₦airaland Forum

Mokason28:
If you are a Christian you are a useless fooooool
But if you are not... I understand ur sentiment

Officialgarri:
This is worth celebrating as far as APC is concerned,
because this is a gradual penetration into the hardcore PDP controlled region.

May Buhari and Oshiomole live longer

WorldRichest:
All the seven judges agreed that Hope Uzodima won just as the true Prophet of the Most High Jehovah, Rev Fr. Mbaka heard from our father in heaven. Can all the seven judges be bribed? I seriously doubt it.

truthstands01:
Which heaven are you talking about? With time, we shall know who is who. Nigeria is dead, Nigeria is doomed. Only God will save Nigeria. Mark it somewhere.

NwekeUG:
https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/372695-buhari-excited-about-apcs-victory-in-imo.html

WorldRichest:
All the seven judges agreed that Hope Uzodima won just as the true Prophet of the Most High Jehovah, Rev Fr. Mbaka heard from our father in heaven. Can all the seven judges be bribed? I seriously doubt it.

Daryldaro:
Please dnt refer 2 ur president dat way. he is going tru alot and making sacrifices 4 us...THANK U!

garfield1:
THE IMO GUBERNATORIAL JUDGMENT - A PAINFUL BUT LEGALLY CORRECT VERDICT!

It is indeed a perplexing paradox: Hope Uzodinma may not have won the 2019 Imo State gubernatorial election, yet the Supreme Court, on the facts, was right in declaring him the winner of that election in law. The error was not the Supreme Court's, but that of Governor Emeka Ihedioha's legal team; and it was a crucially fatal error.

What happened was this: During the governorship election in Imo State, apparently concocted results, perhaps not having any basis whatsoever in reality, BUT SIGNED BY INEC PRESIDING OFFICERS, were turned in from more than 350 polling units, giving Hope Uzodinma of the APC an incredibly unassailable lead. When those results were transmitted to the wards collation centres, the collation officers, who had no power in law to cancel or reject them, rejected the said polling units results, and refused to collate them, thereby effectively excluding them from the total tally of the governorship result that was eventually declared by the Returning Officer. In the aftermath of the said exclusion, the Independent National Electoral Commission declared Governor Ihedioha the winner of the election.

The exclusion of the results of those polling units was the fulcrum of the petition presented at the Tribunal by Hope Uzodinma. Ever since David Mark V. ABUBAKAR USMAN, and DOMA V. INEC, the law has been settled that neither collation officers nor a returning officer, has the power in law to exclude a polling unit result duly signed by the presiding officer at the polling unit; only the election tribunal possesses the power to cancel or exclude such a result. So, at the point of its presentation, Senator Uzodinma's petition was potentially viable, in spite of the apparent dubiousness of the polling units results on which it was anchored, there being a REBUTTABLE presumption of regularity and correctness, by virtue of both the Electoral Act and Evidence Act, enuring in favour of any result declared by a presiding officer.

The backbreaking and fatal error made by Ihedioha's legal team was not filing a CROSS PETITION fiercely challenging the integrity of the suspect polling units results upon which Uzodinma was relying, and praying the election tribunal to formally nullify the said results. Without a cross petition, none of the grounds under section 138 (1) of the Electoral Act for questioning the elections conducted in those polling units in which Uzodinma "won" could have been competently raised by Governor Ihedioha in his defence to Uzodinma's petition. This was the ratio decidendi of the old Court of Appeal decision in IDRIS V. A.N.P.P.(2008)8 NWLR(PT.1088) Page 1. In the recent Court of Appeal decision in ATIKU ABUBAKAR V. BUHARI, the Court of Appeal again invoked the principle in dismissing Buhari's contention that Atiku ABUBAKAR was born in Cameroun to parents who originally were Camerounians, and thus disqualified from contesting the election. Dismissing the contention, the Court of Appeal held that the issue was incompetent, since Buhari did not file a cross petition.

Ihedioha indeed did set up facts in his Reply to the petition rehashing the serial infractions that led to the exclusion of the results of the said 300 plus polling units. But that was legally not enough, in the absence of a cross petition. Besides, such renditions by a Respondent in a mere Reply or Statement of Defence are clearly incompetent. The reason for the incompetence was was made clear by the Court of Appeal in NATIONAL JUDICIAL COUNCIL & ORS V. HON. JUSTICE JUBRIL BABAJIDE ALADEJANA & ORS(2014) LPELR - 2413 (CA) Page 31, paras C - F, at ratio 3 thus -

"The law is that it is a plaintiff who by his statement of claim primarily nominates issues to be tried in a suit and which he relies on to have the judgment of the Court. For a defendant, it is only necessary to resist the plaintiff's claim on the facts pleaded. It is not for a defendant to set up facts which would convey that it is not just setting up a defence but setting up a new case of his own. He can only do so by way of a counter claim..."

Shorn of the legalese, what the above authority is simply saying is that since the issue nominated for trial by Hope Uzodinma was the unlawfulfulness or otherwise of the exclusion of the results of the 300 plus polling units by the ward collation officers, Ihedioha's defence was therefore necessarily restricted by law to showing that those who excluded the results had the power in law to exclude them. Without a cross petition praying for the nullification of those results, the law forbids Governor Ihedioha as respondent from raising the issue of the alleged serial corrupt practices and irregularities marring the said results, in a mere statement of defence; that was a new issue not nominated by Uzodinma as petitioner. Ihedioha, being a Respondent, could only have competently raised them via a cross petition, being a new issue not nominated by Uzodinma, the petitioner.

Tragically, Ihedioha's legal team forgot to include the pivotal cross petition. And in the absence of a cross petition, the Supreme Court was right in law, painfully though it may seem, to rely on the presumption of regularity and correctness enshrined by both the Electoral Act and Evidence Act in favour of the said results, and to reckon with them and add them up to the final result, since Ihedioha's legal team had woefully failed to effectively attack the results and rebut that presumption. For the Supreme Court, this was the legally correct conclusion to come to, having found that INEC had no power in law to exclude polling units results duly affirmed by the various polling units presiding officers.

deboysben:
History will never forget how you destroy this country using judiciary and legislator.

One day those supporting this brazen and inhumane Justice against people will live to regret it.

Fasindo:











I can bet with my two balls that Buhari didn't write that congratulatory message
He does not have the intellectual nd metal capability to construct such an intelligent message.
Maybe Osibanjo wrote it for him.
So let's giv the credit to Osibanjo not Buhari.


But one thing I'm very sure of is that Buhari together with Abba Kyari nd Oshiomhole told Tanko to declare Uzodimma that came 4th d Winner.

If Tanko is FIFA president he will handover World Cup to a country that did not participate in World cup nd say they are the winner
Or even giv Ballon d'Or to Anthony Joshua who is not a footballer.

The day I became afraid of Buhari was the time he appointed dead people into his government in 2017.

With Buhari everything is possible
After God, fear devil then Buhari

garfield1:
THE IMO GUBERNATORIAL JUDGMENT - A PAINFUL BUT LEGALLY CORRECT VERDICT!

It is indeed a perplexing paradox: Hope Uzodinma may not have won the 2019 Imo State gubernatorial election, yet the Supreme Court, on the facts, was right in declaring him the winner of that election in law. The error was not the Supreme Court's, but that of Governor Emeka Ihedioha's legal team; and it was a crucially fatal error.

What happened was this: During the governorship election in Imo State, apparently concocted results, perhaps not having any basis whatsoever in reality, BUT SIGNED BY INEC PRESIDING OFFICERS, were turned in from more than 350 polling units, giving Hope Uzodinma of the APC an incredibly unassailable lead. When those results were transmitted to the wards collation centres, the collation officers, who had no power in law to cancel or reject them, rejected the said polling units results, and refused to collate them, thereby effectively excluding them from the total tally of the governorship result that was eventually declared by the Returning Officer. In the aftermath of the said exclusion, the Independent National Electoral Commission declared Governor Ihedioha the winner of the election.

The exclusion of the results of those polling units was the fulcrum of the petition presented at the Tribunal by Hope Uzodinma. Ever since David Mark V. ABUBAKAR USMAN, and DOMA V. INEC, the law has been settled that neither collation officers nor a returning officer, has the power in law to exclude a polling unit result duly signed by the presiding officer at the polling unit; only the election tribunal possesses the power to cancel or exclude such a result. So, at the point of its presentation, Senator Uzodinma's petition was potentially viable, in spite of the apparent dubiousness of the polling units results on which it was anchored, there being a REBUTTABLE presumption of regularity and correctness, by virtue of both the Electoral Act and Evidence Act, enuring in favour of any result declared by a presiding officer.

The backbreaking and fatal error made by Ihedioha's legal team was not filing a CROSS PETITION fiercely challenging the integrity of the suspect polling units results upon which Uzodinma was relying, and praying the election tribunal to formally nullify the said results. Without a cross petition, none of the grounds under section 138 (1) of the Electoral Act for questioning the elections conducted in those polling units in which Uzodinma "won" could have been competently raised by Governor Ihedioha in his defence to Uzodinma's petition. This was the ratio decidendi of the old Court of Appeal decision in IDRIS V. A.N.P.P.(2008)8 NWLR(PT.1088) Page 1. In the recent Court of Appeal decision in ATIKU ABUBAKAR V. BUHARI, the Court of Appeal again invoked the principle in dismissing Buhari's contention that Atiku ABUBAKAR was born in Cameroun to parents who originally were Camerounians, and thus disqualified from contesting the election. Dismissing the contention, the Court of Appeal held that the issue was incompetent, since Buhari did not file a cross petition.

Ihedioha indeed did set up facts in his Reply to the petition rehashing the serial infractions that led to the exclusion of the results of the said 300 plus polling units. But that was legally not enough, in the absence of a cross petition. Besides, such renditions by a Respondent in a mere Reply or Statement of Defence are clearly incompetent. The reason for the incompetence was was made clear by the Court of Appeal in NATIONAL JUDICIAL COUNCIL & ORS V. HON. JUSTICE JUBRIL BABAJIDE ALADEJANA & ORS(2014) LPELR - 2413 (CA) Page 31, paras C - F, at ratio 3 thus -

"The law is that it is a plaintiff who by his statement of claim primarily nominates issues to be tried in a suit and which he relies on to have the judgment of the Court. For a defendant, it is only necessary to resist the plaintiff's claim on the facts pleaded. It is not for a defendant to set up facts which would convey that it is not just setting up a defence but setting up a new case of his own. He can only do so by way of a counter claim..."

Shorn of the legalese, what the above authority is simply saying is that since the issue nominated for trial by Hope Uzodinma was the unlawfulfulness or otherwise of the exclusion of the results of the 300 plus polling units by the ward collation officers, Ihedioha's defence was therefore necessarily restricted by law to showing that those who excluded the results had the power in law to exclude them. Without a cross petition praying for the nullification of those results, the law forbids Governor Ihedioha as respondent from raising the issue of the alleged serial corrupt practices and irregularities marring the said results, in a mere statement of defence; that was a new issue not nominated by Uzodinma as petitioner. Ihedioha, being a Respondent, could only have competently raised them via a cross petition, being a new issue not nominated by Uzodinma, the petitioner.

Tragically, Ihedioha's legal team forgot to include the pivotal cross petition. And in the absence of a cross petition, the Supreme Court was right in law, painfully though it may seem, to rely on the presumption of regularity and correctness enshrined by both the Electoral Act and Evidence Act in favour of the said results, and to reckon with them and add them up to the final result, since Ihedioha's legal team had woefully failed to effectively attack the results and rebut that presumption. For the Supreme Court, this was the legally correct conclusion to come to, having found that INEC had no power in law to exclude polling units results duly affirmed by the various polling units presiding officers.
I hope it eases your pain

Littleman123:
Hahahahahaha , what's religion in this bro , ... wait have you ever seen someone being to heaven and come back to tell you that this religion is the best ... think na , westerners no dey think like that .. religion will just make you stagnant when considering it every time you want development. I pity you ooo

franchasng:
Pls don't let them deceive you.

Listen to me.

Hope Uzodimma forged result with fake INEC result sheet and INEC Returning Officer and Collation Officer stroke it out as fake because other party agents did not even sign the result sheets and only APC and one other party had results on the results sheets out of over 5 candidates, how come

At the election tribunal, this incident was brought up, Tribunal called on INEC to testify and INEC testified that the result sheets were forged and not issued by them INEC, so tribunal nullified Hope Uzodimma's claim.


It went to Appeal Court, the same case was brought up, INEC again testifies the result sheets were forged and the Appeal Court Judge still went further that the result should be called out, and only APC and one other party's result were legible, the person calling the result said he couldn't see other party candidate's results clearly, so he was asked to call out Hopes results and total number of Hope's acclaimed vote exceeded total number of accredited voters and was still not enough to counter Ihedioha's total votes.


So don't let them fool you, this is pure coup by Buhari/APC led government.

If the Supreme court panel were acting purely on legal terms, why didn't they order the results to be made public so the world can see the so called result and see

Its brazen daylight robbery!!

Sirjamo:
Story

WorldRichest:
All the seven judges agreed that Hope Uzodima won just as the true Prophet of the Most High Jehovah, Rev Fr. Mbaka heard from our father in heaven. Can all the seven judges be bribed? I seriously doubt it.

deboysben:
History will never forget how you destroy this country using judiciary and legislator.

One day those supporting this brazen and inhumane Justice against people will live to regret it.

Geesaintagape:
Justice prevailed

Perrycandid:
Dear Mbaka

How far about Iran and USA war
The thing go hold?