Lotanna2:


Which they failed to demonstrate in court

Lotanna2:


The supreme court will settle it but importantly,obi failed to prove that he won

Lotanna2:


Which they failed to demonstrate in court

sunray:


And the verdict is....... the petition lacks merit, incompetent and bona-fide.

Igwe9:

In as much he did, there's nothing there to prove, INEC did not conduct an election, all they did was selection.
For example, If three of you were to write an exam and the papers would be marked under a CCTV camera and on that day, the examiner smuggled an already written and also ended the exam before the stipulated time and when asked to provide the recording of everything that transpired during the examination, it happens that nothing was recorded on the camera, tell me, how you can prove that you passed the exam when the only condition you went into the exam is because you were assured that everything will be recorded on camera and there be no cheating.?
For you, is It not either they cancel the exam or they declared you first?

Akwamkpuruamu:

There's no much time for that

Lotanna2:


Atiku failed to discharge burden of proof.instead of him to prove his allegations,he expected inec to prove or discharge the burden.

Lotanna2:


Obi failed to prove that there was massive rigging and that the rigging affected his victory

XY23:


Lol. I understand you're basing your arguments on original EC38As and not copies. The answer is, INEC couldn't certify them, instead they blurred the uploaded copies to hide the irregularities, and they didn't dispute them as same as originals (see attached). There are laws even backing it.

I don't think you appreciate what it means for a petioner to prove a case against a complicit umpire. INEC was trying to protect themselves and BAT, but they failed in both. By certifying 18k blurred results, how then did they declare BAT? 18K PUs is substantial. That's why I said what the petitioners could rely on is the NON COMPLIANCE issue (PO did well in that area). Someday in the future, our laws should not make INEC a judge in it's own case.

Igwe9:

You failed to answer my question and kept repeating the same thing, only a dummy can do that

HIGHESTPOPORI:
Yes,there is no way Tinubu had more votes when Inec uploaded blurred results with over 2.5m votes and Tinubu won just 10 States without even getting 25percent in Abuja.How did Tinubu get majority of votes with just 10 States while Obi won 14 States,and where did Inec get the votes for Tinubu from if they uploaded blurred results

Lotanna2:


You still don't get it.obi and atiku failed to prove that the blurring was from inec.tjey failed to compare it with the hardcopies which is fatal...inec certified server or online copies of bvas data in osun but yet the court rejected them for the original copies

XY23:


The substance of both cases are different, INEC certified 2 different things for the same purpose. I wont dwell on the issue of certification since the respondents didn't dispute them. In fact, Wole (SAN) even attributed the blur to printing, photocopying error etc. Meaning they acknowledge it's from INEC, and what was used to declare BAT (the response is online).

In any case, no matter how we interprete it, there is one incontrovertible fact, INEC didn't follow their prescribed guidelines (which are like laws on their own) and admitted to it by calling it 'glitch'. Unless, the court discountenance that fact, I don't see how the election will not be cancelled.

Lotanna2:


Inec demonstrated clearly with rivers copy that what is different on the hardcopy is more authentic than the blurred copies and that blurriness can be from bad camera,posture,weather etc

Lotanna2:


Are you ok? Where did you see that peter won the election? His lawyers never said so or are you dreaming

Lotanna2:


The supreme court severally stated that manual or guidelines cannot be used to nullify elections esp when it is contrary to the electoral act.the electoral act backed by a fhc judgment clearly stated that inec can transmit as it likes

DesChyko:


You'd do well to quote the Supreme Court judgement so I can peruse it just like you did in what you quoted, just like I did. We're not really going to consider a lower court in this instance.

DesChyko:


Sorry, but this response is not related to what you quoted 🤔

XY23:

Lol. Let me try and understand your arguments for once. It is true that neither PO nor AA could prove they won the highest lawful votes cast. I read both responses thoroughly. But guess what? The 1st respondents couldn't prove that BAT did same. Why? the umpire (INEC) simply conducted elections and flew the evidence to Mars (figurative). They couldn't defend what they declared (e.g. EC38A for rivers). PO was able to prove however, that he won in Rivers and Benue (making a total of 14 states).

Now, the thrust of both petitions is NON-COMPLIANCE with electoral law. It has also been established that INEC guidelines are not rhetoric, they're backed by the law with which it operates.

Possible verdict: Rerun (unless the court feels such departure from the law is not substantial). The FCT issue will set a precedent, no need arguing about that. Whether BAT will partake in the rerun or not depends on the other issues. In all, let justice be seen to be done.

INVINCIBLECSP1:
If the Judiciary want to save Nigeria from collapse, they know what to do. The drug kingpin is waiting for the coast to clear before he begins his stealing attitude. God will disgrace him.

walex2:
go to the bank and use your grammar to collect Dollar, just like Obi your failure promax, I don't need any grammar to make my money. Just like Indian and Chinese people live well in Naija while you continue to suffer with your lunatic foreign language

benardtotti:


It is not for the respondents to prove anything, it is the petitioner who has to show beyond reasonable doubt that he won .he who alleges must prove , a respondent only has to defend his stance based on whatever the petitioner throws at him .

hardbody:


This postulation only applies to criminal suits not civil matters such as election petitions. In civil matters, the courts look at the preponderance of probable evidence presented before it. The law is that judgment will be entered against that person who fails to lead evidence to prove its case in a civil matter. Stop misleading people with your half- knowledge.

DesChyko:


It is clear you didn't follow the Elections Proceedings. You also missed the Press briefings where it was made clear that INEC is refusing to provide top copies as requested. I will take you to Page 3, Article IX on this document, since it also looks like you didn't read before passing judgement either.

Just dey play

Enice:
Livy is a big liar and is full of lies. We know this. He is just trying to play to the gallery. INEC cannot refuse to give a petitioner any document so long as that document has been requested through the courts. That will be contempt of court. The man is a failure and has failed woefully with this petition.

Enice:
Livy is a big liar and is full of lies....INEC cannot refuse to give a petitioner any document so long as that document has been requested through the courts.

Enice:
Funny Address! No where in this address did Obi say he won the election. All he is talking about is a rerun or outright cancellation of the election. His main grouse is that INEC did not upload the results to IREV 8n real time and the blurred IREV copies. Obi don lule like fowl wen get cocidiosis