₦airaland Forum

Stupid judge. Collecting bribe to give a perverse judgement that is clearly against the electoral act. INEC should file for review of this senseless judgement immediately!

Mbaise people will never rule Imo state. Ihedinjo is just wasting his time. I trust the Supreme Court to treat his fvck up well.

Racoon:
This one is a serious taunting by Shehu Sanni.Perhaps he is joking with a Buhari that must be in pain over the sudden electoral misfortune that has befell the APC in their highly coverted Bayelsa State.

Shehu Sani has been looking for a way to get at Buhari since the President abandoned him for El Rufai to humiliate

TheTrueSeeker2:
Has President Buhari congratulated Sen. Duoye Diri?

Has Jonathan congratulated Douye Diri?

Plus10:
APC supporters are in severe pains rights

PDP supporters in Imo are also in severe pains

Neither Lyon nor Diri came to his ministry for revelations and prayers so what are you saying? Ihedinjo and his current pursuit to reverse the Supreme Court judgement will end in disgrace for the mbaise thief. You can hold Mbaka on that one if it fails.

Ihedinjo try again in 2028.

PaChukwudi44:
Garfield is not me

What makes you think you are stronger than him? The same way you carried Onnoghen and Atiku on your head is how he carried his own.

PaChukwudi44:
I hope Garfield will survive this lol

If you could survive Onnoghen and Atiku defeats, I think he can

OkpaNsukkaisBae:
wetin obiano dey feel like sef?
always distancing himself from south east governors meeting.

Could be the notion that Anambra people see Ebonyi people as beneath them. Obiano don't want to submit to the leadership of Umahi.

MelesZenawi:
I love what Ganduje did.

That tout from Imo state is trying to turn himself to another Eddie nawgu in anambra state.

Ganduje just earned my respect today.

Tout from Imo state you call him but he has been chopping una mugu for anambara state.

sosospence:
You are not God.

I know. Mbaka is not God too. We are all human.

Kennedymac:
Do you even know where IMO state is in the Map
we all know u be mumu just reduce ur mumurity small

Anumanu.

Ihedinjo is a thief who has been kicked out. Mbaise people will never rule Imo state.

Abia state need to be liberated. Father Mbaka need to visit the state for a powerful crusade.

Solid road.

Kennedymac:
u are the dumbest human I've ever seen
if u believe that Hope could fix portable water in a week then the money ur parents spent training u in school was a wasted money

the portable water u think he provided was all done by Ihedioha but ur hate will never allow you to see beyond ur nose

Ihedinjo did nothing. He was busy stealing for himself and his cronies.

Ihedioha is just a making a fool of himself. The mbaise ego in him is still kicking but it will be limping soon. He will never be Imo governor again be it in 2024 or 2028 or ever. The green cap has fallen and fallen never to rise again.

Aba is not just a disgrace but a slum, a pigsty, a wild jungle and an animal kingdom that humans forcefully took over.

LabDNA:
That's a bloody lie and you know it. Yoruba gave fulanis their cocky attitude. 2015 was a chance to obliterate fulani political hegemony, and send them running back to futa jallon if they start any war due to loss of election, you yorubas blew it. Yes you did!

Yoruba threatened the lives of Igbos in 2015 because fulani wanted power, your Oba swore he would drown them in lagoons.

Yorubas printed banners and marched on the streets of lagos against Igbos few days before the election. You victimized Igbos because they would not support Buhari and APC in 2015. The records are there!

If buhari had lost, yorubas would have joined fulanis and hausa urchins to kill Igbos and loot their businesses in 2015. If you had tried this your lies in 1977 when there was no internet maybe you would gotten away with it. But today you lies will fail because the internet never forgets.

The only anchor fulani have in the south is yoruba (especially yoruba muslims).

But in 2019, Igbos like you said we should vote for Atiku another Fulani, thereby strengthening their grip on the country for additional 4 years. Hypocrite!

If only the desperate mbaise man will listen. Carry go our beloved governor from the powerful Orlu zone. Mbaka has sealed it in the spirit.

As 2023 draws nearer, who will smuggle Atiku to America in a suitcase now that Saraki no longer has diplomatic passport?

Noerection:
The green cap has fallen already

The juju inside the green cap has expired. Thank goodness Imo will never see a plague like Ihedioha again.

Chimookigwe:
What do you expect?
There is a reason why Mbaise people are seen as lepers in Igboland. Very useless people. They are vindictive and very troublesome. PDP made a mistake giving their ticket to an Mbaise man. See how his stupidity has finished PDP in Imo.

No Mbaise person would ever rule in Imo again.

There is nothing more to add. You have said it all.

Why did they also arrest the indigenous community leaders? They will never kill their own people. The fulani ardos are the ones who habour and provide information to their herdmen killer brothers.

One4me:
Come 2023, when full revelations start coming out, you will all realise that Jonathan, though the cuase of our current misfortune, is a learner when compared to the damage the current regime has done to Nigeria and Nigerians.
Just wait till then.

Why 2023?

solmus:


Yeah right

how low is the standard of Governance in Abia, that a mere call for Buhari to be stoned or distribution of kerosene is now aplauded


.

You wicked

Ihedinjo was just settling down to begin looting Imo state that's why his sudden removal is still a big shock to him. When he thinks of all the billions he would have stolen, it makes his green cap fall off his mbaise head

ImoFirstBorn:
By Kenneth Opara, Esq.

In its Judgment Supreme Court relied heavily on the testimony of PW54 (Rabiu Hussein) a Deputy Commissioner of Police and the results tendered by him marked Exhibits PPP1-PPP366 in holding that Hope Uzodinma scored the majority of lawful votes in the Imo State Governorship Election and declaring him winner of the election.

2.​ However, PW54 merely dumped the purported election results (Exhibits PPP1-PPP366) on the trial tribunal and did not in anyway link the said documents to the case of Hope Uzodinma.

3.​ Under cross examination the PW54 unequivocally admitted as follows;

(i)​that he was not in any of the 388 polling units on the election day;

(ii)​that he was not present when the documents were recorded, prepared and or entries thereon made;

(iii)​that he did not know or have the names of the Policemen who allegedly collected the documents from the 388 polling units and the polling units they worked;

(iv)​that Exhibits PPP1-PPP366 were not submitted to him by any Policeman;

(v)​that Exhibits PPP1-PPP366 were handed over to him by the Police Administrative Officer as the results from the polling units.

4.​ It is noteworthy that the Policemen who allegedly worked in the polling units, received the 366 documents and submitted same to Police Headquarters were not called to testify by Hope Uzodinma. The Police Administrative Officer who allegedly received the 366 documents from the Policemen were not called to testify. Furthermore, the Presiding Officers who allegedly made the entries and signed the 366 documents and the polling unit agents did not also testify.

5.​The Supreme Court has maintained in a long line of decided cases that a Petitioner, like Hope Uzodinma, in order to succeed must call as witnesses eye witnesses who were present when the election was conducted, were present when the entries in the forms were made and can testify to how entries in the documents were arrived at. The evidence must come from persons who had first hand, actual and positive interaction with the election at the polling units. Persons who did not take part in the conduct of election at the polling units cannot testify on the happenings at the polling units on election day. Evidence must be direct and not hearsay evidence, and the makers of the documents must tender them otherwise the documents become documentary hearsay.

6.​ In BUHARI v. OBASANJO (2005)13 NWLR (Pt 941)1 at 315-316 Paras B-C the apex court held thus:
“On the question whether the evidence led in support is sufficient to warrant the decision reached on the point by the court below, it is necessary to examine the said evidence led. The position of the law regarding the type of evidence which must be led in support of allegations in which figures or scores of candidates at an election are being challenged should come direct from the officers who were on the field where the votes were counted and/or collated …see OMOBORIOWO v. AJASIN (1984) 1 SCNLR 108; and HASHIDU v. GOJE(2003) 15 NWLR (Pt. 843) 352. In the HASHIDU v. GOJE case, supra, I stated the position of the law on the point on page 393 of the report as follows …None of these party agents was called to testify. Similarly, none of the INEC polling agents was called to testify and confirmed the figures since they should be the makers of the forms on which the figures given were written. It follows therefore that the evidence given by the said PW1 on the figures and relied on by the Lower Court was totally inadmissible because it is hearsay evidence. The court below was therefore wrong in relying on the figures.”
And in BUHARI v. INEC (2008) 19 NWLR (Pt 1120) 246 at 391-392 it was held as follows:
​“Weight can hardly be attached to a document tendered in evidence by a witness who cannot or is not in a position to answer questions on the document. One such person the law identifies is the one who did not make the document. Such a person is adjudged in the eyes of the law as ignorant of the content of the document.”
And recently in the Presidential Election Appeal SC.1211/2019 ATIKU ABUJAKAR & ANOR v. INEC & OTHERS delivered on 15/11/2019 the Supreme Court per Tanko Muhammed CJN held thus:
“With regards to the evidence of PW60, it is clear that he was not on the field to gather the data he used to compute the results he intended the lower court to use to enter judgment for the 1st Appellant. In the case of Atiku Abubakar & Ors v. Umaru Musa Yar-adua & Ors (2008) 19 NWLR (Pt.1120) 1 at 173 E – G, this Court per Niki Tobi, JSC (of blessed memory) held as follows:
“A petitioner who contests the legality or lawfulness of votes cast in an election and subsequent result must tender in evidence all the necessary documents by way of forms and other documents used at the elections. He should not stop there. He must call witnesses to testify that the illegality or unlawfulness substantially affected the result of the election. The votes are recorded. The witnesses are those who saw it all on the day of the election not those who picked the evidence from eye-witnesses. No, they must be eye-witnesses too… It is not enough for the Petitioner to tender only the documents. It is incumbent on him to lead evidence in respect of the wrong doings or irregularities both in the conduct of the election and recording of the votes, wrong doings and irregularities which affected substantially the result of the election. (underlining mine for emphasis).

Clearly, the PW60 was not available in the 11 focal states which he sought to establish the anomalies or irregularities which the Appellants pleaded. The documents he used to analyze the results were not made or signed by him”
And further held thus:
“As I said earlier, which is the correct position of the law, only witnesses who actually saw what happened at the polling units can give credible evidence of what they saw. See Hashidu v. Goje (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt. 843) 352, Oke v. Mimiko (2014) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1388) 332 at 376, Andrew v. INEC (2018) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1625) 507 at 563”
See also Okechukwu v. INEC (2014) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1436) 255 at 299, and recent Abia State Governorship Appeal – Alex Otti v. Ikpeazu.

7.​ The failure of the Appellants (Uzodinma & APC) to call the Presiding Officers, polling agents and Policemen present at the 388 polling units was fatal, because the Appellants in the circumstance failed to call persons who had first hand, actual and direct knowledge of happenings in the 388 polling units. The PW54 was not present at the polling units, did not see the making of the 366 documents and was not the maker of these documents. The law is trite that a person who did not make a document is not competent to give evidence on it. It is also settled that where the maker of the documents is not called to testify (as in the instant appeal) the document would not be accorded probative value by the court. Udom Emmanule v. Umana (supra), Wike v. Peteside (2016)7 NWLR (Pt. 1512) 452. Therefore the Supreme Court ought not to have attached probative value to PW54’s evidence and the documents he tendered (i.e. Exhibits PPP1 – PPP 366). See Atiku Abubakar v. INEC (supra) where it was held thus:
“The above quotation from the case of Magaji v. Nigerian Army (supra) is very clear and unambiguous. There is nothing in that judgment which suggests that whenever a certified true copy of public document is tendered in court, the maker need not be called to testify. That would be strange. However, if the intention is just to tender the douments, of course, it can be done without the maker as was done in this Bar. But if the intention is for the court to act on those documents, the makers must be called to speak to those documents and be cross examined appropriately. It is then and only then that a court can attach probative value to it. See Andrew v. INEC & ors (supra), Ikpeazu v. Otti (2016) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1513) 38, Buhari v. INEC (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1120) 246, Gabriel Udom Emmanuel v. Umana Okon Umana & ors (2016) 12 NWLR 9Pt. 1526) 270 at 286.
It is therefore not difficult to appreciate the court below when it held that the appellants merely dumped those documents on the court. The court is not permitted to go home and interrogate those documents privately in the inner recess of its chambers. This will amount to shopping for evidence, thus descending into the arena of the conflict. See Labaran Maku v. Umaru Tanko Al-Makura (2016) 5 NWLR (Pt. 11505) 201 at 230. One wonders how the Appellants expected judgment to be entered in their favour when they failed to do the needful in respect of those documents which were the pivot of their petition”

Interesting points. You could win if you appeal the case at ECOWAS court.

LZAA:
Mbaka has never favoured anything but his pocket
The backlash he got feom trying to extort money from peter obi made him lie low for a while

Lol. Peter obi is the one who went to him. I am sure obi wanted to use his platform to sell his candidacy but it backfired. Politicians are the ones running to Mbaka for favour and not the other way around.

Chuksyno:
I like Rv Fr. Ejike Mbaka but I hate his relationship with naija polithiefians.

Lol. Because he is not favouring PDP?