₦airaland Forum

By Scott G. Oko-Arherhe
Just recently, a special panel of Honourable Justices of the Court of Appeal affirmed an earlier decision of the Delta State Governorship Election Tribunal dismissing a petition filed by Senator Ovie Omo-Agege and the All Progressives Congress (APC) against the declaration of Rt. Honourable Sheriff Oborevwori of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) as the winner of the March 18, 2023 Governorship Election conducted by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in Delta State. In the main, Omo-Agege and APC (petitioners/appellants) contend, as a matter of law and fact, that INEC’s return of Oborevwori as winner violates the spirit and letters of specific innovative provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022. For them, INEC acted brazenly to make a mockery of some major electoral reforms made by the National Assembly when it enacted the extant Act. Amongst others, it is the petitioners/appellants’ prayer that they be declared the rightful winners of the said governorship election having scored the majority of the lawful votes cast and met other constitutional requirements to be so declared. This discussion is on the substance of the petitioners’ case vis-à-vis some innovations contained in the 2022 Act.

A product of sustained patriotic agitations by vigilant stakeholders, the 2022 Act was enacted essentially to enhance INEC’s capacity to conduct free, fair, and credible elections and cure its troubling recurrent failings as revealed by the outcomes of a plethora of post-election litigations. Parliament therefore infused the new Act with commonsense innovations and some reforms that are wholly new in Nigeria’s history of electoral lawmaking. These innovations are undoubtedly carefully designed to promote substantial electoral justice through positive changes in the electoral process, law, and jurisprudence. The overall intent is to deepen Nigeria’s democracy through credible elections and delivery of substantial, rather than technical, justice by a judiciary that is patriotic, resourceful, and bold.


In the Omo-Agege-APC case at hand, some of the innovative provisions of the 2022 Act are of particular relevance. Generally, these provisions are meant to ensure that election riggers are not positively rewarded, but more specifically to attain these narrow objectives:

section 51(2) – to disallow over voting in elections; section 73(2) – to stop election rigging by using only genuine sensitive electoral materials supplied by INEC for the conduct of elections by mandatorily recording their serial numbers or unique identities, quantities and other important information as strictly prescribed by the Commission; and section 137 and paragraph 46(4) of the First Schedule – to prevent undue technicalities that often sustain systemic election rigging by applying simplified evidentiary rules during judicial inquiries to determine the true winners of elections.

Now, let us consider these provisions of the new Act in relation to the mischiefs they are meant to cure or solutions they are meant to bring to the electoral process using the case at hand as a test hanger.

Section 53(2) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (old Act) states that: “Where the votes cast at an election in any polling unit exceeds the number of registered voters in that polling unit, the result of the election for that polling unit shall be declared null and void ….” Following public hearings on the 2022 electoral reforms legislative proposals that birthed the 2022 Act, the National Assembly agreed with the unanimous position of citizens and all stakeholders, including INEC, that the ‘number of registered voters’ as the reference point for determining overvoting allowed election riggers to write arbitrary election results to suit themselves up to that number, which is usually far above the number of intending voters actually accredited to vote! As a result, parliament responded with section 51(2) of the extant Act which provides that: “Where the number of votes cast at an election in any polling unit exceeds the number of accredited voters in that polling unit, the Presiding officer shall cancel the result of the election in that polling unit.” Thus, the ‘number of accredited voters’ is now the commonsense reference point for the determination of overvoting.


In the instant case, Omo-Agege and APC contend under section 51(2) of the new Act that Oborevwori and PDP received over 36,000 votes due to over voting in about 144 polling units. Quite distinct from the case of Oyetola v. INEC (2023) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1994) 125 where the Supreme Court intervened chiefly because of different or conflicting records of accreditation, all accreditation records tendered by parties in this case are perfectly the same, including the one tendered by INEC – the umpire of the election.

Clearly, the issue of over voting in this case is quite straightforward and narrow. It does not require undue hair-splitting. It either there was overvoting or there wasn’t. For substantial justice envisaged under section 51(2) of the new Act, all that is required is to simply compare INEC’s accreditation data with the disputed results issued in the 144 polling units of interest. Interestingly, the plain case of the petitioners/appellants in this regard has not been faulted. What then is the rationale for injudiciously kicking this can of injustice worth 36,000 unlawful votes down the road on this vexed, live and plain matter of manifest overvoting?

Next, let us consider section 73(2) of the new Act in relation to this case. This section states that: “An election conducted at a polling unit without the prior recording in the forms prescribed by the Commission of the quantity, serial numbers and other particulars of results sheets, ballot papers and other sensitive electoral materials made available by the Commission for the conduct of the election shall be invalid.” Again, the case of the petitioners/appellants here is straightforward, and it is that contrary to this section, quantities and serial numbers of ballot papers, result sheets and other sensitive materials, including BVAS machines, supposedly issued and used by INEC to conduct the election in named and listed 1,333 polling units are unknown as same are not recorded on electoral documents (Forms EC25B, EC40A, 40C) provided by INEC for that mandatory purpose. This fact is manifestly evident on all relevant electoral documents tendered by INEC itself. Indeed, INEC admitted in writing to the court that the documents were not filled as required by the new Act, thus effectively invalidating the election in the polling units concerned. In the exact words of INEC, “the prescribed Forms … do not contain the serial number of the result sheets and BVAS machines” for these units. This speaks volumes! Significantly, Oborevwori and PDP got over 100,000 votes across these polling units – which are “invalid” votes under 73(2) of the new Act. So, again, what is the justice of kicking this can of over 100,000 invalid votes down the road?

As set out from the start, the next issue relates to section 137 of the new Act and paragraph 46(4) of its First Schedule which, as has been submitted, are intended by parliament to simplify rules of evidence during the adjudication of electoral disputes by preventing the use of undue technicalities to sustain systemic election rigging.


Section 137 of the 2022 Act states that: “It shall not be necessary for a party who alleges non-compliance with the provisions of this Act for the conduct of elections to call oral evidence if originals or certified true copies manifestly disclose the non-compliance alleged.” This provision of the Act is not contained in any previous Electoral Act enacted by the National Assembly. It is a thoughtful innovation by the National Assembly to save the valuable time and resources of Election Tribunals in deciding election petitions, and ultimately for the delivery of substantial justice that would give the electorate confidence in the electoral process.

Black’s Law Dictionary (2nd edition) defines ‘manifest’ as what is “clear and requires no proof”. This flows from the Latin maxim, “Manifesta probatione non indigent” which means, “Things manifest do not require proof.” It is the basis of the concept of judicial notice which is confined to adjudicative facts that are readily verifiable from evidence before a court. Therefore, parliament deliberately used the word ‘manifestly’ in section 137 to concretise the point that it only applies where documents speak absolutely clearly to a contentious issue to obviate the need for oral evidence or testimony to prove the same.



It seems clear that a party seeking judicial invocation of section 137 of the new Act has three necessary duties. First, he must identify specific provisions of the law that INEC or any other party did not comply with, consistent with his pleadings. Next, he must properly tender pleaded originals or Certified True Copies (CTCs) of documentary evidence that unequivocally discloses or speaks to the pleaded non-compliance or statutory breach. Thirdly and finally, he must show that the documentary evidence pleaded and tendered manifestly discloses the non-compliance or statutory breach in a manner that is clear, unambiguous and visible to the court as it would ordinarily be to an average reasonable and objective person. The petitioners/appellants have dutifully crossed all three hurdles.



This reasoned perspective on the operative import of section 137 of the new Act was elaborately espoused in the 16th October, 2023 incisive decision of the Court of Appeal in Yohanna v. Ishaku (Appeal No. CA/YL/EP/AD/SEN/06/2023) where the erudite and courageous Justice Chioma Nwosu-Iheme (Ph.D), JCA stated thus:

“Section 137 of the Electoral Act 2022 relieves a party the burden of calling oral evidence if the originals or Certified True Copies of the documents tendered manifestly disclose the non-compliance alleged…..

“Let me state with humility that the case of OYETOLA V. INEC… decided by the Apex Court did not in any way diminish the potency of Section 137 of the Electoral Act 2022. The section is statutory, it is also clear and unambiguous. It was introduced to cushion the uphill task expected from the petitioner to also call witnesses even when the non-compliance complained of is glaring, clear, obvious, manifest and stirring the court or the Tribunals on the face.


“To jettison the use of Section 137 even when the petitioner had laboured to produce the originals or Certified True Copies of documents in proof of the non-compliance complained of is to throw away the mischief which Section 137 of the Electoral Act was introduced to cure.

“It will also encourage the Respondent, particularly the Electoral Umpire (INEC) to get away with electoral blunder and thereby make a mockery of our electoral process. It will in turn create the erroneous impression that our judges are not only helpless but also toothless bulldogs.”

Further, paragraph 46(4) of the First Schedule to the new Act mandates that: “Documentary evidence shall be put in and may be read or taken as read by consent, such documentary evidence shall be deemed demonstrated in open court and the parties in the petition shall be entitled to address and urge argument on the content of the documents as part of the process of ascribing probative value to the documents or otherwise.” This is clearly different from paragraph 46(4) of the First Schedule to the old Act that simply states that “Documentary evidence shall be put in and may be read or taken as read by consent,” without more. By adding that “such documentary evidence shall be deemed demonstrated in open court and the parties in the petition shall be entitled to address and urge argument on the content of the documents as part of the process of ascribing probative value to the documents or otherwise” to the extant Act, the National Assembly obviously removed or waived the previous enormous burden of demonstrating the contents of huge volumes of electoral documents in open court and gave parties the right to address the court on their contents. This clear position of the law was recently restated by the Court of Appeal, per Abiru, JCA, in Agbedi v. Olowu (Appeal No. CA/PH/EP/HR/BY/11/2023), delivered on 14th October 2023.

For the purpose of resolving electoral disputes which are sui generis in nature, section 137 of the new Act and paragraph 46(4) of the First Schedule are more or less a codification of the sound and bold view of Tabai, JSC in the Supreme Court authority of Nagogo v. CPC 2013 ALL FWLR (Pt. 685) 272 (SC) that, “A Court cannot pretend not to see a document before it, particularly when such document is germane to the justiciable resolution of the issue in contention.” By them, the National Assembly clearly and specifically intended that facts which are glaringly and unambiguously manifest on the face of electoral documents should be the sole witnesses or testifiers of what they say, not oral evidence.

So, the petitioners/appellants must be deemed to have complied with the law in full measure having tendered duly certified copies of all relevant electoral documents in support of their case. This is further reinforced by the fact that INEC also tendered these documents, exactly. A careful community reading of section 137 of the new Act and paragraph 46(4) of its First Schedule will undoubtedly reveal parliament’s absolutely clear intendment to institute a new less arduous regime of evidentiary rules in the adjudication of election cases. Parliament clearly went all out to lay the ‘doctrine of dumping’ to rest in electoral disputes by mandating tribunals and courts to thoroughly scrutinize documents duly tendered and admitted in evidence and ascribe appropriate probative value to them, as may be necessary, provided such documents singly and ‘manifestly’ disclose what is complained as per section 137 of the new Act. The Act does not compel any party to adduce oral evidence to support such documentary evidence that bears witness to manifest breaches on face value. To infer otherwise is to impeach the clear will of parliament and technically repeal section 137 of the new Act and paragraph 146(4) of its First Schedule by judicial fiat. Any of these is a threat to the proper operation of the doctrine of separation of powers by which the National Assembly is solely vested with the legislative powers of the Nigerian Republic pursuant to section 4 of the 1999 Constitution.


Applying section 137 of the new Act and paragraph 146(4) of its First Schedule to sections 51(2) and 73(2) of the new Act must lead to the exclusion of statutorily defined unlawful and invalid votes arising from overvoting and unknown or unrecorded details of sensitive electoral materials, respectively.

In this case, the unlawful and invalid votes received by Oborevwori and PDP under sections 51(2) and 73(2) of the new Act alone are in excess of 135,000 votes. Parliament has, by the unambiguous force of the extant Electoral Act, rightly declined to confer electoral victory on a party with such overwhelmingly tainted votes. Besides additional questions regarding over 24,000 inflated and corrupt votes arbitrarily added to the votes of Oborevwori and PDP, this is pretty much the whole case of the petitioners. A case that remains standing like the Rock of Gibraltar as far as sections 51(2), 73(2), 137 and paragraph 46(4) (First Schedule) remain part of the Electoral Act, 2022. May justice be done according to law and with patriotic judicial courage in this matter.

Dr. Oko-Arherhe is a legal researcher and consultant.



Mynd44
Nplfmod
Seun
Seunmsg
Muykem
Mymouth
Cajal
Tutudesz
Efewestern
Sonnobax
Kennyprince

IfnobeGod20:
Yes APC will not loose the election but they will lose the election woefully.
If PDP and LP can be so vigilant of rigging and intimidation of federal might of APC, APC will not find it funny. The game is between PDP and LP to win.

Oga keep quiet,the Edo election is apc to lose.pdp in Edo is comatose,lp is weak.all the apc aspirants are more popular than that of pdp and lp combined

Bobloco:
Is it a difficult thing for you to provide a link to the said judgement

I would have sent you the judgment directly but it won't change anything.get it from fergie

Bobloco:
garfield1, There was no order stopping PDP from sponsoring candidate. If there's kindly provide proofs

Oga,read the main judgment and stop embarrassing yourself boy.even pdp in court conceded to apc and you are here making noise.

slivertongue:
in the eyes of the law and Plateau electorates PDP won Plateau State

Yes in Dreamland just as Lyon ruled bayelsa from 2019-2023

slivertongue:
I have had to question your understanding of issues and logic. Stop making a mockery of serious issues with trivialities

Plateau is gone from pdp

fergie001:
Fine, an Appeal Court order but on this same premise, the defiance of a Supreme Court order by the PDP in Borno was jettisoned by this same Appeal Court on the launchpad that it is pre-election. I strongly agree with the clear punishments to the disobedience to Court order, so it now means that once there is any disobedience especially as it concerns party matters, any body can file and it shall be granted.


Like I have said, Zamfara is a different kettle of fish.

The Zamfara case was filed by an aspirant, who can under Section 84 of the Electoral Act 2010. Senator Marafa did that and the PDP was not even a Party to the suit.

So, it is not similar. It s clear from our Electoral Act both old and new, that an aspirant can challenge the conduct of the Primary.

One thing I see clearly is the disobedience to Court Order... The chance of the Appeal allowed is less than slim or nonexistent in my opinion. If you ask me, he will be sacked but I still say asides been pre-election issues, I do not think any other Party has the locus.


Membership & Sponsorship is clearly what it is... Pre-election.


The lawyers are the reasons I kept Nasarawa open. Ordinarily, it is as dead as dodo.


The only case on the burner is Kano & Nasarawa.
Others in my opinion, has been settled.

No need to waste time, the workload is much.

The similarity in zamfara is that infighting in apc made apc to lose the state through the judiciary.plsteau is also about to slip from pdp via court disobedience to apc.if pdp wasn't fighting,the court will never make such an order.a divided house invites external enemies to penetrate...apc didn't interfere in pdp matters,they simply reminded the court about a court judgment against pdp.even the respondents totally conceded this fact.

A constitutional matter is both pre and post election.if subsection C is pre election,A,b and d are too.all of them have the same qualification force.if the drafters wanted it to be pre election,it will not be in the constitution.even if it is,the material fact on merit is that Abba isn't an nnpp member..surprisingly in Kano,the defence of wole looks unserious.
There's nothing agabi can do in nasarawa esp against wole that loves these kinds of cases besides the apex court clearly settled it.

I heard Chris Hassan has replaced mwadkom

Bobloco:
Who instituted the case at the appeal court?

PDP members who were not certified by the decision of the high court Jos or the APC who weren't party to the case at high court but smuggle it into the election tribunal and use it to mislead the judges at the election tribunal specifically created for the purpose of election.

It doesn't matter.what matters is that there's an order stopping pdp from sponsoring candidates in pdp which is subsisting.apc only reminded the court of that so

slivertongue:
which law? All the anarchist like you will fall

In the eyes of the law,pdp has no candidate

Bobloco:
Stop peddling lies and falsehood garfield1

Kindly provide like to the Appeal court judgement

Read the appeal court judgment sir.everything is there.the appeal court in October affirmed the high court order that pdp cannot sponsor abyone

slivertongue:
In unprecedented judicial roguery, the Appeal Court has invalidated the election of all 16 PDP lawmakers in the Plateau State House of Assembly and handed unearned victories to APC. It also nullified the victory of PDP’s Governor Caleb Mutfwang and asked that APC’s Nentawe Yilwatda Goshwe, who lost in the actual election, be declared the winner.

What is wrong with that? An appeal court in October declared that pdp cannot sponsor any candidate and the judgment was never set aside.in law,pdp has no candidate in plateau just like in zamfara 2019

Blue3k:
I keep asking the same question but nobody seems to have an answer. If nobody plans on changing various laws you're essentially asking judges to rule differently based on nothing. If you can't impeach these judges you don't like they have nothing to fear in their lifelong post.

As in eh.so sad

slivertongue:
The courts have become the graveyards of electoral mandates. Judges have not only descended to being common purchasable judicial rogues, but they have also become juridical coup plotters.

Any evidence or just hallucination induced talks

RepoMan007:
The four plus four morons are waking up gradually.

The op is a compound idiot

fergie001:
When you intend to appeal a judgement, you try to pick a seeming opening or weakness from the judgement below. In this Plateau, it is difficult to find one because almost every page references the disobedience to Court order, that is what I meant by them blocking everywhere.

In Feb this year, the Appeal Court declined jurisdiction in a suit brought by a PDP member and again why will another Party be challenging an adversary in Court on the conduct of her own Congress? It is still strange for me. That's why I gave you an example of Borno just 2 months ago also delivered by the same Court.

Moreover, who conducts Primary election, it is the NWC not the State EXCO. So what's the business with a Court order to conduct a valid Congress to fill in members of the State EXCOs, that is even between Bitrus Kaze & Chris Hassan?

I know the SC will use this avenue to teach politicians a lesson or two but it will open the floodgates of other Parties prying into affairs of Congresses or Conferences held by other Parties. These things should be foreclosed in its entirety.

My point exactly.

Well, those ones are not cases to me.
Kano, Plateau, Nasarawa, Kaduna are the class this term.

You still misunderstood the issues here.apc is not challenging or prying into the affairs of pdp but simply saying that by virtue of a subsisting court order,pdp cannot sponsor or field any candidate.the judgment was in rem and binding on all,the judgment opened a window for apc to pry into the affairs of pdp.once a court gives an order,it is no longer an inhouse issue.apc cannot normally challenge pdp congress but the court order has given them the locus.
It is similar to what happened in zamfara where though party matters are non justiciable,the court got involved.the apex court could have said since it is an internal matter,apc should redo their primaries and present a new gov preventing an outsider from benefitting.
The nwc conducts primaries but delegates who vote emerge from those congress.therefore plateau pdp cannot produce delegates or the structure to produce candidates in plateau afterall the nwc doesn't act in isolation.plateau pdp cannot sponsor any candidate until they obey the judgment of the PHC affirmed by the appeal
Courts or non party members cannot get enmeshed in that of other parties except in exceptional circumstances and this qualifies as such.disobeying a court order no matter how perverse is an attack on the judiciary.

Kano own is more harder since apc is directly inquiring into the membership and sponsorship of nnpp although on the merit of the case,Abba should be disq.but the statistician report of Dr Idris harbu was tight,even nnpp conceded to it.wole cannot now challenge that report with mere rhetorics.
The plateau judgment is watertight like that of NAssarawa.in mlnasarawa,we had few loopholes but I can't find any here except the status and influence of the pdp lawyers in agabi and dodo.

Kaduna has never been tight once pdp made those two premature errors.ogun is even tighter.none of us saw Kano as a strong case until the tribunal ruled.you never feared plateau,I was even looking at the overvoting side,I never knew the ruling was so fatal.so,don't rule out delta and even taraba.anyrhing can happen at apex.

I heard njc has forwarded the 11 on the priority to tinubu.joseph missed

slivertongue:
In unprecedented judicial roguery, the Appeal Court has invalidated the election of all 16 PDP lawmakers in the Plateau State House of Assembly and handed unearned victories to APC. It also nullified the victory of PDP’s Governor Caleb Mutfwang and asked that APC’s Nentawe Yilwatda Goshwe, who lost in the actual election, be declared the winner.

Which robbery? The appeal court clearly invalidated the pdp congress and said pdp cannot field any candidate until it fully obey it's orders

fergie001:
That was why I told you before that Kano is easier.
The Plateau own is there is no means of escape, the Judges blocked everywhere that could even make the PDP breathe.

No,the judges didn't block anything except with their analysis,reasoning and conclusion.but pdp made it easier for them by their internal squabbles and disobedience of a court order.your position before now was that the appeal court squashed the phc ruling and a new congress was conducted.but the findings of the appeal court clearly showed the phc ruling was upheld by the appeal court and the apex court dismissed it for lack of prosecution thereby upholding the ruling.the congress pdp did only took part in just 5 lgas and the court declared that they can't fill any candidate as of oct 2022.therefore,the appeal judgment remains and the apex court will stand by it.
Even though such things are pre election and internal but there is a valid judgment disq pdp from sponsoring any candidate and the court will not tolerate any disobedience of it's orders esp from politicians.this will give them an opportunity to teach politicians another lesson...

Kano looks easier because section 63 is ambiguous,the court can easily say that only party members have locus for 177 c and that only a party can say who its members are or that it is pre election.again, olanipekun findings that only 2000 ballot papers were not properly marked is essential.so I'll agree with you that plateau is gone.

Take a look at delta state,it seems agege has a good case.about 36,000 votes credited to pdp was said to be affected by overvoting and about 100,000 votes were caught by section 73 (2).

slivertongue:
Col Kefas Gov of Taraba

Nentawe is gov of palteau

fergie001:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vanguardngr.com/2023/12/appeal-court-affirms-ottis-election-as-abia-governor-pdp-calls-for-calm/amp/

Nice,expected.a waste of time.

The plateau judgment is far more solid than Kano judgment

observanc1:
One appeal court will rule that the issue of party membership is a family affair, but some others will sack governors like plateau and kano based on same issue.
This country is horrible

In abia,it was grounded on the electoral act while in Kano,it was brought via the the constitution

Xboy1993:
Nigerian judiciary is cruise indeed. Same or very similar fact/issues with Kano Governorship petition. there the judiciary say is negative while here they say is positive. Indeed justice is equity

Slight differences

slivertongue:
Col Kefas

Prof won that election but was rigged out by kefas and bwacha

Emu4life:
This is your new found Lie. You can keep telling yourselves what will make y'all sleep well. 2027, the Governorship is going back to KKK zone and it will be one of; Dr. Faisal, Wadada, Matawale etc. They are all Muslims.

Besides, saying Eggon are scattered across Nasarawa State like Gwandara's and Hausa's (Baribaris) ain't exposes your failed Agenda.

No,sen adamu already repped kkk.next gov us going nasarawa or toto lga

slivertongue:
PDP will still win

He won but was rigged out like in nasarawa

Bestmanfornow:
No part of Anambra state want to carry last

Olumbanasa is last

BluntCrazeMan:
My last response still stands.

You're focusing on winning and who wins.

I'm looking at the systems.


So, I don't have any response for you

Gradually,we are getting there.years ago it was manual,now it is semi electronic.rigging incidences are gradually reducing

BluntCrazeMan:
And now..
I won't respond to you on this at-all.

Just forget about the kogi and imo polls,that's all.focus more on bayelsa or ondo or imo next year...I'll have added 2027 but ofcourse tinubu will still win so 2031 is better

BluntCrazeMan:
Let me not respond deeply to this.

Just know that the person who has the BVAS is the person who MUST present it.

True but you know it will not be presented.highest only a few will be presented.after presenting,you must also demonstrate it.

BluntCrazeMan:
Remember that “Electronic Register” was used,, and this electronic register was pre-loaded inside the BVAS-machines..
Manual printed hard-copy registers were not used.

So, for the register which was used at the election to be produced,, then the BVAS Machines has to be produced.

The INEC we know wouldn't want to do any inspection of the BVAS this time around., nor would they want to bring the BVAS Machines to the tribunal.

That's why the bvas must be presented so it's a waste

BluntCrazeMan:
This can only be true when there is Inspection Report of the Direct-Inspection of the BVAS-Machines that counters the content of the BVAS-Report.

That's what will happen.again,they must produce the voter register

DIKEnaWAR:
This one is just a paid write up to launch Ifeanyi Ubah's failed bid and deceive APC that he is popular. No one is interested in a declared bankrupt who can't manage his personal business and Agu Awka is not a reward for failure, grandstand ING and living beyond one's means. Ubah and Ekwunife cannot win elections.

If LP does not field a good candidate, then it is carry go for Solution nwa Mgbafor. Anambra cannot return to the dark days of hooligans and killers in office.

Obi is bringing val ozigbo

IDENNAA:
Soludo is over 10yrs older than Ike Obosi. By the way , to compare them we must look at the government agency they have headed. They are both technocrats and exemplary in their fields but I personally feel Ike Obosi is more of a well groomed administrator in the mold of Peter Obi.

How is obi a well grounded administrator