garfield1:


What of pdp under obj with 31 states

31 states control by pdp during obj? Pls oga stop lying isn't good for ur health.

garfield1:


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

My brother, evidence are not to be front loaded. They are to be kept secret based on the electoral Act. Judges can only reject witness not front loaded with their written address but every evidence presented are valid and immutable. No wonder the judges that sat of Obi/Atiku vs Tinubu only discountenance witnesses not front loaded but still went ahead to deal with substantive suit. Check the poster below from EA 2022 and get yourself informed because ignorance of issue is deadly.
You're just grandstanding my brother. The issue of sponsorship and membership have already been dealt with extensively by the courts of the land, right from the lower court to the Supreme Court before now and virtually all courts judgements have made it abundantly clear that membership and sponsorship is party internal affairs and no other party can dabble into it. So far a party can say this person is a member of our party, who is that other party to say no, he is not your member, when the outside party is not the one recruiting member for they neither are they the one sponsoring their members for an election. That was why Supreme Court lampooned Atiku and PDP for trying to meddle on APC internal affairs when they took Shettima to court, same with Peter Obi. The court even called them interloper and busybody.
To be frank, the issue of sponsorship and nomination is even preelection matter, just the same way Appeal Court and Supreme Court sanctioned that the academic qualification of Tinubu cannot be brought to tribunal because it is a preelection matter, that it supposed to have been taken to regular court within the window of 14 days of cause of action.

IfnobeGod20:

My brother, evidence are not to be front loaded. They are to be kept secret based on the electoral Act. Judges can only reject witness not front loaded with their written address but every evidence presented are valid and immutable. No wonder the judges that sat of Obi/Atiku vs Tinubu only discountenance witnesses not front loaded but still went ahead to deal with substantive suit. Check the poster below from EA 2022 and get yourself informed because ignorance of issue is deadly.
You're just grandstanding my brother. The issue of sponsorship and membership have already been dealt with extensively by the courts of the land, right from the lower court to the Supreme Court before now and virtually all courts judgements have made it abundantly clear that membership and sponsorship is party internal affairs and no other party can dabble into it. So far a party can say this person is a member of our party, who is that other party to say no, he is not your member, when the outside party is not the one recruiting member for they neither are they the one sponsoring their members for an election. That was why Supreme Court lampooned Atiku and PDP for trying to meddle on APC internal affairs when they took Shettima to court, same with Peter Obi. The court even called them interloper and busybody.
To be frank, the issue of sponsorship and nomination is even preelection matter, just the same way Appeal Court and Supreme Court sanctioned that the academic qualification of Tinubu cannot be brought to tribunal because it is a preelection matter, that it supposed to have been taken to regular court within the window of 14 days of cause of action.

Oga,if you present a document outside the timeline,it is invalid.even if the judges consider the substantive suit and you win,you still lose as far as the evidences were rejected.documents must be given brought to life by oral witnesses who are the makers...

Atiku challenged the nomination of tinubu under the electoral act not under the constitution.nominstion is purely a pre election matter.but any matter in the constitution is both pre election and post election.there is no portion of the constitution that says only party members can question membership and sponsorship.the constitution supercedes any other thing.it clearly states that membership and sponsorship are part of qualification.this supercedes any other law

The People should protect their governor.
Make dem no gree. Unless the idiiot is not doing well

garfield1:


Oga,if you present a document outside the timeline,it is invalid.even if the judges consider the substantive suit and you win,you still lose as far as the evidences were rejected.documents must be given brought to life by oral witnesses who are the makers...

Atiku challenged the nomination of tinubu under the electoral act not under the constitution.nominstion is purely a pre election matter.but any matter in the constitution is both pre election and post election.there is no portion of the constitution that says only party members can question membership and sponsorship.the constitution supercedes any other thing.it clearly states that membership and sponsorship are part of qualification.this supercedes any other law

My brother did you read what the EA says about tendering of evidence from the poster I posted. You're only confusing witness and address of witness to evidence of the case. Evidence of the case can be held in suspense by EA till when presented to the court. Read again and stop feign ignorance of the law. Know the difference and stop confusing witness, address and evidence together.

I want you to stop confusing yourself about someone challenge through either EA or constitution. The EA derived its root from the constitution. EA is just a mini constitution and that is why whatever is not captured in the constitution cannot be brought to EA. That was why I told you that time that not having your name in the membership register of a party wasn't a criteria for disqualification because criteria for disqualification had been spelt out in the constitution and hence anything written in the EA not in the constitution is dead on arrival, as constitution takes superiority. You've been brandishing that line since the Kano governorship judgement delivered but you're erroneously quoting that. Both EA and constitution are one and EA cannot safely stand alone because it derives its content from the constitution.

IfnobeGod20:

My brother did you read what the EA says about tendering of evidence from the poster I posted. You're only confusing witness and address of witness to evidence of the case. Evidence of the case can be held in suspense by EA till when presented to the court. Read again and stop feign ignorance of the law. Know the difference and stop confusing witness, address and evidence together.

I want you to stop confusing yourself about someone challenge through either EA or constitution. The EA derived its root from the constitution. EA is just a mini constitution and that is why whatever is not captured in the constitution cannot be brought to EA. That was why I told you that time that not having your name in the membership register of a party wasn't a criteria for disqualification because criteria for disqualification had been spelt out in the constitution and hence anything written in the EA not in the constitution is dead on arrival, as constitution takes superiority. You've been brandishing that line since the Kano governorship judgement delivered but you're erroneously quoting that. Both EA and constitution are one and EA cannot safely stand alone because it derives its content from the constitution.

so bro,base on this nasarawa case can the evidence still be used at supreme court despite non front loading of witnesses??

IfnobeGod20:

My brother did you read what the EA says about tendering of evidence from the poster I posted. You're only confusing witness and address of witness to evidence of the case. Evidence of the case can be held in suspense by EA till when presented to the court. Read again and stop feign ignorance of the law. Know the difference and stop confusing witness, address and evidence together.

I want you to stop confusing yourself about someone challenge through either EA or constitution. The EA derived its root from the constitution. EA is just a mini constitution and that is why whatever is not captured in the constitution cannot be brought to EA. That was why I told you that time that not having your name in the membership register of a party wasn't a criteria for disqualification because criteria for disqualification had been spelt out in the constitution and hence anything written in the EA not in the constitution is dead on arrival, as constitution takes superiority. You've been brandishing that line since the Kano governorship judgement delivered but you're erroneously quoting that. Both EA and constitution are one and EA cannot safely stand alone because it derives its content from the constitution.

Oga,we had a worst argument at the pepc and I heavily and shamelessly defeated you.i rubbished you totally so based on that,I am superior to you in legal matters.again,the apex court has settled the issue of subpoenaed witnesses.i am not arguing with you as when witnesses or evidences can be tendered,the SC clearly says it must be indicated in the petition at the time of filing.when and how you present it doesn't matter as far as you do it during the hearing.

From the facts pleaded in the petition and evidence on record, it appears the complaint of non-qualification of 1st respondent is grounded on paragraph (c) of sub-section (1) of section 177 supra
Below is an excerpt from justice okoro in tarzoor vs ortom 2016
A member of a political party is one who is registered with that party as its member, is issued with its membership card and fulfills all requirements of membership. It is therefore the political party concerned that can state, conclusively, that a person is its member as can be demonstrated by production of its membership register and other relevant documents, if the issue arises.

In buhari vs Obasanjo 2005,the SC also said membership registrar is not the only means of membership but the best.
If you read tarzoor vs ortom,alhassan vs isyaku etc,the supreme court indirectly agreed that anyone can challenge section 177c

iokpebholo:
Technicalities as usual but in plateau they refused to make use of technicalities.May God forgive us in this country

There were no technicalities that could have rescued PDP in plateau.

It's not confirmed Wole Olanipekun is the Numero Uno SAN in naija. If what you want is a victory in court he is the man to get

Fountainofyouth:
A bad precedence for Apc, they actually think they will be in power forever, when it's time for others to do same hope they won't cry blue murder.

All this is nonsensical crying, PDP made very silly schoolboy errors, every credible lawyer knows that witnesses statements and all materials have to be front loaded to be valid.

It was discussed at the presidential appeals, literarily all the evidence was thrown out on that singular fact.

The process is just has important as the contents of the argument

Truths9ja:
APC will have 30 states too . Judiciary was much united and not compromised during obj era. Unlike in Tinubu’s government, judiciary has been heavily compromised. Nigerians said it some days ago. It’s very unfortunate seriously. What I only know is that what surely goes around will surely comes around. APC has the power now. Karma will surely backfired one day. It backfired during the Pdp time, it will surely backfired in APC times too.

Judiciary wasn't compromised during OBJ era ! Such nonsense can only have come from your booty-hole or you were born in 2007.

Kukutenla:

Of course. He lost his brain on the journey to Kano

I don't even know why NNPP would even give him the brief given he is an APC lawyer just like Agbakoba is a PDP lawyer. I wouldn't go any further to type what's on my mind in that regard

Few if I would say.

garfield1:


How many lgas in nasarawa are xtian dominated

imwaya:
Few if I would say.

How many are xtian dominated

Osoboshi:
so bro,base on this nasarawa case can the evidence still be used at supreme court despite non front loading of witnesses??

Evidence are not to be front loaded based on the EA. The petitioner's evidence are to be kept secret till they are presented to the court. You only front load witnesses and their addresses. If you read the presidential appeal court judgement, they struck out all the witnesses not front loaded and their written addresses but still went ahead to deliver on the substantive suit based on the evidence before them but in Nassarawa governorship case that was not done. They just intentional feigned ignorance of the evidence presented because they knew it would work against Governor A. A. Sule if the substantive suit was dealt with.
The question now that suppose to be asked by any sane person, should Governor A. A. Sule benefit from over bloated votes given to him? It potent danger if the court allow him to get away with stolen votes. The worst scenario I expected from the court is to cancel all votes where bloated votes happened and then call for rerun within those polling units.

garfield1:


Oga,we had a worst argument at the pepc and I heavily and shamelessly defeated you.i rubbished you totally so based on that,I am superior to you in legal matters.again,the apex court has settled the issue of subpoenaed witnesses.i am not arguing with you as when witnesses or evidences can be tendered,the SC clearly says it must be indicated in the petition at the time of filing.when and how you present it doesn't matter as far as you do it during the hearing.

From the facts pleaded in the petition and evidence on record, it appears the complaint of non-qualification of 1st respondent is grounded on paragraph (c) of sub-section (1) of section 177 supra
Below is an excerpt from justice okoro in tarzoor vs ortom 2016
A member of a political party is one who is registered with that party as its member, is issued with its membership card and fulfills all requirements of membership. It is therefore the political party concerned that can state, conclusively, that a person is its member as can be demonstrated by production of its membership register and other relevant documents, if the issue arises.

In buhari vs Obasanjo 2005,the SC also said membership registrar is not the only means of membership but the best.
If you read tarzoor vs ortom,alhassan vs isyaku etc,the supreme court indirectly agreed that anyone can challenge section 177c

My brother I don't argue blindly, I only argue on issues I have conviction on. I want you to go back to some of our discourse, I only argued with you on issue of membership register, FCT and Tinubu's academic records and in all I made it abundantly clear that membership register is never a prerequisite for disqualification of candidate and Appeal Court and Supreme Court had upturned all judgements of tribunal that sacked labour party because of that, even after you argued with all your bone marrow and I won you on that. On the issue of 25% in FCT, I made my bias known from day one that the argument of PDP and LP cannot fly, that they were just on wide goose, just the same way you claimed. We were even in that but I challenge you to bring out anywhere I gave life to 25% in FCT. On the issue of Tinubu's academic records, you can't say you won me on that because both Appeal Court and Supreme Court discountenance the prayer and called it preelection matter.

Please did you read what EA says at all, that evidence can be kept secret. There is nowhere in the EA where it says evidence must be accompany with witness and his address. This is the reason some people are saying courts nowadays are cash and carry courts because evidence has no time limit and can be presented to the court at any time by anybody. So far it is presented to the court and it mandatory for the court to peruse the evidence without any oral witness, as oral witness is just to give life to evidence presented but not mandatory by the new EA.

Please did you read what you wrote here at all.
"It is therefore the political party concerned that can state, conclusively, that a person is its member as can be demonstrated by production of its membership register and other relevant documents, if the issue arises".

The question now is, should APC be the one to say Mr. A is not a PDP member when PDP had demonstrated that Mr. A is its member. So far NNPP can show cause that Yusuf is its member, even if he joined the party a day to primary election, no Jupiter can discountenance that, as no time frame to joining a political party by our constitution.
Now the question is this, did Yusuf joined NNPP before its primary? Yes.
Did he participated in the primary? Yes.
Did he wins the primary conducted? Yes.
The link below shows he contested and won the primary conducted.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2022/06/07/abba-yusuf-emerges-gubernatorial-candidate-of-the-nnpp-in-kano%3Famp%3D1&ved=2ahUKEwiLxpLnht2CAxUpQEEAHV1jA2sQFnoECCgQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0QrDlZcrHO54ND_5RBU9as.
As at March, 2020 he has joined NNPP. Read the link below.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://dailynigerian.com/abba-gida-gida-dumps-pdp-joins/&ved=2ahUKEwjSu7LNh92CAxXzU0EAHVAAB7sQFnoECBgQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3LvF7R0M7iYC6sKLCgefqI

IfnobeGod20:

My brother I don't argue blindly, I only argue on issues I have conviction on. I want you to go back to some of our discourse, I only argued with you on issue of membership register, FCT and Tinubu's academic records and in all I made it abundantly clear that membership register is never a prerequisite for disqualification of candidate and Appeal Court and Supreme Court had upturned all judgements of tribunal that sacked labour party because of that, even after you argued with all your bone marrow and I won you on that. On the issue of 25% in FCT, I made my bias known from day one that the argument of PDP and LP cannot fly, that they were just on wide goose, just the same way you claimed. We were even in that but I challenge you to bring out anywhere I gave life to 25% in FCT. On the issue of Tinubu's academic records, you can't say you won me on that because both Appeal Court and Supreme Court discountenance the prayer and called it preelection matter.

Please did you read what EA says at all, that evidence can be kept secret. There is nowhere in the EA where it says evidence must be accompany with witness and his address. This is the reason some people are saying courts nowadays are cash and carry courts because evidence has no time limit and can be presented to the court at any time by anybody. So far it is presented to the court and it mandatory for the court to peruse the evidence without any oral witness, as oral witness is just to give life to evidence presented but not mandatory by the new EA.

Please did you read what you wrote here at all.
"It is therefore the political party concerned that can state, conclusively, that a person is its member as can be demonstrated by production of its membership register and other relevant documents, if the issue arises".

The question now is, should APC be the one to say Mr. A is not a PDP member when PDP had demonstrated that Mr. A is its member. So far NNPP can show cause that Yusuf is its member, even if he joined the party a day to primary election, no Jupiter can discountenance that, as no time frame to joining a political party by our constitution.
Now the question is this, did Yusuf joined NNPP before its primary? Yes.
Did he participated in the primary? Yes.
Did he wins the primary conducted? Yes.
The link below shows he contested and won the primary conducted.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2022/06/07/abba-yusuf-emerges-gubernatorial-candidate-of-the-nnpp-in-kano%3Famp%3D1&ved=2ahUKEwiLxpLnht2CAxUpQEEAHV1jA2sQFnoECCgQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0QrDlZcrHO54ND_5RBU9as.
As at March, 2020 he has joined NNPP. Read the link below.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://dailynigerian.com/abba-gida-gida-dumps-pdp-joins/&ved=2ahUKEwjSu7LNh92CAxXzU0EAHVAAB7sQFnoECBgQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3LvF7R0M7iYC6sKLCgefqI

You forgot the last part that says membership can be demonstrated by its membership register? Has NNPP demonstrated that Abba Kabir is a member through it's register or membership card

IfnobeGod20:

Evidence are not to be front loaded based on the EA. The petitioner's evidence are to be kept secret till they are presented to the court. You only front load witnesses and their addresses. If you read the presidential appeal court judgement, they struck out all the witnesses not front loaded and their written addresses but still went ahead to deliver on the substantive suit based on the evidence before them but in Nassarawa governorship case that was not done. They just intentional feigned ignorance of the evidence presented because they knew it would work against Governor A. A. Sule if the substantive suit was dealt with.
The question now that suppose to be asked by any sane person, should Governor A. A. Sule benefit from over bloated votes given to him? It potent danger if the court allow him to get away with stolen votes. The worst scenario I expected from the court is to cancel all votes where bloated votes happened and then call for rerun within those polling units.

tnx for the reply,I'm an indegene of the state but in the medical field.
I get what u are saying,but some quarters are saying no hope again since the witnesses were strucked out with their evidence.
Do you see any lifeline for the pdp in this case??,like the supreme court still using the evidence used at tribunal

garfield1:

You forgot the last part that says membership can be demonstrated by its membership register? Has NNPP demonstrated that Abba Kabir is a member through it's register or membership card

But the justice never say only membership register. There are other criteria to ascertain candidate membership and that is left to each party to ascertain.

Osoboshi:
tnx for the reply,I'm an indegene of the state but in the medical field.
I get what u are saying,but some quarters are saying no hope again since the witnesses were strucked out with their evidence.
Do you see any lifeline for the pdp in this case??,like the supreme court still using the evidence used at tribunal

The problem of our judiciary is their inconsistency. If they dwell on the fact of the matter, Governor Sule is gone because there is no way he suppose to benefit from votes stolen, if truly justice is to be served. In the worst scenario, rerun will be declared as the court cancel outrightly all the votes in the concerned polling units where votes were inflated.

IfnobeGod20:

But the justice never say only membership register. There are other criteria to ascertain candidate membership and that is left to each party to ascertain.

True but the party failed to ascertain.party register does not contain Abba name,his membership card is fake,no record of dues payment,updated membership was filed very very late, nomination form was late...so where is the legal proof of membership?
It is settled law that a party is an incorporated association and a legal person and the best way of proving membership is by the party register that is why the electoral act demands for it.section 177 c is meant to prevent independent candidacy.
In gwede vs inec,the court said party nominations are internal affairs but parties cannot act arbitrarily.they must obey their laws and the constitution while fielding candidates...
This case is just like nasarawa.if we go by the merit of it,both governor's should be out

IfnobeGod20:

The problem of our judiciary is their inconsistency. If they dwell on the fact of the matter, Governor Sule is gone because there is no way he suppose to benefit from votes stolen, if truly justice is to be served. In the worst scenario, rerun will be declared as the court cancel outrightly all the votes in the concerned polling units where votes were inflated.

ok,tnx,we still hope for justice

garfield1:


True but the party failed to ascertain.party register does not contain Abba name,his membership card is fake,no record of dues payment,updated membership was filed very very late, nomination form was late...so where is the legal proof of membership?
It is settled law that a party is an incorporated association and a legal person and the best way of proving membership is by the party register that is why the electoral act demands for it.section 177 c is meant to prevent independent candidacy.
In gwede vs inec,the court said party nominations are internal affairs but parties cannot act arbitrarily.they must obey their laws and the constitution while fielding candidates...
This case is just like nasarawa.if we go by the merit of it,both governor's should be out

My brother did the party that produced the card for him say it is fake?
Who produced the membership register submitted for the case?
If it was the membership register submitted to INEC before the primary, it is untenable, except the court request NNPP to make available or authenticate his membership.
Payment of due to the party may not work because someone can join a party today and the same party sponsor him for an election the next day, as no law forbid recruitment of new members at any time and also sponsoring same people.
All these back door approach is untenable by law. The only organ that can attest to membership status of any party's member is the party itself and not other interloper. And that was why I said, If they rely on the membership register submitted to INEC, that would be double standard. It was the same register that petitioners against LP candidates relied on and Appeal Court had punctured same.

It was only the EA that demanded for party register but she EA never made mentioned the reason for its submission. That aside, the constitution had made it abundantly clear the criteria for disqualification and qualification of candidates, anything outside constitutional provisions has k-leg and cannot be rely on. I reiterated, no where in the constitution that require party to submit membership register to prove membership status.

IfnobeGod20:

My brother did the party that produced the card for him say it is fake?
Who produced the membership register submitted for the case?
If it was the membership register submitted to INEC before the primary, it is untenable, except the court request NNPP to make available or authenticate his membership.
Payment of due to the party may not work because someone can join a party today and the same party sponsor him for an election the next day, as no law forbid recruitment of new members at any time and also sponsoring same people.
All these back door approach is untenable by law. The only organ that can attest to membership status of any party's member is the party itself and not other interloper. And that was why I said, If they rely on the membership register submitted to INEC, that would be double standard. It was the same register that petitioners against LP candidates relied on and Appeal Court had punctured same.

It was only the EA that demanded for party register but she EA never made mentioned the reason for its submission. That aside, the constitution had made it abundantly clear the criteria for disqualification and qualification of candidates, anything outside constitutional provisions has k-leg and cannot be rely on. I reiterated, no where in the constitution that require party to submit membership register to prove membership status.

Oga,the constitution said in 177 c that one must be a party member and must be sponsored by them.the supreme court has stated that to prove non membership,party membership register is key and the best alongside others like oral witness from party and membership card which doesn't favour Kabir.the only witness that came Dr bichi only said Kabir is a member without any documentary or legal proof.it is settled law that mere assertion or allegations are not evidence or fact.wgere you not the one that queried why documents where rejected in nasarawa...? The proofs on ground clearly shows that Abba is not a member of nnpp legally sir.
Like I said,according to the companies and allied matters act governs corporate bodies and membership register is the best form to decipher membership...
Let me also remind you that this is not a criminal case.the proof required is based on preponderances or probabilities of evidence not proof beyond doubt.iy will be weighted on a scale.over 60% of evidences is against nnpp and that is enough.documentary evidence is against him while oral evidence from his party is in his favour.it is settled issue that when documentary and oral evidence are in confkict,documentary evidence will prevail.

The constitution clearly said forgery is disqualification but the court has stated that that forgery must be among the educational qualifications listed and must be proven beyond doubt.

garfield1:


Oga,the constitution said in 177 c that one must be a party member and must be sponsored by them.the supreme court has stated that to prove non membership,party membership register is key and the best alongside others like oral witness from party and membership card which doesn't favour Kabir.the only witness that came Dr bichi only said Kabir is a member without any documentary or legal proof.it is settled law that mere assertion or allegations are not evidence or fact.wgere you not the one that queried why documents where rejected in nasarawa...? The proofs on ground clearly shows that Abba is not a member of nnpp legally sir.
Like I said,according to the companies and allied matters act governs corporate bodies and membership register is the best form to decipher membership...
Let me also remind you that this is not a criminal case.the proof required is based on preponderances or probabilities of evidence not proof beyond doubt.iy will be weighted on a scale.over 60% of evidences is against nnpp and that is enough.documentary evidence is against him while oral evidence from his party is in his favour.it is settled issue that when documentary and oral evidence are in confkict,documentary evidence will prevail.

The constitution clearly said forgery is disqualification but the court has stated that that forgery must be among the educational qualifications listed and must be proven beyond doubt.

I hate back and forth which I know you enjoy. Except Supreme Court just want to reverse itself. No third party can meddle on the internal affairs of another party. All these make up you're bringing doesn't take a party few minutes to make them available to authenticate Yusuf's membership. As you're even claiming his membership card is fake, the membership register submitted is not genuine, as if APC is the maker of all party membership cards and registers.

IfnobeGod20:

I hate back and forth which I know you enjoy. Except Supreme Court just want to reverse itself. No third party can meddle on the internal affairs of another party. All these make up you're bringing doesn't take a party few minutes to make them available to authenticate Yusuf's membership. As you're even claiming his membership card is fake, the membership register submitted is not genuine, as if APC is the maker of all party membership cards and registers.

Where in the constitution stops a third party from meddling in 177 c?
I did not bring any make up,I backup myself from legal precedents and statutes unlike you that is emotionally driven.the nnpp came to testify,did they succeed in proving his membership?
This is not a case of forgery or a case of electoral malpractice therefore the maker of the document doesn't need to testify.it is an open and close case.besides,an nnpp official testified and didn't fault the documents.additionally,the electoral act says it is not necessary to bring oral evidence if the documentary evidence shows clear and manifest facts...
The supreme court has interpreted 177c severally and never said a third party isn't qualified to sue.i cited several cases for you yet your here blabbing instead of verifying.they only say so if it involves the electoral act.obi case was based on the electoral act and apc was saying that he was a member of pdp and doesn't have locus to challenge apc.apc never invoked 177