conducted peacefully and the only issue was just upload which is supposed to be manual or electronic as provided by section 60-65 EA.

Ground 2:It is settled law that one will not only prove irregularities but do so substantially and show how it affected the overall results.Lp lawyers claim Inec promised electronic transmission but has failed to prove that inec failed to transmit electronically.the only called one witness to that effect who claimed that elections was free and fair.Atiku called five adhoc staffs who also testified to that effect.this unfortunately only affects the polling units they worked as evidence in election cases are restricted to each units.inec can easily call 10 staffs who will testify that results were sucessfully transmitted.in any case,the electoral act plus a fhc judgment gives inec the leeway to transmit anyhow.The court of appeal recently ruled that by virtue of section 60 of the EA,inec can choose,vary,change it's manner of transmission at any point.In other words,both manual and electronic transmission are allowed.those witnesses that said they couldn't transmit didn't blame inec but the bvas and eventually sent the results to the collation units.the purpose of electronic transmission by virtue of section 60-65 of the EA2022 is to aid collation.no collation officer was called to testify.again,the law says the collation officer will compare the hardcopy with the transmitted results.the transmitted result that was uploaded is still on the bvas in image form so the collation staff can easily look at the bvas image and form ec8a.The EA clearly specified transmit or transfer.transfer mainly has to do with manual activities while transmit is electronic.further reading of the manual guidelines will expose more on this.

Lp also called an amazon staff to show that there was no glitch.apart from the fact that she is partisan and on her own frolic without AWS permit,she confirmed that they could be localized glitch within inec. she had no letter of employment or ID but presented a letter of work history which was downloaded a day earlier plus it was unsigned rendering it inadmissible.even if there was a glitch,it does not prove anything.the adeleke vs oyetola supra 2022 case placed reliance on physical evidence and tagged online evidences as thirdhand and unreliable.inec director provided incontrovertible evidence showing localized glitches and network issues
The only quarter concrete evidence of irregularities obi provided was from 18000 units of blurred results which was based only on irev which are secondary results.lp lawyers should have verified with primary hardcopies.if they could be a leeway, it will be from here as 9 mil voters are domiciled here and 2.5 mil voters came out during the last polls.in another rerun,fewer will come out.outside this,no substantial infraction has been proven.nothing compelling has been tendered.see okereke vs umahi 2015 supra.obi petition is full of mere allegations and averments and these are not evidence.see uzodinma vs pdp supra 2020.most of the evidences tendered were not pleaded.see the above case laws.Lp failed to provide inec top copies and a comparison with top copies from rivers showed that the irev was unreliable.in adeleke vs oyetola,jsc Agim clearly stated that the bvas and server materials could be affected by network issues,printer error,scanning issue,bad camera etc which further proves it's unreliability
To further destroy obi's case,the apex court has severally stated that guidelines cannot be a ground for election petition.see wike vs dakuku, okereke vs supra,pdp vs yari...

Ground three: No arguments has been canvassed on the fct matter so it can be seemed abandoned.but if not,a community reading of section 28,section 42 and 299 of the constitution has placed fct as a state.the body language,orbiter dictum,innuendoes of the court has shown where they will stand.again,the principle of legal ambiguity presupposes that where an ambiguity in law exists,the jurists will choose the most sensible, meaningful option for the lawmakers are not confusionists or intend to create chaos.Again,all the laws quoted by the Lp lawyers support this position.
In reality,fct is less than a state and cannot all of a sudden be elevated above a state without bringing equality first.moreover,other similar democracies do not practice such absurd voting system...section 134 of the constitution provided 2 requirements.if it intended to make Fct mandatory,a third requirement would have been separately provided below as no 3.
Again, section 22-28 states that all persons have equal voting rights likewise all voting areas.no place is superior to another.this supercedes whatever 134 may be implying because an earlier provision of the constitution supercedes a later one.section 299 sees fct as a state.the courts have severally stated that the fct is neither superior or inferior to a state.


Ground three: section 182 d and e clearly says within a period of 10 years,he has been imprisoned or convicted by any court in nigeria.tinubu forfeiture wasn't a conviction and even if,10 years has elapsed and the judgment wasn't registered in Nigeria.that subsection further states that he must be under imprisonment or a sentence flowing or arising from a conviction and tinubu is not under any conviction.civil cases do not lead to convictions.moreover,he was never charged,arraigned or found guilty of any thing.what happened was that three of his accounts were frozen via an exparte order by us authorities with links to two convicts.he now proved to the court and fbi that money in two accounts were his and the one belonging to the other remaining account wasn't his.so,in a mutual agreement supervised by the court,two accounts were unfrozen and one forfeited as part of a compromise or out of court settlement.
The Lp quoted Austin vs USA to support their case but this case was a criminal case where there was a trial and conviction.in Tims vs Indiana,the accused pleaded guilty in court and was convicted.therefore,this is inapplicable here as section 68 of the evidence act States that a foreign law will be subjected to a municipal court.the reciprocal agreement has made it mandatory for all foreign judgments to be registered.this prayer is dead.let me kill it further by stating that Obi failed to call a lawyer vested in American law.barr nwakaeti only visited america once and provided scant knowledge of the US system.he also failed to call witnesses from the us judicial or prosecuting authorities.current evidences like the 2003 letter from us embassy and his recent visits to the USA shows he has no issues there.

Ground four; the shettima issue has been buried by the supreme court.they clearly stated that it was a pre election matter and internal to a party and that it can only extend beyond if he was nominated by 2 parties.section 84 of the electoral act clearly makes nomination a pre election matter and only aspirants have locus standi.double nomination is not a constitutional matter and only constitutional matters pertaining to qualifications can be raised at a tribunal.again,the apex court found out that shettima was never guilty of double nomination and lp has no new evidence necessitating a review.

6) concerning perjury,the inec form has two questions on nationality.whether one has ever changed nationality? This is a No for tinubu.secondly,whether tinubu has ever voluntarily acquired citizenship elsewhere.this is a no because he never sought for guinean citizenship,he was only conferred and given a diplomatic passport to that effect.
On the so-called evidences supplied by atiku witness,the witness a lawyer rubbished most of them in what we call hostile testimony. Again,it is settled law that an expired document in law is inadmissible Atiku failed to call a witness from Guinea or someone vested in guinean law to testify .
The Female gender was recorded in his transcript and he never submitted transcript to inec as it's not a constitutional requirement. Again,the documents was gotten from a lawyer Mr kowtals who has no links with the schools tinubu attended.he should have called witnesses from the issuing documents as only the maker can competently prove it's authenticity.pdp and lp quoted degi vs diri to support their case but the court recently in edevbie vs sheriff stated that they have departed from that judgment.in oyetola vs adeleke,they stated that when a dispute about a document arises,the testimony of the issuing authority will settle the tie.Adekunle has been in his name and the apex court has severally ruled on name variations.Atiku failed to prove that it is not part of his name.the age differences is of no effect as the apex court noted that as far as a candidate is up to 40 years,he is good to go.see AGI vs ayade supra..

This matter will be dismissed with 1 billion naira fine to be paid by the petitioners each to each of the respondents.cooouurrrt.


Mynd44
Nplfmod
Seun
Mukina2
Penguin2
Fergie001
Obinoscopy
Casualobserver
Coolambience
Helinues
Yarimo
Quotasystem
Svoboda
Oghenaogie
Efewestern
Aiel123
Afamed
Mrvitalis
Spy360
Esseite
Silvertongue
Asobo
Donphilopus
Generalpula
Muykem
Alphagan
Iamgrey
Raumdeuter
Ejimatic
Zoedew
Litigator

drlateef:




The only thing I disagree with in your beautiful submission is the 1 billion damages. Obi should be fined 100 billion each to INEC, APC, Tinubu and Shetima. Atiku shoild be fined 1 trillion each for the respondents. This will serve as deterrence for bringing frivolous petitions to court. If they appeal and fail In Supreme Court the fines should be multiplied by 10.

Deogratiasfx:


Hahahahaha.....is this how shallow u reason? Little wonder ur Principal is thoughtlessly declaring war in Niger.

garfield1:


This is exactly how the apex court will reason son.the shallow ones are those on the losing end

Deogratiasfx:


See the long nonsense you wrote. Maybe after few weeks when you have gotten more sense, come back and read it again and see how you would be ashamed of it.

garfield1:
Notwithstanding the headline,this is surely how the court will rule.this is based on what the petitioners tendered in court,their final written address and replies.just as the court combined or consolidated atiku and obi petitions,I will attempt to do so.the petition is hinged on five grounds namely;

1) That obi and atiku won the elections and that their votes were suppressed.

2) That there was massive violation of inec guidelines necessitating in irregularities which calls for outright cancellations and a rerun.

3) That tinubu should be disqualified based on a conviction or punishment by u.s court

4) That Shettima is guilty of double nomination

5) That 25% requirement in FCT is mandatory

6) That Tinubu is not qualified by being a citizen of guinea and he is also guilty of perjury and inconsistencies in his educational qualifications

Ground one: Peter obi has not proven that he won the election and has not brought any proof to that effect.all his evidences points to the fact that tinubu won and that there was irregularities.even the mathematician prof ofoedu's analysis showed the only difference in the overall results was in benue,rivers and 18,000 units that were blurred.no evidence points to peter winning.it is safe to say that obi has abandoned this prayer and wants fresh polls.
For atiku,most of his evidences points to irregularities.a watery report akin to the 2019 server debacle focusing on 26 states tendered by Sam oduntan showed he won but did not give details as to how and was based only on irev data.atiku is focusing on disqualifying tinubu and declaring himself winner or a rerun.infact,evidences presented by both petitioners shows that election was conducted peacefully and the only issue was just upload which is supposed to be manual or electronic as provided by section 60-65 EA.

Ground 2:It is settled law that one will not only prove irregularities but do so substantially and show how it affected the overall results.Lp lawyers claim Inec promised electronic transmission but has failed to prove that inec failed to transmit electronically.the only called one witness to that effect who claimed that elections was free and fair.Atiku called five adhoc staffs who also testified to that effect.this unfortunately only affects the polling units they worked as evidence in election cases are restricted to each units.inec can easily call 10 staffs who will testify that results were sucessfully transmitted.in any case,the electoral act plus a fhc judgment gives inec the leeway to transmit anyhow.The court of appeal recently ruled that by virtue of section 60 of the EA,inec can choose,vary,change it's manner of transmission at any point.In other words,both manual and electronic transmission are allowed.those witnesses that said they couldn't transmit didn't blame inec but the bvas and eventually sent the results to the collation units.the purpose of electronic transmission by virtue of section 60-65 of the EA2022 is to aid collation.no collation officer was called to testify.again,the law says the collation officer will compare the hardcopy with the transmitted results.the transmitted result that was uploaded is still on the bvas in image form so the collation staff can easily look at the bvas image and form ec8a.The EA clearly specified transmit or transfer.transfer mainly has to do with manual activities while transmit is electronic.further reading of the manual guidelines will expose more on this.

Lp also called an amazon staff to show that there was no glitch.apart from the fact that she is partisan and on her own frolic without AWS permit,she confirmed that they could be localized glitch within inec. she had no letter of employment or ID but presented a letter of work history which was downloaded a day earlier plus it was unsigned rendering it inadmissible.even if there was a glitch,it does not prove anything.the adeleke vs oyetola supra 2022 case placed reliance on physical evidence and tagged online evidences as thirdhand and unreliable.inec director provided incontrovertible evidence showing localized glitches and network issues
The only quarter concrete evidence of irregularities obi provided was from 18000 units of blurred results which was based only on irev which are secondary results.lp lawyers should have verified with primary hardcopies.if they could be a leeway, it will be from here as 9 mil voters are domiciled here and 2.5 mil voters came out during the last polls.in another rerun,fewer will come out.outside this,no substantial infraction has been proven.nothing compelling has been tendered.see okereke vs umahi 2015 supra.obi petition is full of mere allegations and averments and these are not evidence.see uzodinma vs pdp supra 2020.most of the evidences tendered were not pleaded.see the above case laws.Lp failed to provide inec top copies and a comparison with top copies from rivers showed that the irev was unreliable.in adeleke vs oyetola,jsc Agim clearly stated that the bvas and server materials could be affected by network issues,printer error,scanning issue,bad camera etc which further proves it's unreliability
To further destroy obi's case,the apex court has severally stated that guidelines cannot be a ground for election petition.see wike vs dakuku, okereke vs supra,pdp vs yari...

Ground three: No arguments has been canvassed on the fct matter so it can be seemed abandoned.but if not,a community reading of section 28,section 42 and 299 of the constitution has placed fct as a state.the body language,orbiter dictum,innuendoes of the court has shown where they will stand.again,the principle of legal ambiguity presupposes that where an ambiguity in law exists,the jurists will choose the most sensible, meaningful option for the lawmakers are not confusionists or intend to create chaos.Again,all the laws quoted by the Lp lawyers support this position.
In reality,fct is less than a state and cannot all of a sudden be elevated above a state without bringing equality first.moreover,other similar democracies do not practice such absurd voting system...section 134 of the constitution provided 2 requirements.if it intended to make Fct mandatory,a third requirement would have been separately provided below as no 3.
Again, section 22-28 states that all persons have equal voting rights likewise all voting areas.no place is superior to another.this supercedes whatever 134 may be implying because an earlier provision of the constitution supercedes a later one.section 299 sees fct as a state.the courts have severally stated that the fct is neither superior or inferior to a state.


Ground three: section 182 d and e clearly says within a period of 10 years,he has been imprisoned or convicted by any court in nigeria.tinubu forfeiture wasn't a conviction and even if,10 years has elapsed and the judgment wasn't registered in Nigeria.that subsection further states that he must be under imprisonment or a sentence flowing or arising from a conviction and tinubu is not under any conviction.civil cases do not lead to convictions.moreover,he was never charged,arraigned or found guilty of any thing.what happened was that three of his accounts were frozen via an exparte order by us authorities with links to two convicts.he now proved to the court and fbi that money in two accounts were his and the one belonging to the other remaining account wasn't his.so,in a mutual agreement supervised by the court,two accounts were unfrozen and one forfeited as part of a compromise or out of court settlement.
The Lp quoted Austin vs USA to support their case but this case was a criminal case where there was a trial and conviction.in Tims vs Indiana,the accused pleaded guilty in court and was convicted.therefore,this is inapplicable here as section 68 of the evidence act States that a foreign law will be subjected to a municipal court.the reciprocal agreement has made it mandatory for all foreign judgments to be registered.this prayer is dead.let me kill it further by stating that Obi failed to call a lawyer vested in American law.barr nwakaeti only visited america once and provided scant knowledge of the US system.he also failed to call witnesses from the us judicial or prosecuting authorities.current evidences like the 2003 letter from us embassy and his recent visits to the USA shows he has no issues there.

Ground four; the shettima issue has been buried by the supreme court.they clearly stated that it was a pre election matter and internal to a party and that it can only extend beyond if he was nominated by 2 parties.section 84 of the electoral act clearly makes nomination a pre election matter and only aspirants have locus standi.double nomination is not a constitutional matter and only constitutional matters pertaining to qualifications can be raised at a tribunal.again,the apex court found out that shettima was never guilty of double nomination and lp has no new evidence necessitating a review.

6) concerning perjury,the inec form has two questions on nationality.whether one has ever changed nationality? This is a No for tinubu.secondly,whether tinubu has ever voluntarily acquired citizenship elsewhere.this is a no because he never sought for guinean citizenship,he was only conferred and given a diplomatic passport to that effect.
On the so-called evidences supplied by atiku witness,the witness a lawyer rubbished most of them in what we call hostile testimony. Again,it is settled law that an expired document in law is inadmissible Atiku failed to call a witness from Guinea or someone vested in guinean law to testify .
The Female gender was recorded in his transcript and he never submitted transcript to inec as it's not a constitutional requirement. Again,the documents was gotten from a lawyer Mr kowtals who has no links with the schools tinubu attended.he should have called witnesses from the issuing documents as only the maker can competently prove it's authenticity.pdp and lp quoted degi vs diri to support their case but the court recently in edevbie vs sheriff stated that they have departed from that judgment.in oyetola vs adeleke,they stated that when a dispute about a document arises,the testimony of the issuing authority will settle the tie.Adekunle has been in his name and the apex court has severally ruled on name variations.Atiku failed to prove that it is not part of his name.the age differences is of no effect as the apex court noted that as far as a candidate is up to 40 years,he is good to go.see AGI vs ayade supra..

This matter will be dismissed with 1 billion naira fine to be paid by the petitioners each to each of the respondents.cooouurrrt.


Mynd44
Nplfmod
Seun
Mukina2
Penguin2
Fergie001
Obinoscopy
Casualobserver
Coolambience
Helinues
Yarimo
Quotasystem
Svoboda
Oghenaogie
Efewestern
Aiel123
Afamed
Mrvitalis
Spy360
Esseite
Silvertongue
Asobo
Donphilopus
Generalpula
Muykem
Alphagan
Iamgrey
Raumdeuter
Ejimatic
Zoedew
Litigator

garfield1:


Once tinubu wins in court,how will you feel?

garfield1:


Once tinubu wins in court,how will you feel?

garfield1:
Notwithstanding the headline,this is surely how the court will rule.this is based on what the petitioners tendered in court,their final written address and replies.just as the court combined or consolidated atiku and obi petitions,I will attempt to do so.the petition is hinged on five grounds namely;

1) That obi and atiku won the elections and that their votes were suppressed.

2) That there was massive violation of inec guidelines necessitating in irregularities which calls for outright cancellations and a rerun.

3) That tinubu should be disqualified based on a conviction or punishment by u.s court

4) That Shettima is guilty of double nomination

5) That 25% requirement in FCT is mandatory

6) That Tinubu is not qualified by being a citizen of guinea and he is also guilty of perjury and inconsistencies in his educational qualifications

Ground one: Peter obi has not proven that he won the election and has not brought any proof to that effect.all his evidences points to the fact that tinubu won and that there was irregularities.even the mathematician prof ofoedu's analysis showed the only difference in the overall results was in benue,rivers and 18,000 units that were blurred.no evidence points to peter winning.it is safe to say that obi has abandoned this prayer and wants fresh polls.
For atiku,most of his evidences points to irregularities.a watery report akin to the 2019 server debacle focusing on 26 states tendered by Sam oduntan showed he won but did not give details as to how and was based only on irev data.atiku is focusing on disqualifying tinubu and declaring himself winner or a rerun.infact,evidences presented by both petitioners shows that election was conducted peacefully and the only issue was just upload which is supposed to be manual or electronic as provided by section 60-65 EA.

Ground 2:It is settled law that one will not only prove irregularities but do so substantially and show how it affected the overall results.Lp lawyers claim Inec promised electronic transmission but has failed to prove that inec failed to transmit electronically.the only called one witness to that effect who claimed that elections was free and fair.Atiku called five adhoc staffs who also testified to that effect.this unfortunately only affects the polling units they worked as evidence in election cases are restricted to each units.inec can easily call 10 staffs who will testify that results were sucessfully transmitted.in any case,the electoral act plus a fhc judgment gives inec the leeway to transmit anyhow.The court of appeal recently ruled that by virtue of section 60 of the EA,inec can choose,vary,change it's manner of transmission at any point.In other words,both manual and electronic transmission are allowed.those witnesses that said they couldn't transmit didn't blame inec but the bvas and eventually sent the results to the collation units.the purpose of electronic transmission by virtue of section 60-65 of the EA2022 is to aid collation.no collation officer was called to testify.again,the law says the collation officer will compare the hardcopy with the transmitted results.the transmitted result that was uploaded is still on the bvas in image form so the collation staff can easily look at the bvas image and form ec8a.The EA clearly specified transmit or transfer.transfer mainly has to do with manual activities while transmit is electronic.further reading of the manual guidelines will expose more on this.

Lp also called an amazon staff to show that there was no glitch.apart from the fact that she is partisan and on her own frolic without AWS permit,she confirmed that they could be localized glitch within inec. she had no letter of employment or ID but presented a letter of work history which was downloaded a day earlier plus it was unsigned rendering it inadmissible.even if there was a glitch,it does not prove anything.the adeleke vs oyetola supra 2022 case placed reliance on physical evidence and tagged online evidences as thirdhand and unreliable.inec director provided incontrovertible evidence showing localized glitches and network issues
The only quarter concrete evidence of irregularities obi provided was from 18000 units of blurred results which was based only on irev which are secondary results.lp lawyers should have verified with primary hardcopies.if they could be a leeway, it will be from here as 9 mil voters are domiciled here and 2.5 mil voters came out during the last polls.in another rerun,fewer will come out.outside this,no substantial infraction has been proven.nothing compelling has been tendered.see okereke vs umahi 2015 supra.obi petition is full of mere allegations and averments and these are not evidence.see uzodinma vs pdp supra 2020.most of the evidences tendered were not pleaded.see the above case laws.Lp failed to provide inec top copies and a comparison with top copies from rivers showed that the irev was unreliable.in adeleke vs oyetola,jsc Agim clearly stated that the bvas and server materials could be affected by network issues,printer error,scanning issue,bad camera etc which further proves it's unreliability
To further destroy obi's case,the apex court has severally stated that guidelines cannot be a ground for election petition.see wike vs dakuku, okereke vs supra,pdp vs yari...

Ground three: No arguments has been canvassed on the fct matter so it can be seemed abandoned.but if not,a community reading of section 28,section 42 and 299 of the constitution has placed fct as a state.the body language,orbiter dictum,innuendoes of the court has shown where they will stand.again,the principle of legal ambiguity presupposes that where an ambiguity in law exists,the jurists will choose the most sensible, meaningful option for the lawmakers are not confusionists or intend to create chaos.Again,all the laws quoted by the Lp lawyers support this position.
In reality,fct is less than a state and cannot all of a sudden be elevated above a state without bringing equality first.moreover,other similar democracies do not practice such absurd voting system...section 134 of the constitution provided 2 requirements.if it intended to make Fct mandatory,a third requirement would have been separately provided below as no 3.
Again, section 22-28 states that all persons have equal voting rights likewise all voting areas.no place is superior to another.this supercedes whatever 134 may be implying because an earlier provision of the constitution supercedes a later one.section 299 sees fct as a state.the courts have severally stated that the fct is neither superior or inferior to a state.


Ground three: section 182 d and e clearly says within a period of 10 years,he has been imprisoned or convicted by any court in nigeria.tinubu forfeiture wasn't a conviction and even if,10 years has elapsed and the judgment wasn't registered in Nigeria.that subsection further states that he must be under imprisonment or a sentence flowing or arising from a conviction and tinubu is not under any conviction.civil cases do not lead to convictions.moreover,he was never charged,arraigned or found guilty of any thing.what happened was that three of his accounts were frozen via an exparte order by us authorities with links to two convicts.he now proved to the court and fbi that money in two accounts were his and the one belonging to the other remaining account wasn't his.so,in a mutual agreement supervised by the court,two accounts were unfrozen and one forfeited as part of a compromise or out of court settlement.
The Lp quoted Austin vs USA to support their case but this case was a criminal case where there was a trial and conviction.in Tims vs Indiana,the accused pleaded guilty in court and was convicted.therefore,this is inapplicable here as section 68 of the evidence act States that a foreign law will be subjected to a municipal court.the reciprocal agreement has made it mandatory for all foreign judgments to be registered.this prayer is dead.let me kill it further by stating that Obi failed to call a lawyer vested in American law.barr nwakaeti only visited america once and provided scant knowledge of the US system.he also failed to call witnesses from the us judicial or prosecuting authorities.current evidences like the 2003 letter from us embassy and his recent visits to the USA shows he has no issues there.

Ground four; the shettima issue has been buried by the supreme court.they clearly stated that it was a pre election matter and internal to a party and that it can only extend beyond if he was nominated by 2 parties.section 84 of the electoral act clearly makes nomination a pre election matter and only aspirants have locus standi.double nomination is not a constitutional matter and only constitutional matters pertaining to qualifications can be raised at a tribunal.again,the apex court found out that shettima was never guilty of double nomination and lp has no new evidence necessitating a review.

6) concerning perjury,the inec form has two questions on nationality.whether one has ever changed nationality? This is a No for tinubu.secondly,whether tinubu has ever voluntarily acquired citizenship elsewhere.this is a no because he never sought for guinean citizenship,he was only conferred and given a diplomatic passport to that effect.
On the so-called evidences supplied by atiku witness,the witness a lawyer rubbished most of them in what we call hostile testimony. Again,it is settled law that an expired document in law is inadmissible Atiku failed to call a witness from Guinea or someone vested in guinean law to testify .
The Female gender was recorded in his transcript and he never submitted transcript to inec as it's not a constitutional requirement. Again,the documents was gotten from a lawyer Mr kowtals who has no links with the schools tinubu attended.he should have called witnesses from the issuing documents as only the maker can competently prove it's authenticity.pdp and lp quoted degi vs diri to support their case but the court recently in edevbie vs sheriff stated that they have departed from that judgment.in oyetola vs adeleke,they stated that when a dispute about a document arises,the testimony of the issuing authority will settle the tie.Adekunle has been in his name and the apex court has severally ruled on name variations.Atiku failed to prove that it is not part of his name.the age differences is of no effect as the apex court noted that as far as a candidate is up to 40 years,he is good to go.see AGI vs ayade supra..

This matter will be dismissed with 1 billion naira fine to be paid by the petitioners each to each of the respondents.cooouurrrt.


Mynd44
Nplfmod
Seun
Mukina2
Penguin2
Fergie001
Obinoscopy
Casualobserver
Coolambience
Helinues
Yarimo
Quotasystem
Svoboda
Oghenaogie
Efewestern
Aiel123
Afamed
Mrvitalis
Spy360
Esseite
Silvertongue
Asobo
Donphilopus
Generalpula
Muykem
Alphagan
Iamgrey
Raumdeuter
Ejimatic
Zoedew
Litigator

00FFT00:


Utter trash!

Deogratiasfx:


See this ur post? Pls delete it. Everyone must not support Atiku or Obi. You are free to support who ever u want but I won't come out to disgrace myself because am supporting someone; politician for that matter.

garfield1:


Wait till the court rule.its unfortunate that your moniker cannot be quoted

Deogratiasfx:


That is exactly my point. You actually should wait for the court to rule.

garfield1:

Exactly.worst case is a rerun in 18000 units.

garfield1:


Oga,it is an internal matter either before or after the election

Deogratiasfx:


Gullible followers....ur thinking is not far from ur principal.

Omowale2023:

Lol......so if I have evidence that you are not qualified to run an election, the court won't accept it unless am a member of the party of the person I want to disqualify?
God, you people are truly dumb.

garfield1:


Yes sir.,that's what the law says via section 287.

Omowale2023:

No......what the law says is, you have to be a participant in the elections to take another candidate to court. But the law never said you must be a member of APC to disqualify an APC Candidate in any elections in Nigeria. Stop misleading and misinforming people

garfield1:


Oga see jegede vs aketi 2020 supra.the court clearly said jegede wasn't an apc member

Omowale2023:

The law never said so

seunmsg:



If FCT is mandatory, the court will order INEC to conduct a second election between Tinubu and Atiku and not a rerun.

garfield1:
Notwithstanding the headline,this is surely how the court will rule.this is based on what the petitioners tendered in court,their final written address and replies.just as the court combined or consolidated atiku and obi petitions,I will attempt to do so.the petition is hinged on five grounds namely;

1) That obi and atiku won the elections and that their votes were suppressed.


2) That there was massive violation of inec guidelines necessitating in irregularities which calls for outright cancellations and a rerun.

3) That tinubu should be disqualified based on a conviction or punishment by u.s court

4) That Shettima is guilty of double nomination

5) That 25% requirement in FCT is mandatory

6) That Tinubu is not qualified by being a citizen of guinea and he is also guilty of perjury and inconsistencies in his educational qualifications





Mynd44
Nplfmod
Seun
Mukina2
Penguin2
Fergie001
Obinoscopy
Casualobserver
Coolambience
Helinues
Yarimo
Quotasystem
Svoboda
Oghenaogie
Efewestern
Aiel123
Afamed
Mrvitalis
Spy360
Esseite
Silvertongue
Asobo
Donphilopus
Generalpula
Muykem
Alphagan
Iamgrey
Raumdeuter
Ejimatic
Zoedew
Litigator

Amumaigwe:


That trap is enough to do the Lord's work. Atiku will sweep the whole SE, SS and North. Then Amoda will be finished.

garfield1:


I have tackled all these issues issues,if you took time to read,you won't utter this nonsense.
Inec did not hurry,they declared a winner three days after elections as they have been doing since 1999.tinubu met the constitutional requirements as he got 25% in the federation.
The supreme court has killed the double nomination matter.
What he forfeited wasn't his money plus it is not a conviction.
Atiku failed to prove that he has dual citizenship.the case is dead

Jeyun:
for making this statement there is no point taking u serious. Our constitution remains the same neither u nor tinubu and yakubu can turn it up side down