garfield1:


Elections can be reconducted if there was no election there mr.once there is overvoting,otilo

Why is your party afraid of a re run if they are as popular as they claim?

seunmsg:


It was pleaded at the tribunal but the decision was made before the Supreme Court judgement in Obi+Atiku vs Tinubu and the tribunal accepted the evidence of witnesses that were not front loaded. The Appeal court rightly ruled that the tribunal should not have countenanced the evidences based on the decision of the Supreme Court.

Can you show where it was pleaded?

Triplerg:
Why is your party afraid of a re run if they are as popular as they claim?

The law doesn't permit rerun in this occasion

garfield1:


The evidences here showed that apc won the two states.i can concede nasarawa but pdp never proved that they won kaduna

Bros forget evidence,I am non partisan but I know em in Apc north and they know they lost that election. Even as they won in the appeal court. some of us will still send congratulatory messages to them in the party but we know they lost that state on election day.

Kaduna and nassarawa, Don't argue those two states,they lost badly!!!!

IfnobeGod20:

But Sule did not win the election by popular vote, he inflated his votes in some polling units which were presented in the court but same court overlooked them just because the witness that presented them were not front loaded. The question now is, should Sule benefit heavily from stolen votes if truly justice is to be served?
If you go through the ruling on the case of Obi and Atiku at the Appeal Court, the judge still dwell on the fact o the matter after expunging the witnesses not front loaded. While was this one different? In every sound judgement justice must be seen served but on this one was justice served?
The courts and judges are the one denigrating themselves by their inconsistent judgements and awarding judgement to undeserving people like Lawan, Umahi and Akpabio. These three people never participated in Senatorial Primary but our almighty supreme court awarded them free tickets and you expect people to have faith in courts.
Also, how would one judgement says one thing and another one says another thing on similar cases of sponsorship and nomination. They just open themselves to ridicule.
Besides, the issue of discourse between garfield1 and kukutenla was on the number of PDP governors during PDP era and not on the argument you're bringing here.

But I told you that there was a fresh election which akpabio won while machina failed to prove that he won.we haven't read the full judgment,maybe the court said apc won despite the frontloading...

The cases of sponsorship ruled by the courts are those that touched on the electoral act.in Kano,the apc invoked the constitution

garfield1:


It is not required if it shows manifest irregularities in theory,for someone must interpret it practically.it is settled law that only the makers of a document is competent to testify.if you tender any document without demonstrating it,it is termed dumping.

Dumping as a term no longer exists in the lexicon as far as EA is concerned. The tribunal is expected to inspect the documents and weigh it on its own value. All the talk of demonstrating result forms is as dead as dodo. Our biased judges only refuse to let it rest for selfish reasons.
Who is the maker of EC8 series? Lol. No be INEC? Yet does it make sense to call INEC staff to testify against INEC in a case in which INEC is a respondent? The documents have value on their own. No need for any demonstration. The courtroom is not a theatre. So says the law.

garfield1:


Paragraph 4(5) of the first schedule EA2022

Have you read it? Does it prescribe any penalty for not listing all the witnesses and their documents?

They allow Tinubu to return into the country Yesterday before giving their Judgement chai......

Kukutenla:

Dumping as a term no longer exists in the lexicon as far as EA is concerned. The tribunal is expected to inspect the documents and weigh it on its own value. All the talk of demonstrating result forms is as dead as dodo. Our biased judges only refuse to let it rest for selfish reasons.
Who is the maker of EC8 series? Lol. No be INEC? Yet does it make sense to call INEC staff to testify against INEC in a case in which INEC is a respondent? The documents have value on their own. No need for any demonstration. The courtroom is not a theatre. So says the law.

This one is your opinion which is your cup of tea.it holds no water and dead as dodo.what matters is what the supreme court interprets as the law and all courts will abide by them.like I told you,apc will win nasarawa

Kukutenla:

Have you read it? Does it prescribe any penalty for not listing all the witnesses and their documents?

The supreme court has interpreted it in atiku and obi vs tinubu.it is settled.

garfield1:


The supreme court has interpreted it in atiku and obi vs tinubu.it is settled.

You see. You have to hide under the SC because you know for a fact the EA did not prescribe forfeiting the case for not frontloading witnesses. In fact, the grounds for forfeiting the case are based on subparagraph 1while frontloading is on subparagraph 4 and the penalty clearly spelt there does not involve forfeiting the case. The judiciary is just turning itself to a caricature with this funny judgements.

garfield1:


This one is your opinion which is your cup of tea.it holds no water and dead as dodo.what matters is what the supreme court interprets as the law and all courts will abide by them.like I told you,apc will win nasarawa

My opinion and commonsense. Our laws are a product of common law which in itself is a product of commonsense. Are you aware of that? It is why these judgements are so shameful. Because they negate the ideals on which our justice system is built which is commonsense. They need people like you with twisted sense to hail them.

Kukutenla:

You see. You have to hide under the SC because you know for a fact the EA did not prescribe forfeiting the case for not frontloading witnesses. In fact, the grounds for forfeiting the case are based on subparagraph 1while frontloading is on subparagraph 4 and the penalty clearly spelt there does not involve forfeiting the case. The judiciary is just turning itself to a caricature with this funny judgements.

The SC has settled the matter so what do you want to do? Override them? The only thing being forfeited is all the evidences based on the documents not frontloaded.every other thing still stands

Kukutenla:

My opinion and commonsense. Our laws are a product of common law which in itself is a product of commonsense. Are you aware of that? It is why these judgements are so shameful. Because they negate the ideals on which our justice system is built which is commonsense. They need people like you with twisted sense to hail them.

Save the wailing.focus on plateau and Kano son

IfnobeGod20:

But Sule did not win the election by popular vote, he inflated his votes in some polling units which were presented in the court but same court overlooked them just because the witness that presented them were not front loaded. The question now is, should Sule benefit heavily from stolen votes if truly justice is to be served?
If you go through the ruling on the case of Obi and Atiku at the Appeal Court, the judge still dwell on the fact o the matter after expunging the witnesses not front loaded. While was this one different? In every sound judgement justice must be seen served but on this one was justice served?
The courts and judges are the one denigrating themselves by their inconsistent judgements and awarding judgement to undeserving people like Lawan, Umahi and Akpabio. These three people never participated in Senatorial Primary but our almighty supreme court awarded them free tickets and you expect people to have faith in courts.
Also, how would one judgement says one thing and another one says another thing on similar cases of sponsorship and nomination. They just open themselves to ridicule.
Besides, the issue in discourse between garfield1 and kukutenla was on the number of PDP governors during PDP era and not on the argument you're bringing here.

Dwelling on the merit of the case will be an academic exercise and a waste of time since the evidences have been expunged already. As it is, it is as if the evidences were never presented.

As for Umahi, Akpabio and Lawan, it is settled law that only the political party can present candidates. The issue of who the party presents is an internal affair of the party ans as such, the court can't rule otherwise. The court used the same principle and law used to validate the candidacy of Lawan and co to validate the candidacy of Peter Obi, Alex Otti and other Labour Party candidates that joined the party after the submission of the party register. If the party is to interfere in the affairs of who the party presents, the candidacy of almost all LP candidates would have been invalidated.

garfield1:


The SC has settled the matter so what do you want to do? Override them? The only thing being forfeited is all the evidences based on the documents not frontloaded.every other thing still stands

The SC should be called to order by all well meaning Nigeria not to truncate our democracy and respect the wishes of the electorate.
Go back and read the EA. The documents are not to be forfeited. Go back and read!! The documents stand on their own

garfield1:


Save the wailing.focus on plateau and Kano son

The SC must be called to order. This is not a question of wailing but commonsense for those who have it. You may be the next victim of what you're enabling today

seunmsg:


Dwelling on the merit of the case will be an academic exercise and a waste of time since the evidences have been expunged already. As it is, it is as if the evidences were never presented.

As for Umahi, Akpabio and Lawan, it is settled law that only the political party can present candidates. The issue of who the party presents is an internal affair of the party ans as such, the court can't rule otherwise. The court used the same principle and law used to validate the candidacy of Lawan and co to validate the candidacy of Peter Obi, Alex Otti and other Labour Party candidates that joined the party after the submission of the party register. If the party is to interfere in the affairs of who the party presents, the candidacy of almost all LP candidates would have been invalidated.

What about those being invalidated in Lagos and Abia? Tell us about how Abba Yusuf was invalidated. Swallow some spit before you do.

Bizibi:
Bros forget evidence,I am non partisan but I know em in Apc north and they know they lost that election. Even as they won in the appeal court. some of us will still send congratulatory messages to them in the party but we know they lost that state on election day.

Kaduna and nassarawa, Don't argue those two states,they lost badly!!!!

Oga,apc won kaduna.pdp at least showed that they won nasarawa but failed in kaduna

Kukutenla:

Can you show where it was pleaded?

You mean I should upload the records of court proceedings? Can you also show me evidence that it was not pleaded?

See, appeals are based on laws and precedents that were not followed by the lower court which led to a miscarriage of justice. So, it doesn't matter whether a point of law was pleaded or not. This is not about evidence presented during the trial. If the lower court made a mistake on the point of law, the appeal will be based on that point of law and that is what happened in this case. The lower court made a mistake by countenancing the evidence of witnesses that were not front loaded and the appeal court simply corrected that error. This is a decision based on the ruling of the Supreme Court so what's your point exactly?

Na wa

Kukutenla:

What about those being invalidated in Lagos and Abia? Tell us about how Abba Yusuf was invalidated. Swallow some spit before you do.

I don't know the cases you're referring to in Lagos and Abia. Maybe you should be more specific so that i can't respond appropriately. In the case of Abba Yusuf, he was removed on two grounds. First, about 165k votes were invalidated because they were not signed by INEC officials. Those ballots could have been pre-thumbprinted before stuffing them into ballot boxes so it's logical to simply cancel all the affected votes since the source are doubtful. NNPP made things worse by failing to call the collation officer to give evidence as to the validity of the ballot boxes. Again, the decision was based on Oshiomole vs Osunbor. The Supreme Court has also ruled severally that an unsigned document is a useless piece of paper.

Secondly, the court also found out that Abba Yusuf is not even a member of NNPP. The party couldn't even provide his membership card during trial. So, the court had no choice than to disqualify him on constitutional ground because the constitution stated clearly that no one should be allowed to contest for governor if he/she is not a member of a political party.

garfield1:


Oga,apc won kaduna.pdp at least showed that they won nasarawa but failed in kaduna

Apc lost kaduna, don't argue this ooo,I don tell you. Kaduna and nassarawa was protest vote from the electorate infact kaduna own so clear on that day before the abacadabra. There are things I will not say here but don't make a mess of yourself arguing about kaduna and nassarawa election.

Bizibi:
Apc lost kaduna, don't argue this ooo,I don tell you.

Show clear evidence

seunmsg:


You mean I should upload the records of court proceedings? Can you also show me evidence that it was not pleaded?

See, appeals are based on laws and precedents that were not followed by the lower court which led to a miscarriage of justice. So, it doesn't matter whether a point of law was pleaded or not. This is not about evidence presented during the trial. If the lower court made a mistake on the point of law, the appeal will be based on that point of law and that is what happened in this case. The lower court made a mistake by countenancing the evidence of witnesses that were not front loaded and the appeal court simply corrected that error. This is a decision based on the ruling of the Supreme Court so what's your point exactly?

My point is that it was not pleaded at the tribunal. You lied. Secondly, the law does not say documents should be invalidated along with the witnesses. The documents were there from the beginning of the trial. It was the wtinesses to demonstrate the documents that were subpoenaed to forestall a case where the PDP team will be accused of dumping evidence. The witnesses not frontloaded cannot be fatal to the case because the EA already gives tribunal the latitude to inspect and decide on evidence tendered before them devoid of oral witnesses. The testimony of the witnesses can be discountenanced but the documents stand on its own. That's my point based on EA. Mind you, it is even different from that of Obi were the documents were not frontloaded. But even for that, the documents should not have been discountenanced.

seunmsg:


I don't know the cases you're referring to in Lagos and Abia. Maybe you should be more specific so that i can't respond appropriately. In the case of Abba Yusuf, he was removed on two grounds. First, about 165k votes were invalidated because they were not signed by INEC officials. Those ballots could have been pre-thumbprinted before stuffing them into ballot boxes so it's logical to simply cancel all the affected votes since the source are doubtful. NNPP made things worse by failing to call the collation officer to give evidence as to the validity of the ballot boxes. Again, the decision was based on Oshiomole vs Osunbor. The Supreme Court has also ruled severally that an unsigned document is a useless piece of paper.

Secondly, the court also found out that Abba Yusuf is not even a member of NNPP. The party couldn't even provide his membership card during trial. So, the court had no choice than to disqualify him on constitutional ground because the constitution stated clearly that no one should be allowed to contest for governor if he/she is not a member of a political party.

The case in Abia is with one of the ministers onyejeocha. The LP guy that won the senate seat was disqualified based on non-membership. Go and verify
That of Lagos is for the member representing Amuwo Odofin. He was also disqualified. Go and verify. These two cases among others are available on the net. You just came and chook mouth on wetin you nor even dey aware of.

seunmsg:


Dwelling on the merit of the case will be an academic exercise and a waste of time since the evidences have been expunged already. As it is, it is as if the evidences were never presented.

As for Umahi, Akpabio and Lawan, it is settled law that only the political party can present candidates. The issue of who the party presents is an internal affair of the party ans as such, the court can't rule otherwise. The court used the same principle and law used to validate the candidacy of Lawan and co to validate the candidacy of Peter Obi, Alex Otti and other Labour Party candidates that joined the party after the submission of the party register. If the party is to interfere in the affairs of who the party presents, the candidacy of almost all LP candidates would have been invalidated.

There is no where in the EA or constitution that stipulated the abandonment of case because of witness not front loaded. The substantive suit must be dealt with as to arrive at substantive judgement for justice and equity sake. And I asked question before now but you've been dodging it. Should A.A. Sule benefit from inflated votes just because the witness that presented the documents wasn't front loaded? Except you wished to tell me that a thief should not be jail because it wasn't the police that caught him.
In your second paragraph. There is no law that permits sponsorship of a candidate that didn't partake in primary or electoral process in both EA and our constitution. Taking into consideration that primaries were conducted for the same post and people were voted for but APC leadership hijacked the nomination and substituted it with another while the winners Cried murder but our almighty supreme court still went ahead to sanction the illegality of the party.
I love the way you put it in the same second paragraph on nomination and sponsorship that appeal and supreme courts had once said it was a internal party concern but why Appeal Court now reversing itself on the cases of Kano and Plateau states governorship?

garfield1:


Show clear evidence

you know how it rolls....so stop telling me show evidence even right now they are so confident of Delta State and if Apc wins you will ask me to show evidence.... let us not deceive ourselves.

Bizibi:
you know how it rolls....so stop telling me show evidence even right now they are so confident of Delta State and if Apc wins you will ask me to show evidence.... let us not deceive ourselves.

In the absence of evidence apc won sir.that is why you guys always lose,you derive joy in making unfounded allegations

For the avoidance of doubt, here's the relevant section of EA that has to do with frontloading or not. You can clearly see the penalty and even remedy for it. The EA never prescribed that the documents should be trashed. As a matter of fact, paragraph 5 under "further particulars" gives the tribunal the leeway to call for and actor such evidence.

garfield1 and seunmsg the two APC bots take note
cc: IfnobeGod20

garfield1:


In the absence of evidence apc won sir.that is why you guys always lose,you derive joy in making unfounded allegations

l laugh at your conclusion of me being in opposition party. I have since abandoned partisan politics.....so I kinda laugh at some of you here.

IfnobeGod20:

There is no where in the EA or constitution that stipulated the abandonment of case because of witness not front loaded. The substantive suit must be dealt with as to arrive at substantive judgement for justice and equity sake. And I asked question before now but you've been dodging it. Should A.A. Sule benefit from inflated votes just because the witness that presented the documents wasn't front loaded? Except you wished to tell me that a thief should not be jail because it wasn't the police that caught him.
In your second paragraph. There is no law that permits sponsorship of a candidate that didn't partake in primary or electoral process in both EA and our constitution. Taking into consideration that primaries were conducted for the same post and people were voted for but APC leadership hijacked the nomination and substituted it with another while the winners Cried murder but our almighty supreme court still went ahead to sanction the illegality of the party.
I love the way you put it in the same second paragraph on nomination and sponsorship that appeal and supreme courts had once said it was a internal party concern but why Appeal Court now reversing itself on the cases of Kano and Plateau states governorship?

The law says any witness not frontloaded will not be accepted by the registrar.it didn't say the whole petition will be dead but only those evidences not frontloaded.unfortunately it affected the entire case if nasarawa pdp...

The constitution in section 177 clearly stated that membership and sponsorship is a criteria for qualification which is legally sound.the apex court has stated that membership is internal to parties but has also clearly said that parties cannot act arbitrarily and recklessly and disobey their rules and that section 177 alongside section 134 and 77 has opened a door or window for parties to challenge the membership and sponsorship of another party