The APC will always do anything possible to remain in power. Nasarawa state have been ruled by people from the north West or North East. People who are clearly not for the state. I pray their of tyranny comes to an end this time. A true indigene of the state will eventually win and take the state to where it should be

garfield1:
The petitioners failed to prove that election held in ashige.they had the burden of calling polling unit agents or voters but failed to.

1. Results were properly entered in Form EC8B at the Ward level.

2. EC40G(II) signed by the State Returning Officer showed no Polling Unit was cancelled in the whole of Ashigie Ward and indeed Lafia LGA.

3. The Governorship held same day, time and place as the State House of Assembly elections,, results and scores were returned for same without cancellations for the State House of Assembly but all was cancelled for the Governorship; with the same BVAS accreditation reports for both. (Exhibits were tendered before the Court).

4. There was no report attached to any of the form EC40G as condition precedent for cancellation. None emanated from any of the 35 PUs to show there was violence or any other reason why the PU votes were cancelled. This offends Section 64(3) of the EA 2022 and Paragraph 43 of INEC Regulations and Guidelines 2023.

5. The Petitioners called up 3 Polling Unit agents (PWs 1, 2 & 19) to testify (See Page 119).

In kanje abuni ward,pw4 brought two contradictory exhibits and admitted to these inconsistencies during proceedings.therefore,his testimony will be trashed.

I have not seen any in Page 122.

For azara ward,the two agents who testified were not makers of the document.

The maker of the document testified and was called up for all of this under cross-examination.
PW8 is a subpoenaed witness, the Director of ICT of INEC. He satisfied these provisions on these docs. The reason I told you that once the Court agrees that subpoenaed witnesses should submit written depositions alongside the petition, the petition of PDP fails instantly.

Seven subpoenaed agents brought by pdp offended section 43(1) and are therefore illegal and incompetent to testify assuming subpoenaed agents scale through.

They did not offend Section 43(1) of the EA 2022. One of the 7 is a Director of ICT, INEC for Nasarawa State.
1st Respondent tendered the names of polling agents submitted by the Petitioners and same was admissible. However, because of the fact that 1st Respondent only tendered documents with no witness or maker of same document to testify even though they said they will call up 78 witnesses, the docs attracted no probative value.

Moreover, like I mentioned 1st Respondent is not part of the petition ( see Page 61).

Now,since overvoting took place in one polling unit,apc will lead by 4000 assuming chiroma and gayam were deducted.

Where will the 4000 come from?
Even the minority judgement did not give APC +4000 votes ahead.

The EC40G contained reports of cancellations but the majority judgment said it was hearsay and discountenanced them.

The 1st Respondent tendered EC40G only for 36 PUs and 1PU for Ashigie and Gayam Wards respectively. No other EC40G was tendered for any other PU or Ward by any of the 2nd & 3rd Respondents.

Like I said before, 1st Respondent tendered this from the bar, without the maker of the document, it attracts no probative value and hence expunged from the Court record. See Page 109 of the Judgement.

The judges called apc witnesses liars without cogent reasons

The judges said their witness statements were an afterthought not liars...haba
See Page 119)


PS: To prove exclusion of votes at Ward Collation stage, two documents have to be tendered: Forms EC8A, the primary evidence and Form EC8B. The need to call Polling Unit Agents need not arise (See Page 34 of the SC judgement in Uzodinma v. Ihedioha).

fergie001:

1. Results were properly entered in Form EC8B at the Ward level.

2. EC40G(II) signed by the State Returning Officer showed no Polling Unit was cancelled in the whole of Ashigie Ward and indeed Lafia LGA.

3. The Governorship held same day, time and place as the State House of Assembly elections,, results and scores were returned for same without cancellations for the State House of Assembly but all was cancelled for the Governorship; with the same BVAS accreditation reports for both. (Exhibits were tendered before the Court).

4. There was no report attached to any of the form EC40G as condition precedent for cancellation. None emanated from any of the 35 PUs to show there was violence or any other reason why the PU votes were cancelled. This offends Section 64(3) of the EA 2022 and Paragraph 43 of INEC Regulations and Guidelines 2023.

5. The Petitioners called up 3 Polling Unit agents (PWs 1, 2 & 19) to testify (See Page 119).

I have not seen any in Page 122.
The maker of the document testified and was called up for all of this under cross-examination.
PW8 is a subpoenaed witness, the Director of ICT of INEC. He satisfied these provisions on these docs. The reason I told you that once the Court agrees that subpoenaed witnesses should submit written depositions alongside the petition, the petition of PDP fails instantly.

They did not offend Section 43(1) of the EA 2022. One of the 7 is a Director of ICT, INEC for Nasarawa State.
1st Respondent tendered the names of polling agents submitted by the Petitioners and same was admissible. However, because of the fact that 1st Respondent only tendered documents with no witness or maker of same document to testify even though they said they will call up 78 witnesses, the docs attracted no probative value.

Moreover, like I mentioned 1st Respondent is not part of the petition ( see Page 61).

Where will the 4000 come from?
Even the minority judgement did not give APC +4000 votes ahead.

The 1st Respondent tendered EC40G only for 36 PUs and 1PU for Ashigie and Gayam Wards respectively. No other EC40G was tendered for any other PU or Ward by any of the 2nd & 3rd Respondents.

Like I said before, 1st Respondent tendered this from the bar, without the maker of the document, it attracts no probative value and hence expunged from the Court record. See Page 109 of the Judgement.

The judges said their witness statements were an afterthought not liars...haba
See Page 119)


PS: To prove exclusion of votes at Ward Collation stage, two documents have to be tendered: Forms EC8A, the primary evidence and Form EC8B. The need to call Polling Unit Agents need not arise (See Page 34 of the SC judgement in Uzodinma v. Ihedioha).

Pdp did not do enough to prove that elections held in ashige.it seems the judges shifted the burden to the respondents like in kano.calling 2 witnesses is not enough to show that elections held there successfully.pdp showed nothing apart from irev results to prove that elections held there.

Sorry, the witnesses that offended section 43(1) is not the subpoenaed witnesses but some party agents of pdp in toto lga,prp and AA agents who testified in gayam and chiroma wards.they gave nothing to show that they were agents.therefore gayam and chiroma results stands

It seems you are not comparing the two judgments,I am.the minority judgment said apc won by 3799 votes if gayam and chiroma are excluded.justice marshi said the pdp brought two contradictory evidences in kanje/abuni ward and the witness admitted to this.therefore,the 580 votes deducted from apc is restored.in bodar sarki,713 votes scored by apc and 10 by pdp were cancelled for overvoting even when the register wasn't tendered.restore this and apc leads by 400+... assuming gayam,chiroma and others are taken out..
Pdp presented two figures as their scores,one in which they won by 4000 and one in which they won by 1000.that is contradictory.the judges cannot not choose any therefore both must be set aside and status quo maintained.