₦airaland Forum

Afamed:
Stop posting nonsense. You wailed beyond this during Onnoghen trial. Stop posting nonsense

So that's why Buhari is in possession of 3 certificate, 3 different names, 3 different results from same examination.

And he had to lie under an oath

Awon Oluyole

bigdot1759:
Atiku will soon get his Certificate of Return as the winner to become the President of Federal Republic of Social Media.

Is that the reason buhari lied under an Oath

Jobac:
I still maintain that PDP is a dead party.

It seems you have not come to realization that APC is now a regional party.

Seem you need sone reset for you to understand that.

Reality is dawn on you and you are still blabbing

The Presidential Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Abuja, will tomorrow (Thursday), deliver its judgement on the petition the Hope Democratic Party, HDP, and its candidate, Chief Ambrose Owuru, filed to challenge President Muhammadu Buhari’s re-election.

The Justice Mohammed Garba-led five-member panel tribunal had on August 5, reserved judgement on the matter, after all the parties, through their lawyers, adopted their final briefs of argument.


Vanguard learned that the panel has issued a notice to all the parties to appear for the Judgment.

The petitioners’ counsel, Mr Chukwunoyerem Njoku had urged the tribunal to uphold the petition and annul the outcome of the February 23 presidential election that was declared in favour of President Buhari.

According to the petitioners, the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, failed to follow condition precedents that were stipulated in the Electoral Act, when it postponed the presidential election that was originally fixed for February 16.

The party claimed that its candidate, Owuru, secured over 50million votes in a referendum that was conducted by both electorates and observer networks that were dissatisfied with the unilateral postponement of the presidential election by INEC.

While adopting their argument, HDP, urged the tribunal to take cognisance of affidavit and documentary evidence it adduced against President Buhari’s re-election, as well as the evidence of the lone witness that testified in the matter.

However, President Buhari’s lawyer, Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, that of INEC, Mr. Yunus Usman, SAN, and that of the All Progressives Congress, APC, Chief Akin Olujinmi, SAN, in their respective briefs of argument, urged the tribunal to dismiss the petition they said was incompetent and grossly lacking in merit.

INEC specifically demanded that the purported referendum should be dismissed with substantial cost to serve as a deterrent ahead of the 2023 general elections.

Whereas the petitioners filed their briefs of argument on July 27, all the respondents filed their processes on July 26, insisting that the petition was “wholly misconceived”.

The tribunal said it would communicate the judgement date to all the parties.

The petitioners had on July 22, closed their case after they called one witness, Mr Yusuf Ibrahim, in his testimony, insisted that they defeated President Buhari at the referendum they said held on February 16.

HDP and its candidate equally tendered some documents that comprised of Certified True Copies of Newspaper publications, the final list of presidential candidates INEC, released before the February 23 presidential poll, as well as a report of a referendum purportedly conducted by Citizens Observers Referendum/Election Right Protection of Nigeria.

All the documents were admitted into evidence and marked as Exhibits P1 to P10, though all the respondents challenged their admissibility, urging the tribunal not to accord them any probative value.

The witness had under cross-examination, the witness debunked allegation that the referendum was spiritually conducted.

He admitted that though INEC was the body with statutory powers conduct and regulate election in Nigeria, he said a referendum held for “people’s voice to be heard.

Asked if the referendum was celestial or something that happened in the spiritual realm, the witness said: “It was a physical one and not spiritual.”

He said it was neither done over the internet nor through INEC’s server.

Ibrahim said his party and its candidate were not seeking to be declared winners based on the outcome of the February 23 presidential Poll, but on the strength of the referendum.

None of the respondents produced a witness before the tribunal.

The tribunal had rejected a motion the petitioners filed for an order that would remove President Buhari and declare their candidate, Owuru as President.

In the motion dated June 17, the petitioners gave reasons why the tribunal should invoke its powers and order the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Tanko Muhammad, to within 48 hours, swear Owuru in to replace Buhari based on the outcome of the referendum.

They maintained that the referendum took place after INEC, upon realising that President Buhari would be defeated at the poll, abruptly postponed the election date.

In the application titled “Notice Of Intention To Contend”, Owuru, aside seeking to be sworn-in as President, prayed the tribunal to nullify the outcome of the February 23 presidential election on the premise that it held in substantial non-compliance with the Electoral Act.

The tribunal, however, dismissed the application is described as “alien and extraneous” to all the laws in Nigeria.

https://www.vanguardngr.com/2019/08/presidential-poll-tribunal-to-give-verdict-on-hdps-case-against-buhari-thursday-2

Afamed:
Stop posting nonsense

You have comprehension problem.

Waec admission is in progress at the various A for Aple Nursery and primary school

Lalastclala abeg what do you have to say

tuniski:
Including zamfara sef.

Yes thats true.

Someone on dunghill snoke is telling me A party present in all Geopolitical zones is a dead party.

Jobac:
You are just consoling yourself. PDP's carcass will be taken to the national museum before the end of 2020.
I have not tried Osogbo weed, can you tell me how you felt the last time you smoked it? Even Atiku has given up, but some of you foot soldiers have not accepted defeat. Ok o, we shall see.

Your eyes will soon get cleared

Jobac:
PDP members just like to hope for nothing. You guys should put all these efforts into something else. APC ti take over. There shall be no PDP before the end of 2020.

The last time i check.

PDP controlled

Oyo SW
Delta SS
Rivers SS
Cross river SS
Akwa ibom SS
Enugu SE
Imo SE
Ebonyi SE
Bayelsa SS
Abia SE
Benue NC
Sokoto NW
Adamawa NE
Bauchi NE
Taraba NC

A party with presence in all Geopolitical zones.

To a APC a regional party.

You must be smoking osogbo weed

Jobac:
Good job Engineerboat, you are a loyal party member, unfortunately nothing will come out of it. You are just wasting your time with this unnecessary updates. Buhari/Osinbajo will complete this second term.

We don hear you NEEEExt

Atiku had earlier maintained that.

1. The school Buhari claimed to have attended where non-exist
2. Different names on his acclaimed statements of Results
3. Buhari lie under oat that his certificate are with the Nigeria Army Board

Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, further maintained that no law in Nigeria requires anyone to produce his certificates in a bid to prove his eligibility to run for Presidency.
Olanipekun, while adopting his final brief of argument in opposition to the petition the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, and its candidate, Atiku Abubakar, filed to nullify his re-election, argued that under the 1999 Constitution, he was only required to be educated.

He therefore urged the tribunal to dismiss the petition challenging buhari election and his educational qualifications because it lacked merit and substance.

He said: “The law is well settled and the case-law is crystalized on the point that the 2nd Respondent (Buhari) cannot go beyond provisions of sections 131 and 131( of the 1999 Constitution.

AfonjaBoston:
Na only Atiku lawyer address you dey report Engineer lol

Afonja ti o ko ni laakaye ni ho

Responding, the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), through their lawyers, Prince Lateef Fagbami (SAN) and Yunus Usman (SAN) also asked the Justice Mohammed Garba-led tribunal to dismiss the petition with cost.

According to the ruling party, the petition would create an impression that the president lacks basic educational qualifications.

Fagbemi said: “Those who set the standard for secondary education where called. They came and gave the verdict that what the 2nd respondent has was equivalent to Secondary School Certificate.

“The witness said so, and there was no follow-up on that. They did not say that the certificate was fake or forged.

“The position is that we take him to be a secondary school leaver.”

Responding President Buhari Represented by his lawyer, Wole Olanipekun (SAN), argued that he was only required to be educated, under the 1999 Constitution.

He urged that the petition challenging his election and his educational qualifications be dismissed by the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Abuja.

According to the president, the petition lacked merit and substance.

He said: “The law is well settled and the case-law is crystalized on the point that the 2nd respondent (Buhari) cannot go beyond provisions of sections 131 and 131( of the 1999 Constitution.

“The case-law is replete with decisions of this court on the subject. We cannot amend the constitution.


“We need to make it very clear at this point that the constitution and laws of the land do not expect any certificate to be tendered or attached.”

Buhari, further relying on a recent judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal in a certificate scandal case that involved the governorship candidate of the PDP in Osun state, Senator Ademola Adeleke, contended that non-attachment of his certificates was not a valid ground to challenge his participation in the February 23 presidential election which he won.

INEC Lawyer Usman Yunus in his final submission tells presidential election petition tribunal tribunal that " We didn't abandoned our case & runaway or failed 2 call witnesses as claimed by Atiku, Claimed that he extracted evidence from Atiku's witnesses. It is public documents

Chief Fagbemi of the APC also supported the position of the Chief Olanipekun but the INEC counsel, Usman abstained

Dr. Uzoukwu objected and reminded the court that he has seen severally that Chief Olanipekun himself and Festus Keyamo addressing the media and Chief Olanipekun cannot excuse himself from the issue

He told the court that the counsel know their job but that they will never address the press and at the same time reach a conclusion.

He told the court that what Chief Olanipekun is saying is cheap blackmail

Chief Olanipekun now stood up and started criticizing the use of the media to harass the government on the matter.

He told the court that he particularly watch ait network and seriously frowned at the broadcast station

He therefore advised that since judgement is now reserved with the court, that we should allow the court to do their job

Dr. Uzoukwu reminded the court that the 3rd Respondent, the APC did not even provide one witness during trial and therefore cannot justify most of the claims made in his final address

Dr. Uzoukwu reminded the court that if and only if the educational certificates of the 2nd Respondent exist or is with the military as he claimed, as the commander in chief of the armed forces, he can order the military to provide all these documents to the court.

He finally submitted that on that note, the 2nd Respondent does not have any certificate, both in electronic, photocopy, photograph etc.

That there was no defense from all the respondents and urged the court to grant the relief of the PDP and Atiku/Obi that the 2nd Respondent was not qualified ab initio to contest the February 23, 2019 Presidential Election and that the former Vice President and Candidate of the PDP, Atiku Abubakar should be declared as winner of the election

Dr. Uzoukwu also told the court that the 2nd Respondent (Mohammadu Buhari) and his party both failed to provide evidence (certificates) even in their final written addresses.

He said witnesses provided by the 2nd Respondent (Muhammadu Buhari) himself further compounded his case when one General Tarfa told the Court on oath that it was not the duty of the military to collect credentials of military officers for save-keeping

He went further to the tell the court that the variations in the names in most of the documents submitted by the 2nd Respondent also speaks volumes.

That in some documents, it reads Mohamed Buhari and in another it’s Muhammadu Buhari and even in the scores.

In the same exams, in some documents, he claimed to have 8 subjects and in another 6 subjects.

Dr. Uzoukwu also reminded the court that the 2nd Respondent relied on the electoral act of 2010 in most of its authorities and abandoned the march 2015 amendments of the electoral act by the former president, Dr. Jonathan

He told the court that in the new amendments to the electoral act, voting was supposed to be determined by the INEC and the guidelines of INEC for the 2019 General Elections also was very clear on this.

And on the server issues, he went ahead defining a server saying that it looks like INEC does not understand what a server is.

He said that a server is simply a storage device that can share data to to other devices.

He also said that INEC should tell the court what and how they used all money budgeted for in the 2018 budget of the commission for the purchase of these devices and training of INEC technical staff.

In adopting his final written address, Dr. Uzoukwu emphasized on the non qualification of the 2nd Respondent (Muhammadu Buhari), in the February 23, 2019.

He reminded the court that one of the grounds of petition in an election in both the constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria and the electoral act 2010 as amended, submitting false information of a fundamental nature is grievous and that the matter should not be trivialized

During the adoption of the written addresses, counsel to the APC, Chief Fagbemi announced to the court that his client has filed additional authorities citing the ruling of the Supreme Court on Tuesday August 20, 2019.

The PDP lead counsel Dr. Livy Uzoukwu, challenged the eligibility and admissibility of the new authorities filed by the APC since the time for such documents are over and the final written addresses by all the parties had been submitted.

The trial Judge, Justice Mohammed Garba informed him that the court will look into the admissibility of the new authorities from the APC but that the PDP and Atiku/Obi should look into the documents since they have been served and respond accordingly.

Dr. Uzoukwu then went ahead adopting his final written address.

Today All Parties to Petitions at the Election Perition Tribunal sitting at thr Appeal court Abuja.

We present to you the summary of Today's Adoption at PEPT

tuniski:
What you just explained straight as it is, is difficult for buharideens to grasp. By their noisy and condescending statements you know them.

The best is to leave them to their folly.

It's okay to make some noise.

Aince last week after the responses they've been on silent dead wood mode.

At least something to give them fake noise

Afamed:
There is no River in the judgement. It's about Atiku cumming

Pele

You will dey alrigt las las

Afamed:
Engineerboat , Tuniski over to you. I said Atiku is cumming but he came early than expected

Cry me a river.

Usual rants

It's an interlocutory appeal that was struck out, it has nothing to do with the main petition. It's in respect of PDP's appeal against the tribunal's refusal to allow it file a reply to APC's application. The decision will be of no effect even if granted,

The matter (main Petition) at the tribunal is already at the address stage so even if the Supreme Court decides PDP has the right of reply, it would amount to nothing because the tribunal won't go back to that stage, therefore it has been overtaken by events.


STATUTED BARRED


Zombies make una they make noise

The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard arguments on an appeal by the Peoples Democratic Party and its presidential candidate, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, seeking access to the Independent National Electoral Commission’s sever.

The Dattijo Muhammad-led five-man panel is to return later on Tuesday to deliver its ruling on it.

They are by their petition before the Justice Mohammed Garba-led five-man Presidential Election Petition Tribunal challenging the victory of President Muhammadu Buhari at the February 23, 2019 election.


They alleged in their petition that the “authentic” results of the February 23, 2019 election which gave them victory were stored in the said INEC server.

But the tribunal had on June 24, 2019, during the pre-hearing session on the petition, dismissed their application for permission to be allowed access to the server, which INEC had denied its existence.

The tribunal, in dismissing the petitioners’ application, held that granting the request would amount to pre-judging the main‎ issue that was meant t be trashed at the substantive hearing in the case.


Leading the petitioners’ argument in their appeal challenging the June 24, 2019 ruling of the tribunal, on Tuesday, Mr. Eyitayo Jegede (SAN), told the apex court that his clients were still within time to access the server and make use of the evidence to be extracted from it.

He said the 180 days meant for the tribunal to hear and determine the case had not lapsed.

But the respondents, INEC, President Muhammadu Buhari and the All Progressives Congress, opposed the appeal through their respective lawyers and urged the apex court to dismiss it.


While INEC was represented by Yunus Usman (SAN), Buhari was represented by Wole Olanipekun (SAN), and APC by Chief Charles Edosomwan (SAN)‎.

They maintained that granting the prayer sought by the appellants would be of no utility value as the presentation of evidence at the tribunal had closed.

The tribunal had fixed Wednesday for final arguments in the case.

https://punchng.com/supreme-court-to-rule-on-pdp-atikus-request-to-access-inec-server

garfield1:
Allow the guy answer for himself.
But asides that,can you give an example of an election petition decided on quality ?

INEC only write what they fe to write.

They dont seem to read this line from 4.42 downward.
INEC scored another own goal again

Iamgrey5:
The Inec stated non of Atiku witnesses was able to substantiate electoral fraud because they all claimed that voting and tabulation were largely peaceful and conducted properly.

Inaddition, Atiku failed to explain how the sheets he submitted to the petition affected the final results from the states. i.e he might have only selected the results sheets of the polling station he won to propagate falsehood.

The only thing Atiku's witnesses were able to raise was the issue of a central sever, which is not backed by any constitution.

So there's no case against the INEC.

Seem you dont even read atiku case

Doyin2:
It seems either you have comprehension challenges or up to some mischief.

Read INEC's submission again:

" "Thereafter, the petitioners proceeded to break down this allegation State by State.

“However, a cursory appraisal of paragraph 155(4) of the petition dealing with this allegation of ‘posting wrong results’ to the non-existent 1st Respondent’s server and not the wrongful entry of the results in the physical /manual Form EC8 series.

“The most astonishing part is that the petitioners failed to call witnesses who were at the various Units to observe these various alleged anomalies."

Borrow a glass read, and stop allowing INEC and APC to use yoyr head

tuniski:
This is too watery an address to counter the compelling case of the petitioners.

Something for zombies to salivate over.

So watery