SUMMARY OF THE SUPREME-COURT JUDGEMENT ON THE EDO STATE ELECTION PETITION OF ASUE IGHODALO AND PDP VERSUS INEC AND MONDAY OKPEBHOLO AND APC.
1. During the Pre-Hearing Session, all the parties agreed that they would accept for the originals and/or the “certified true copies (CTCs)” of some of the documents to be tendered from the bar and be admitted as evidence. This means that the documents would be assumed as “already seen and read” by all parties.
The documents which were agreed to be tendered from the bar included the following: The originals of the duplicate-copies that were given to the party agents during the election, The CTCs of the results which INEC used to collate the results, The CTCs of the results which where downloaded from the IREV-Portal, The CTCs of the Inspection Report of the BVAS-Machines, The CTCs of the screenshots of the contents of the BVAS-Machines, The CTCs of those “Booklet of forms used at the Polling-Units” for the recordings pre-election and post-election information at the Polling-Units, which also compromises of EC25B and EC40A.
2. During the Pre-Hearing Session, the respondents objected to the tendering of the BVAS-Machines as evidence from the bar. This means that they did not agree that by mere tendering the BVAS-Machines from the bar, that it is enough for them to accept that everything inside the BVAS-Machines had been seen and read by them.
3. The Supreme Court therefore judged that since NONE of the 133 units of the BVAS-Machines which were brought to the tribunal were operated in the tribunal by the subpoenaed staff of the INEC, and that the contents inside the BVAS-Machines were NOT extracted in the open court (or at least demonstrated in the open court), therefore the BVAS-Machines would not be admitted as evidence, and thus, those CTCs of the Inspection Reports of the BVAS-Machines and the CTCs of those screenshots of the contents inside the BVAS-Machines were all considered NULL-AND-VOID too, and cannot be admitted as evidence, since the BVAS-Machines which were supposed to make them substantial were not admitted as evidence in the first place (due to the BVAS-Machines not being operated inside the court).
4. The Supreme Court judged that it was not only the form EC25B that the INEC Officials were supposed to fill before the elections started. They also filled some other forms, which included EC40A. And since the Form-EC40A contained the information which the Petitioners were petitioning for in the Form-EC25B, and that the Form-EC40A were also filled before the election started, then it means that INEC still abided with the dictates of Section-73(2) of the Electoral Act 2022. The Judges also stated that the Petitioners needed to call witnesses in all the Polling-Units --- and that is, with the condition that if the documents they tendered in evidence DID NOT MANIFESTLY PROVE THE CASE of the petitioner on the face of those documents. And then also, even if the documents showed ample evidence on its face, witnesses are still required to be called in order for them to demonstrate how those documents manifestly showed the evidence on its face in the open court, and then link the evidence shown on the face of the documents to the case of the petitioner --- and then, those witnesses would be cross-examined, or else it would be regarded as “dumping of evidence” in court --- which means that the evidence was credible enough, but they were not made good use of DURING THE TRIAL PHASE. The judges stated that the evidence that were manifestly shown on the face of the documents are not supposed to be introduced and established for the first time only by the written addresses of the counsels. They should be introduced and established during the trial phase.
5. With regards to the issue of Over-Voting, the Supreme Court judged that three things are required to prove Over-Voting for any polling Unit: a. Register of voters in those Polling-Units. b. The BVAS-Machines used for those Polling-Unit. c. The Result Sheets for those Polling-Units (EC8As).
****(I have my own personal reservations for that first item which they listed.. I will address it later).
The Judges stated that since the Register of Voters and the BVAS-Machines were not successfully admitted as evidence, then the Petitioners do not have enough evidence that are required for them to prove Over-Voting. (The Inspection Reports of the BVAS-Machines - or even the screenshots of the contents of the BVAS-Machines - cannot be used in place of the BVAS-Machines themselves).
6. Concerning the issue where the Petitioners tried to show that the INEC collated Results using some “Fake Result-Sheets” -- The Petitioners tried to use the originals of the Duplicate Copies of the Polling-Units Results Sheets which were given to the Party Agents at the Polling-Units. The Judges stated that those documents which the Petitioners presented were not legible (that-is, the documents were not visible enough) and that they were not stamped by the INEC. They also judged that there were no witnesses from those affected Polling-Units who would speak to those documents. They also stated that since there were no subpoenaed witnesses from the INEC who would have explained to the court (under cross-examination) that those results on the IREV-Portal are indeed as authentic as the original results, then the Petitioners should not rely on the CTCs of the results which were downloaded from the IREV-Portal. The judges suggested that the originals of the duplicates which were given to the police would rather be used as evidence instead of the CTCs of the results that were downloaded from the IREV-Portal.
7. The Judges expressed hope that a petition might be presented in the future which would be armed with quality evidence and witnesses, so that the petition could be used to set the precedence for the Petitioners who wish to challenge elections in the future.
You can download a copy of the Supreme Court Judgement through the link below...
Here below are some of the new lessons which I learnt from the Supreme Court Judgement of the Edo State Election Petition..
1. Long before the submission of the Petition at the Tribunal, (infact, immediately the results are announced), the supposed petitioner should get a court-order from the Tribunal in order to inspect the BVAS-Machines. It is very important for the Petitioner to make sure to include ALL THE WOULD-BE PARTIES TO THE TRIBUNAL (including all the Respondents) in the court-order for the inspection. None of the respondents should be left out (or be omitted).
2. During the Pre-Hearing session, all the Parties must have to agree that the CTCs of any documents which were produced by the INEC would be tendered from the bar without requiring any more witnesses to testify again about them - before they would be admitted as evidence, since every party are presumed to have already known what were contained inside such documents. (Asue Ighodalo actually did this No. 2 above though, but the dismissal of the 133-Nos BVAS-Machines caused a lot of damages to his case)
3. During the Pre-Hearing session, all the Parties must have to agree that the Originals of the Duplicates of the results (or any documents) which were given to ALL THE PARTIES during the elections -- would be tendered from the bar without requiring any more witnesses to testify again about them - before they would be admitted as evidence, since every party are presumed to have already known what were contained inside such documents. --- Just like in No. 2 above.
4. During the Pre-Hearing session, all the Parties must have to agree that the BVAS-Machines which would be presented and operated in the court by the Staff of INEC -- would Not be requiring witnesses again from all those Polling-Units to testify again about them - before they would be admitted as evidence, since every party are presumed to have already known what were contained inside the BVAS-Machines during the time of the inspection of the machines.
5. The Party Agents should always learn to stay back and sign the results sheets and collect the Originals of the Duplicate Copies that would be given to them. Even if the Party Agents do not agree to the results, they should sign on top of it and indicate “DISAGREE” or “DISPUTED” on top of the original result sheets, and they should make sure that what they wrote appeared clearly inside their Duplicate Copies.
6. The Party Agents of the Petitioners should make sure that the Duplicate Copies they were given to them are very clear and legible, AND THAT THEY WERE STAMPED BY THE INEC OFFICIALS.!! If the Duplicate Copies are not clear and Legible enough, the Party Agents at the point where the duplicate copies were given must demand that the INEC Official who produced that document must re-write those results on the Duplicate Copy, and then counter-sign on the sheet, and also make a remark on the Duplicate copy to the effect of the re-writing of the result (reason for doing such) and sign his signature. The petitioner will also have to subpoena the Police to submit the Originals of the Duplicate Copies that were given to the Police -- in order to substantiate their case (especially for them to establish that the re-writing of the result - by the INEC Officer - in order to make it legible didn't alter what was written in the original result)
7. Petitioners must state it clearly inside their petitions that they would subpoena two INEC ICT Staff on two different occasions, and for two different reasons: a. For the first staff will have to present the BVAS-Machines of the required Polling-Units, and for him to operate those BVAS-Machines in the court, and then extract those necessary information from them all over again (as had been done earlier during the inspection of the BVAS-Machines) b. Another staff will have to demonstrate in the Court how and when the results that were uploaded into the IREV-PORTAL were uploaded; and whether they are NOT supposed to be a REPLICA and a REPRESENTATION of the authentic original results -- as required by the Section-62(2&3) of the Electoral-Act-2022; And thus, whether the Petitioners are not supposed to rely on the CTCs of the results which were downloaded from the IREV-PORTAL. The subpoenaed INEC ICT staff should also explain why the INEC cannot achieve 100% uploading of the results into the IREV-Portal by the “Day-14” following the announcement of the final results, since the Electoral Act requires that the IREV be updated CONTINUOUSLY... and also, that 14 days is required for the INEC to reproduce the CTCs of any information or documents that was used during the election. **(See Section-74 and Section-146 of the Electoral-Act-2022.) Thus, the argument of the Petitioners in this regards would be that: “IF the INEC wouldn't want to use the IREV-Portal, then they should scrap it totally; and if they must use it, then they have 14 Days maximum from the day the results were announced for them to achieve a “100% UPLOAD” of results into the IREV-PORTAL -- including the results of all the COLLATED RESULTS at all the levels of collation as clearly stated in Section-62(2) of the Electoral-Act-2022”.
8. The Petitioners should try and see if they can correct the perceived error which the Judges made in the Judgement. It seemed as if the judges are still using the Repealed “Electoral-Act-2010” in making their Judgements. Electoral-Act-2010 required the use of “Voters-Register” in proving Over-Voting, (because the same “Voters Register” was also required for the Accreditation of Voters) But in the new Electoral-Act-2022, only the “smart-card reader or the provided technology” is required for Accreditation of voters. Voters-Register are no more needed in the new Electoral-Act-2022. (The subpoenaed INEC Staff should also explain in the open court that the “Electronic Register of Voters” is now embedded and included inside the BVAS-Machines for each Polling-Units). Also, the “Voters-Register” is not listed inside the Electoral-Act-2022 as part of the requirements for determining Over-Voting at any Polling-Unit. Thus, Future Petitioners should bring this to the notice of the Judges so that it can be argued and be determined. The judges shouldn't using OLD REPEALED LAWS to be Judging cases of recent times.
9. Petitioners should normalize the practice of joining all those Erring Electoral Officers as PARTIES to the Petition (as clearly stated in the Paragraph-51 of the First Schedule of the Electoral-Act-2022). Let those erring officers come to the Tribunal and defend their own cases in Court, and be found Guilty (OR NOT) and Be Properly SANCTIONED according to the law.!!
With NIFES, and CASOR and all those students politics and student activities going on in the Universities,, you think the distraction is not strong enough to knock someone off from having First-Class?
Preciousgirl: It's hard for me but I will confess here. My colleague of course male colleague playfully held my waist at the workplace and I got aroused. I have never had feelings for him though. I was a little wet. Have I cheated? Should I confess this to my husband? What really happened since I don't have feelings for the guy? Could that me juju at work?
No need telling your husband.
You need to watch-out for yourself by yourself.. Since you have noticed that you get easily aroused when even total strangers hold your waist, then guard against such holdings from anyone with all your strength. In fact, don't let anyone hold your hand for any prolonged time before it mistakenly turns you on, and you start to have guilty conscience again.
Just forgive yourself and avoid any situation that would bring any repetition.
Again, search yourself, if you're have any form of soft-spot in your heart or mind for that colleague of yours, then you need to do something about it. So that you won't be here telling yourself that you have no feelings for him, whereas deep inside of you, your hear or mind really have deep feelings for him and you don't even know.
Deeprooted: I am the type that buys whatever I come across deemed good for the family, especially while on road trip.
I noticed each time I tell my wife the actual price of the items I bought, she always complain I was cheated by the seller.
These are items you hardly can get within the city center.
The issue now is that, I'm now scared of telling her the true worth of the items I recently got while returning from South South. It was a road trip so I bought plenty cheap food stuff.
Madam say I no Sabi price. I just tire. These are stuff I considered very very cheap.
Who the experience the same thing abeg ?
If the thing vex you well well, then stop buying altogether, and let everybody rest.
But we have to leave Nigeria before we find them in good numbers to start to consider..
So, for people who are still in Nigeria and never found any opportunity of being in the midst of lots of the pale-skin guys,; this thing you wrote here is just almost equal to Rubbish.
Luli02: Imagine a relationship where a lady is significantly older than her partner.
What advantages/disadvantages do you see in such pairing? (Experience, energy, societal pressure, life stages) Do you know any couples like this? Share stories how’s it working out—
Note: The image below is just an illustration!
An alpha lady can cope well with such a relationship.. The only thing is, the man should learn how to allow the woman to be herself. Again, she will have lots of powers and influence over him.
It's not every woman that can cope well staying with a man that they are better than.
Popular Nigerian comedian and actor AY has unveiled his newly reconstructed Lekki mansion, two years after a fire incident destroyed parts of the property.
The entertainer expressed gratitude for the restoration and shared glimpses of the renovated home, marking a fresh chapter after the devastating loss.
That transparent slab,, person downstairs will be seeing you up there.
Don't wear skirts in the house, else person will just look up and see everything you're wearing underneath.
Auxtan: My salesgirl understands my business to the point I am considering to just make her my family.
I don't do an easy business and I am looking to scale, which means someone that understands this business is vital for that to happen and preferably a family member.
Now I am thinking of marrying her and also in the process leaving the relationship/dating market that is a distraction.
I don't have issues whatsoever with this my salesgirl in terms of character and even accountability, she's just perfect in those aspects, but my problem is her age.
Right now, I am just thinking of taking this decision of killing 2 birds with a stone might just be the best for me, one is settling down and two is marrying someone that understands my business.
Is a 29 year old man too big for an 18 year old girl? What's the general public perception of it?
PS: For the main time, I haven't made moves on her. But my interviews on her so far shows she's not looking to enter the high institution anytime soon (probably due to funds). But if I become comfortable with the age gap that is my major concern, I'd make moves on her and see if it will be possible. I'm trying to assess general views on marrying girls in their teen like her.
How old was Peter-Obi when he married Margaret? And how old was Margaret at that time.?
Is the age-gap between them disturbing their marriage?
Now, it is up to you to know exactly what you want in a woman and go for her.
Family › Re: Man Lists 8 Benefits Of Marrying A Virgin by BluntCrazeMan: 2:20pm On Aug 28, 2025
