₦airaland Forum

RareDiamond:
Nawa for this ridiculously unjust judgement by the Supreme Court. This judicial rascality must stop.

Still on the Supreme Court ruling on Imo Guber Election: (Why the Supreme Court must reverse itself)

The law is settled as decided by the same Supreme Court in Buhari v. INEC (2008); that "weight can hardly be attached to a document tendered in evidence by a witness who cannot or is not in a position to answer questions on the document. One of such persons the law identifies is the one who did not make the document. Such a person is adjudged in the eyes of the law as ignorant of the content of the document”.

Questions for the CJN, Justice Tanko and other Supreme Court Justices:

1. Does the Supreme Court have powers to formulate and allocate votes as election results?

2. Were the said results certified by INEC as required by law?

3. Did Hope Uzodinma call 388 witnesses from the 388 polling units to speak to the results to obviate the principle of dumping which the Supreme Court used against the PDP and her candidate, Atiku Abubarka, in the last Presidential Appeal.

4. Were the presiding officers and or party agents of the 388 polling units called to testify by Uzodinma/APC, who were the Petitioners?

5. What are the figures from each of the various 388 polling units generated and allocated to Hope Uzodinma/APC by the Supreme Court?

6. Is the Supreme Court saying that all the votes from the alleged 388 polling units were for the APC alone in an election that was contested by over 70 candidates?

Racoon:
This is a public forum & everyone is entitled to his or her opinion.You cant force anyone to accept your worldview.Dispute your cause with fact.Yes hausa-fulani are there, but their brethren in the APC proved to be the most barbaric ever seen.

Blindersoff:
The ruling had nothing to do with vote counts but omitted results. Learn about Judicial relevance before you continue typing your rubbish.

Nobody filed an appeal for a vote recount. What was filed was on omission of results and that was the focus of the ruling.

Wailing zombie do you get it now?

Racoon:
https://www.farooqkperogi.com/2020/01/imo-judicial-abracadabra-and.html?m=1#.XiJ_Dz71hGU.twitter

lahizak:
Educated illiterate, supreme court been d apex court threw out all oda evidences nd proves concerning this case and accept to judge on d validity of a document which d issuing body denied it belongs to them. Hence forcing a candidate on d people. Do u get d gist or ur small head still no grab?

lahizak:
Educated illiterate, supreme court been d apex court threw out all oda evidences nd proves concerning this case and accept to judge on d validity of a document which d issuing body denied it belongs to them. Hence forcing a candidate on d people. Do u get d gist or ur small head still no grab?

Blindersoff:
Exactly. Since they called it fake then they should produce their own copies.

They could not and this then proves that the one they called fake is actually real because they knew it would not contradict what they already had

Blindersoff:
You should know that absolutely nothing you eventually post would contradict such an academic ruling by the Supreme Court.

This ruling was too simple and justifiably ruled

RareDiamond:
Nawa for this ridiculously unjust judgement by the Supreme Court. This judicial rascality must stop.

Still on the Supreme Court ruling on Imo Guber Election: (Why the Supreme Court must reverse itself)

The law is settled as decided by the same Supreme Court in Buhari v. INEC (2008); that "weight can hardly be attached to a document tendered in evidence by a witness who cannot or is not in a position to answer questions on the document. One of such persons the law identifies is the one who did not make the document. Such a person is adjudged in the eyes of the law as ignorant of the content of the document”.

Questions for the CJN, Justice Tanko and other Supreme Court Justices:

1. Does the Supreme Court have powers to formulate and allocate votes as election results?

2. Were the said results certified by INEC as required by law?

3. Did Hope Uzodinma call 388 witnesses from the 388 polling units to speak to the results to obviate the principle of dumping which the Supreme Court used against the PDP and her candidate, Atiku Abubarka, in the last Presidential Appeal.

4. Were the presiding officers and or party agents of the 388 polling units called to testify by Uzodinma/APC, who were the Petitioners?

5. What are the figures from each of the various 388 polling units generated and allocated to Hope Uzodinma/APC by the Supreme Court?

6. Is the Supreme Court saying that all the votes from the alleged 388 polling units were for the APC alone in an election that was contested by over 70 candidates?

Leo3333:
Oga, so how then did the Total Number of Votes exceed the Total Number of Accredited Voters?
Whose figure do we trust? INEC's or SC's

Waiting.

Blindersoff:
The ruling had nothing to do with vote counts but omitted results. Learn about Judicial relevance before you continue typing your rubbish.

Nobody filed an appeal for a vote recount. What was filed was on omission of results and that was the focus of the ruling.

Wailing zombie do you get it now?

Blindersoff:
This is not the focus of the ruling as no appeal was filed requesting a vote recount.

The SC has no business dabbling into an issue which is not in contention between both parties.

lahizak:
Educated illiterate, supreme court been d apex court threw out all oda evidences nd proves concerning this case and accept to judge on d validity of a document which d issuing body denied it belongs to them. Hence forcing a candidate on d people. Do u get d gist or ur small head still no grab?

NgeneUkwenu:
Why do you guys fond of calling:lpeople names instead of putting out intelligent argument out there? I can bet my last Kobo, you never bothered to read the Judgment but contented on parroting your warped logic all over the place!

Education is Nigeria is just a waste!

Leo3333:
Oga, so how then did the Total Number of Votes exceed the Total Number of Accredited Voters?
Whose figure do we trust? INEC's or SC's

Waiting.

Leo3333:
Since the SC has now fully usurped the role of INEC, they should do well then by telling us the figure, PU -by-PU of Accredited Voters and what each party scored in those 388 PUs.

Blindersoff:
Here’s the summary of this ruling

1. Hope alleged that duly signed results from 388 PUs were excluded
2. He provided these duly signed results as evidence
3. INEC said those were not results from those PUs
4. Ok, show the real results na..they could not
5. SC to INEC/Ihedioha: Gerarahia!

NgeneUkwenu:
That is the question INEC should answer... Go and read the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Wike Vs Peterside in 2015, where Wike Polled 1,015, 000 votes while the total accreditated votes were less than 200000.

NgeneUkwenu:
That is the question INEC should answer... Go and read the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Wike Vs Peterside in 2015, where Wike Polled 1,015, 000 votes while the total accreditated votes were less than 200000.

Leo3333:
Since the SC has now fully usurped the role of INEC, they should do well then by telling us the figure, PU -by-PU of Accredited Voters and what each party scored in those 388 PUs.

Leo3333:
OK. Good then...but in YOUR OWN view, having now seen the gross disparity in the figures, do you think the SC should allow their judgement to stand?