₦airaland Forum

senatordave1:
No one is crying.you are misunderstanding everything.you obidients always twists things in the media...
The earlier you guys stop the media nonsense,the better.you heard the judges condemn pdp for the media attack and you guys are still doing this media attack.read the handwriting

No matter how you put it,, you guys are always the ones that will always find something to say at every move which Peter Obi makes.

Chindozy:
They are crying over the ‘starter’. I wonder what their reaction would be when the ‘main course’ is served

They will cry more.


Let me give you a history of their cries.

1. Peter Obi said that he would go to court, and they started crying that Peter wants to destabilize the country.

2. They later saw the petition and started crying, that Peter didn't pay attention to show how he won, and paid more attention to disqualifying Tinubu.

3. Peter wanted to inspect the BVAS, They started crying that he should go and get the results from his party agents.

4. Peter brought the paper evidence, they are still crying that he didn't state it in the petition that he would tender paper evidence

senatordave1:
Yes,he was brought in by the godfathers and he fell out.tinubu stole no mandate,more people esp up north wanted him

Then, let Tinubu prove that he won fair-and-square, rather than finding technicalities to rely upon and dismiss the case..
Just the way they did in 2019.

Ibrahimmufutau:
U people still living in fool paradise and continuing wailing a.k.a the waillers. President Tinubu is our President and he will not dissapoint his compatriots let's be patience everything shall be fixed for our goodness by special grace of God. Nigeria shall be great again.

Dr. Ngige was (and is still) one of the best governors Anambra State ever had.
But he ruled with a stolen mandate.
And that's what it is.

He did well. No doubts.
But he ruled with a stolen mandate.
No doubts too.

senatordave1:
Oga,atiku tendered result sheets like this in 2019 and in the end,failed

Let me tell you why it failed.

1. The analyst they used was a coren registered chemical engineer.. He is not a registered statistician or a certified professional data analyst.

2. The result-sheets were not even considered nor even looked into by the judges (even though they admitted it as an exhibit), just because they claimed that they subpoenaed INEC, who came and dumped the results on the court and they didn't establish what the results were supposed to be doing, neither did they make reference to the Exhibit, they continued making references to the expert report that was tendered by the Chemical Engineer, which they court had already rendered null-and-void ab-initio

senatordave1:
Oga,you cannot accept any wrong in court.you must always defend your case and client at all times

Client.??

So, who is INEC’s Client in this circumference.??

senatordave1:
In litigation,you must always put the judges and respondents on notice what you want to do specifically.are you aware that improper service can end cases?

How can it be proven that INEC doesn't know (and that they were not aware) that those documents (which they themselves produced) were going to be presented in the Tribunal.??

If they were documents that were prepared by the Petitioners, it would have been very different.

senatordave1:
It was not.go and reread obi petition,you will see where he mentioned.

Where he mentioned WHAT.??

senatordave1:
Yes for specificity

So, you are saying that now that the whole 176K+ Polling-units (or let me say,, the whole Polling-units in the 18 States) were not all fully listed inside the petition,, then the whole exhibits should all the thrown out.??


Meanwhile,, I need you to answer the question above as detailed as you could be.

senatordave1:
He has not responded.they all agreed that they will accept all inec documents while giving reasons for objections at the final stage.so,the judge merely accepted them as agreed,expect a lot of them to be struck out before or during the judgment

Ok then.



I think I am done with you at this stage of discussion..

We continue this discussion as time goes on..

Probably at the time of judgement.

senatordave1:
Yes.it must be polling unit by polling unit

So, they should also have named all the Polling-units inside their petition naa.??

BreconHills:
Bros, I don't know if you are a lawyer. It doesn't sound like it. Pleadings are required to be specific. There is nothing like "...and other" You must state the exact evidence or data that you want to show in your pleadings in detail so that the other party can prepare a defense. There is nothing like someone erroneously said below - surprising your opponent. If you surprise your opponent he has the right to ask for an adjournment to study any new evidence not specifically pleaded and to amend his pleadings if necessary as well as adduce additional evidence to meet it.

You do know that this matter is going to the supreme court and the Sc can only rule on matters argued in the lower courts. So everybody needs to be specific. If you are not or if the lower court wrongly admits evidence the earlier judgment can be overruled.

Everybody is setting traps here at the tribunal. The real fireworks is at the court of appeal.

Keep your powder dry. The road is far. This is not WWF

drlateef:
Wrong position. What’s the difference between 11 states and “other states”? Tell us the difference. Is it meant to confuse the judges as regards the remit of their dispute?

senatordave1:
That is a report not law.the law states that parties must be given notice of what they want to do

First of all, I would need you guys to read this excerpt from Peter Obi's Petition..
Paragraph 101, sub-paragraph (b)....

“101. At the trial, the Petitioners shall rely on ALL the 1st Respondent's electoral and other necessary documents used for the conduct of the Presidential election, including:

“(b) ALL INEC Result sheets - Form EC8 Series EC8A, EC8B, EC8C, EC8D and EC8E in both physical and electronic copies.”

I need you guys to tell me how Ambiguous the word “ALL” as used here is.


And secondly...
I need you guys to read this thing that I am going to write down here-below,, and tell me what you guys understood by it..

1. Rivers
2. Lagos
3. Taraba
4. Benue
5. Adamawa
6. Imo
7. Bauchi
8. Borno
9. Kaduna, and
10. Plateau
11. Other States of the Federation.

Question-1: Is the list restricted to only 10 States? (Or 11 States??)


Question-2: What is the MINIMUM number of States which is allowed by this list.??

Question-3: What is the MAXIMUM number of States which is allowed by this list.??

senatordave1:
They must state the particular areas....

They must also state all the wards and all the Polling-units too?
(Since naming the STATE is not enough)

senatordave1:
He will inform the court and parties places he intends to dispute

He had already done that inside the petition..

They also want him to list the whole Wards and Polling-units too.??

senatordave1:
He can't prove that

We still dey court oga.

Stop pre-empting.

At the end of the whole wharrever, whoever that wins, let him take the seat.

One thing is, we have changed the situation already, and we are going to change the situation even more sef in the near future.

sangresan:
Stop smoking weed. You neva hear.

Obi is disputing the results in Adamawa and Osun.

If the election is conducted 200 times, Obi Kekerenke won't secure 80,000 votes in Osun State.

If he said that the election in Osun was manipulated, and that he can prove it,, then, let him go ahead and prove it.

sangresan:
Know this and have peace.

Obi is an Igbo man. Igbo man cannot rule Nigeria for now. That's the unwritten rule. Stop fooling yourselves like kindergarten pupils.

If for instance Obi becomes the final winner,, what will happen.??


He will still not rule Nigeria because he is an Igbo Man.??

Answer me oo

senatordave1:
You didn't read the post.inec is not objecting because of its genuineness but the wrong way of presentation

Well..



The judge had already responded to the issue of “Presentation” with regards to any evidence that was released by the INEC themselves..

MatrixCircle:
Yes let INEC bring evidence to prove if those documents were fake , still they can't.
Bring documents as evidence to prove Tinubu won the election, still they can't.

When the time comes for them to defend their case,, they might produce the needed necessary evidence.

senatordave1:
Lp listed 11 states.now they are bringing 18 states.lp are not even denying

Read this thing I am going to write here-below,, and tell me what you understood by it..

1. Rivers
2. Lagos
3. Taraba
4. Benue
5. Adamawa
6. Imo
7. Bauchi
8. Borno
9. Kaduna, and
10. Plateau
11. Other States of the Federation.

Question-1: Is the list restricted to only 10 States? (Or 11 States??)


Question-2: What is the MINIMUM number of States which is allowed by this list.??

Question-3: What is the MAXIMUM number of States which is allowed by this list.??

MatrixCircle:
But if they refused to admit then bring your own evidence to court to prove Tinubu won the election. Bring your own documents to prove Tinubu won, INEC say NO.
Na wa oo

When their own time comes,, they would have to present their own evidence too.

Joevics:
Not in this vase. LP clearly added those results sheets in their list evidence. INEC is saying they should have listed each LGA in the petition.

But the Lists of All the Local Governments in all the States are already inside the Nigerian Constitution..
Why repeating them again inside the petition.??

Nakuza:
Who noticed INEC chairman hardly make public appearance.

I no blame him..


1. Shame.
2. Fear.
3. Security.
4. Threat to his life.
5. Etc

senatordave1:
Not true.the petitioner must not just prove that it isn't tallying but must show that he won

Obi is not here to show that he won.


Obi is here to prove the the whole election was fraudulent...
And should be re-conducted all over again..

And this time around,, done correctly..

IF NOT, HE WILL STILL TAKE THEM TO COURT AGAIN.!!

senatordave1:
Not true sir.in law,you must be clear, unambiguous and specific.you must always give the other parties notice of what you want to do I order to avoid ambush and unfair hearing

Bro..
Go to paragraph 101 where they wrote down all the documents which they would plead during the trial..
Go to paragraph 101(b) and tell me what you saw there.

In fact, read this response here.

NICENEDU29:
Thank you my brother. That shows you are a very good and diligent researcher who pays kin attention to details. Keep it up. Now, to lend credence to what you said, in paragraph 101 (b) of the Petition, Peter Obi and L.P. specifically stated thus:
"101. At the trial, the Petitioners shall rely on all the 1st Respondent's electoral and other necessary documents used for the conduct of the Presidential election, including:
(b) All INEC Result sheets - Form EC8 Series EC8A, EC8B, EC8C, EC8D and EC8E in both physical and electronic copies."
I quoted that paragraph verbatim. This particular paragraph covers it all. So, you made a lot of valid points and I totally agree with you.

senatordave1:
My brother, biasness doesn't fit you.what exactly is your isuue? What is fake about his explanation? Obidients get serious issues

Thanks for knowing that I have a bias..

Whether it fits me or not, should be a discussion for another day.

senatordave1:
Before bringing the remaining 11 states,they must inform respondents beforehand and properly serve them notice

According to the Pre-Hearing Report,, Any documents that were produced by the INEC themselves doesn't need to be given notice to the same INEC again before tendering, since the same INEC who produced such documents already knew what was inside the documents they produced and gave to the petitioners..

And INEC, and APC, and BAT/SHETTIMA all agreed to this before the proper hearing began.

sangresan:
Are you a qualified lawyer? If you're not a lawyer, then you're just writing jargons.

Oga Sangresan..
If I am a lawyer, you cannot tell.
If I am not lawyer, you still cannot tell either..

Meanwhile, I am telling you that I read Peter Obi’s Petition, and I am now asking which of the Petition is the Counsel referring to.

Lawyer or no lawyer, anyone can read the petition.


As for you Mr. Sangresan,,, read this response below and learn further.

NICENEDU29:
Thank you my brother. That shows you are a very good and diligent researcher who pays kin attention to details. Keep it up. Now, to lend credence to what you said, in paragraph 101 (b) of the Petition, Peter Obi and L.P. specifically stated thus:
"101. At the trial, the Petitioners shall rely on all the 1st Respondent's electoral and other necessary documents used for the conduct of the Presidential election, including:
(b) All INEC Result sheets - Form EC8 Series EC8A, EC8B, EC8C, EC8D and EC8E in both physical and electronic copies."
I quoted that paragraph verbatim. This particular paragraph covers it all. So, you made a lot of valid points and I totally agree with you.

DesChyko:
I want to believe you know why I bolded that 'and'.

You yourself are a first hand witness of how the meaning of 'and' was twisted out of meaning in the interpretation of 25%.

The AND means that the Eleven states are on one side..

And then,, the Other States One the other side.

(In this case,, the 11 is sacrosanct....
But in the 25% case,, the FCT is sacrosanct)

pandoragirigory:
ok

Ok Naa

sreamsense:
Court does not deal with emotion, but the law. For obi to bring irrelevant materials as exhibit will just amount to waste of time. Is it not the same EC8A that one 'Amaka' would sign for all polling unit agents of other parties for fraud cases? How can that be reliable? The electronically transmitted ones remains more reliable. LP can't teach INEC on how to do her work. Same procedures were followed where LP won and other previous elections. At the end of the day, INEC and APC will give reasons for their objections and let's see if LP will not begin to cry foul again

Inside the PETITION,, I could clearly read where they mentioned ELEVEN STATES, and then went ahead to write “AND OTHER STATES”


LP had produced the results in the mentioned 11 states,, and proceeded to continue to produce the results in some “OTHER” additional 7 States, making it a total of 18 States in all..

How can the INEC be expecting Peter Obi to tender only the STATE-LEVEL Collated Results for the States they were disputing, without him tendering all the Polling-unit Results, and all Wards Collated Results, and all the LGAs Collated Results of all the States he intended to dispute..??


For the Fact that he wrote “And Other States” inside his petition,, he is at liberty to dispute the whole if the 36 States and the FCT...
Thus, the 11 mentioned states are sacrosanct..
Any other states he added are at his choice.

GeneralPula:
Seem you’re allergic to comprehension..

Inec is indicting your Lp and you’re here flipping..

According to INEC, the local government areas unlawfully smuggled into proceedings of the court are totally strange to the petition and cannot stand in the face of the law.

Inside the PETITION,, I could clearly read where they mentioned ELEVEN STATES, and then went ahead to write “AND OTHER STATES”


LP had produced the results in the mentioned 11 states,, and proceeded to continue to produce the results in some “OTHER” additional 7 States, making it a total of 18 States in all..

How can the INEC be expecting Peter Obi to tender only the STATE-LEVEL Collated Results for the States they were disputing, without him tendering all the Polling-unit Results, and all Wards Collated Results, and all the LGAs Collated Results of all the States he intended to dispute..??


For the Fact that he wrote “And Other States” inside his petition,, he is at liberty to dispute the whole if the 36 States and the FCT...
Thus, the 11 mentioned states are sacrosanct..
Any other states he added are at his choice.