₦airaland Forum

Kukutente23:
He refused which he's within his rights to

regenerateman:
I'm not sure the judiciary is the last hope of the common man. Why is the courts giving conflicting judgements? What concerns election tribunals with nomination of a political parties? Moreover, the case was filed by people who do not participate in primary election with PDP candidates.

Kukutente23:
Jang faction controls PDP Plateau

Kukutente23:
Garfield stop turning history on its head to defend your useless party
Salami was suspended based on recommendations to the President from NJC the body with statutory powers to discipline judges. He was recommended for promotion to SC which he refused against the code of conduct of judges.
Buhari on the other hand suspended CJN Onnoghen based on a Jankara court order. A court order procured ex parte for that matter.

Nigeria should aspire to be a beacon for democracy and an example for other African countries to follow just as South Africa, Ghana and recently Kenya is. It's a shame that our democracy is fast becoming an imperial form because of abuse of powers which we allow sitting presidents to get away with especially those of APC

fergie001:
You heard the audio ba?

That's where the confusion comes. When the judgement comes out, we will know more.

fergie001:
https://fb.watch/nRlBEKvVmu/?mibextid=Nif5oz

Audio of the Judgement:

fergie001:
All political parties herein shall participate in the re-run.

Kukutente23:
Wike effect

Kukutente23:
The big elephant in the room was Buhari and APC
They intimidated the judges with the DSS and the Onnoghen treatment.
The fact of Buhari suspending a CJN being allowed to stand killed the judiciary's independence.
Go check throughout our democracy. Any autonomous body whose head was suspended successfully soon became subservient to the executive. From efcc with Yaradua to CBN with Jonathan and now Judiciary with Buhari.
What is lost on almost all sane minds is that all those suspensions are clearly illegal

fergie001:
Actually, do nothing because there is no jurisdiction.

It cannot fall either in pre or post-election. This type of case first existed in Imo between Ararume v. Rochas Okorocha in 2012, then Sylva v INEC the following year.

So, the actual thing to do is nothing. This is because APGA did not sue Nwosu neither did they go to the tribunal. So, the truth is they should and will be fined.

It is already functus officio.

Kukutente23:
garfield1 fergie001

fergie001:
1. Results were properly entered in Form EC8B at the Ward level.

2. EC40G(II) signed by the State Returning Officer showed no Polling Unit was cancelled in the whole of Ashigie Ward and indeed Lafia LGA.

3. The Governorship held same day, time and place as the State House of Assembly elections,, results and scores were returned for same without cancellations for the State House of Assembly but all was cancelled for the Governorship; with the same BVAS accreditation reports for both. (Exhibits were tendered before the Court).

4. There was no report attached to any of the form EC40G as condition precedent for cancellation. None emanated from any of the 35 PUs to show there was violence or any other reason why the PU votes were cancelled. This offends Section 64(3) of the EA 2022 and Paragraph 43 of INEC Regulations and Guidelines 2023.

5. The Petitioners called up 3 Polling Unit agents (PWs 1, 2 & 19) to testify (See Page 119).

I have not seen any in Page 122.
The maker of the document testified and was called up for all of this under cross-examination.
PW8 is a subpoenaed witness, the Director of ICT of INEC. He satisfied these provisions on these docs. The reason I told you that once the Court agrees that subpoenaed witnesses should submit written depositions alongside the petition, the petition of PDP fails instantly.

They did not offend Section 43(1) of the EA 2022. One of the 7 is a Director of ICT, INEC for Nasarawa State.
1st Respondent tendered the names of polling agents submitted by the Petitioners and same was admissible. However, because of the fact that 1st Respondent only tendered documents with no witness or maker of same document to testify even though they said they will call up 78 witnesses, the docs attracted no probative value.

Moreover, like I mentioned 1st Respondent is not part of the petition ( see Page 61).

Where will the 4000 come from?
Even the minority judgement did not give APC +4000 votes ahead.

The 1st Respondent tendered EC40G only for 36 PUs and 1PU for Ashigie and Gayam Wards respectively. No other EC40G was tendered for any other PU or Ward by any of the 2nd & 3rd Respondents.

Like I said before, 1st Respondent tendered this from the bar, without the maker of the document, it attracts no probative value and hence expunged from the Court record. See Page 109 of the Judgement.

The judges said their witness statements were an afterthought not liars...haba
See Page 119)


PS: To prove exclusion of votes at Ward Collation stage, two documents have to be tendered: Forms EC8A, the primary evidence and Form EC8B. The need to call Polling Unit Agents need not arise (See Page 34 of the SC judgement in Uzodinma v. Ihedioha).

fergie001:
The 1st Respondent (INEC) amongst their documents tendered EC40G for Ashigie Ward (36 PUs) and Gayam Ward (1 PU).

For Ashigie, there was no record of cancellation because the results were properly entered at PU and Ward levels for 35 PUs.



The tribunal held that in events of cancellation of any PU, the Presiding Officer shall fill form EC40G and attach a report stating in his report the reason why it was cancelled.

See Section 64(3) of the EA2022:
The presiding officer shall prepare a statement on rejected ballot papers, stating the number rejected, the reason for rejection and their serial number, and he or she shall on request, allow a candidate or a polling agent to copy the statement.

Also in Paragraph 43 of the INEC Regulations and Guidelines:
For a Polling Unit where election is not held or is cancelled, or poll is declared null and void in accordance with these Regulations and Guidelines, the Presiding Officer shall report same in writing to the RA/Ward Collation Officer explaining the nature of the problem and the Collation Officer shall fill Form EC40G as applicable.

None of these reports was tendered in Court. Again, like I said the fatal error already struck out all documents from the 1st Respondent in this case.

Again, only the Returning Officer or Collation Officer asides the PO can cancel results at that level only if it affects issues regarding official watermark or signatures of ballot papers.

Again, at the Ward Collation Centres, they had only a record of a PU cancelled.

This also affected the Gayam Ward (1 PU).

Good, that means the minority judgement was also in line that only one out of 36 was affected.


The accreditation took place at same time and place, before both ballot papers were handed over to the voters. They didn't do different accreditation for both positions.

Forms EC8A, EC8B, EC8C, BVAS accreditation reports were tendered in evidence.


Like I said the issues here surrounds Collation at the Ward levels.

We also have issues at the PUs of over-voting in about 4 or 5 PUs of which witnesses testified as well.

Like I have told you, that subpoena witness depositions is the main thing. This is because if the SC upholds it, Ombugadu's petition collapses immediately.

fergie001:
The 1st Respondent (INEC) amongst their documents tendered EC40G for Ashigie Ward (36 PUs) and Gayam Ward (1 PU).

For Ashigie, there was no record of cancellation because the results were properly entered at PU and Ward levels for 35 PUs.


Hmmnm

The tribunal held that in events of cancellation of any PU, the Presiding Officer shall fill form EC40G and attach a report stating in his report the reason why it was cancelled.

See Section 64(3) of the EA2022:
The presiding officer shall prepare a statement on rejected ballot papers, stating the number rejected, the reason for rejection and their serial number, and he or she shall on request, allow a candidate or a polling agent to copy the statement.

Also in Paragraph 43 of the INEC Regulations and Guidelines:
For a Polling Unit where election is not held or is cancelled, or poll is declared null and void in accordance with these Regulations and Guidelines, the Presiding Officer shall report same in writing to the RA/Ward Collation Officer explaining the nature of the problem and the Collation Officer shall fill Form EC40G as applicable.

None of these reports was tendered in Court. Again, like I said the fatal error already struck out all documents from the 1st Respondent in this case.

Again, only the Returning Officer or Collation Officer asides the PO can cancel results at that level only if it affects issues regarding official watermark or signatures of ballot papers.

Again, at the Ward Collation Centres, they had only a record of a PU cancelled.

This also affected the Gayam Ward (1 PU).

Good, that means the minority judgement was also in line that only one out of 36 was affected.


The accreditation took place at same time and place, before both ballot papers were handed over to the voters. They didn't do different accreditation for both positions.

Forms EC8A, EC8B, EC8C, BVAS accreditation reports were tendered in evidence.


Like I said the issues here surrounds Collation at the Ward levels.

We also have issues at the PUs of over-voting in about 4 or 5 PUs of which witnesses testified as well.

Like I have told you, that subpoena witness depositions is the main thing. This is because if the SC upholds it, Ombugadu's petition collapses immediately.

fergie001:
The wrong calculation happened in the Wards (EC8B).
One of the materials to prove over-voting is the register, Sule alleged that his votes were excluded in 31 PUs and presented only Form EC8A.

It is calculation from EC8As hat should form EC8B.
Let me gie you some examples.
In Awe LGA:
Azara Ward (Ward 08) 31 PUs
Form EC8A calculation for all 31 PUs
APC 5736
PDP 2388

When they wanted to record it in Form EC8B it was APC 6978 PDP 1313

Kanje Abuni (Ward 06)
EC8A: APC 2382 PDP 711
When they entered it in EC8B: APC 2964 PDP 131

Lafia LGA
Gayam Ward
EC8A: APC 9753 PDP 2979
INEC entered it in EC8B: APC 29857 PDP 1453

It was not collated in the original Wards HQs, the PDP made official complaints before it was even entered in EC8C.

State House of Assembly held same day: no of voters 14588
Governorship; no of voters 33136 (very inflated).

1 PU here was also not added, no reason given;
K/Abdul Aziz PU (046): APC 25 PDP 90. EC8A was presented. The tribunal added it.

Chiroma Ward:
EC8A: APC 14474 PDP 3506
INEC entered into EC8B as APC 50944 PDP 851

Ashigie Ward (Ward 06) 36 PUs
1 PU cancelled

The results for 35 PUs from form EC8A and EC8B were
APC 2673 PDP 4488

When it got to the LGA, INEC cancelled the whole ward.

INEC provided Form EC40G but you election from PUs aren't cancelled at LGA stage (EC8C)

And so many others.......

The tribunal held that the issues were not in the Polling units. Form EC8As were not contested. The wrong calculation happened at the Ward Collation Centres.

PDP had 22 witnesses: 5 were PUs, 8 were in the Wards, the rest were subpoenaed witnesses.

fergie001:
That is the only way Sule can survive. He has no case on all others. It was clear that there was wrong calculation.

Bashir v. Kurdula said they are witnesses of the Court but Ararume v INEC same year expunged all subpoenaed witnesses that didn't have witness depositions filed alongside the Petition.
Tsammani read the leading judgement here.

ANDP v INEC in 2020 per Olabisi Ige JCA followed the same path as Tsammani.

Then the PEPT also followed same. We know that Bashir v Kurdula's judgement was on point in law, however in conflicting judgements of the Appeal Court the latest always suffice.

Good a thing, the Supreme Court will touch on it before the Appeal in Nasarawa will take place.

fergie001:
I will have said yes but for one problem, and it is very very key.

Subpoenaed witnesses.

fergie001:
That is not the reason it was expunged.
APC & INEC made a fundamental error.

They were in breach of Paragraph 15 of the First Schedule of the EA 2022.

Again, they made a fatal error in the name of the Nasarawa Gov.

APC used Audu Sule Adamu
The 1st Respondent used Audu Sule Alhaji.

The name of the 2nd Respondent is Audu Sule Abdullahi.

Again, 1st Respondent only tendered documents, no witnesses to speak to the document, so all documents attracted no probative value.

3rd respondents had only one unsworn witness.

So, the judgement was against the 2nd Respondent. It is assumed the 1st & 3rd respondents were not in the petition. Even adding them as respondents won't help, they will be struck off when the Appeal starts proper.

Kukutente23:
Lol. Apc and wayo

Kukutente23:
It is suspicious and reeks of mischief
Do courts even work at night?

fergie001:
PDP cross-appealed.
APC & INEC made a fundamental error at the tribunal so all their pleadings and evidence were expunged at the tribunal.

They didn't appeal.

aQUINandmore:
Not nice at all

Kukutente23:
Why will he file appeal at midnight?
Is he a thief?

BluntCrazeMan:
And to my fellow analysts..
Fergie001, Garfield1, Racoon, Penguin2, Litigator.

What's your take on this topic??