₦airaland Forum

garfield1:
Pure rubbish

Dustyn:
[s][/s]

truthfulparrot:
My take is that INEC deliberately refused to provide strong evidence to prove that the results were fake in order to pave way for the embarrassing judgement by the supreme court..

The desperation of the Supreme court to give IMO state back to APC is a pointer to the fact that the North is not ready to relinquish power in 2023. Instead they are strategizing to form alliance with the South East in 2023. They will dangle the carrot of VP to Southeast who will be willing to take anything to spite the Southwest.

The Southwest Politicians are not sleeping, they came up with Amotekun in preparation for 2023. The North Strategists are aware of the politics behind Amotekun that is why they are crying foul.

There are difficult times ahead.........Things are falling apart!

TGM2015:
I said this before.

The Documents tendered were original duplicate copies of INEC issued Forms, filled and signed by INEC official representative at the Polling Units concern. The Coalition Officers looking at the figures strongly believed the figures were cooked and allocated, then, using his/her personal intuition, experience, and judgment, s/he cancelled the results of APC from 388 polling units under contention.

Hope went to court to challenge that the cancellation has no legal backing, instead of PDP to counter the application and show evidence that the votes allocated to APC were fraudulent, they did not even challenge the petition at all. The Supreme Court accepted APC evidence as it was original duplicate copy from INEC. The 7 SC judges hold that the (fraudulent) votes were illegally cancelled and there was no single evidence to show it was fraudulently allocated.

Personally, I believed the votes were fraudulent and on moral grounds should be cancelled as done by the INEC coalition center. Unfortunately, the court will and should never rule base on moral grounds or perceptions but on the letters of the Law. So, morally, the cancellation was correct but legally wrong.

To those people blaming Supreme Court, they should know that legality is different from morality. It is just like rape cases, it must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has actually been committed. The responsibility to proved otherwise rest on every interested party that believes otherwise as far the evidence from the petitioner emanated from legally recognised and authorised sources. In this case, the provision of evidence rest solely on PDP and her candidates and not INEC. The role of INEC in any election matter is to provide evidences at their custody and testify in election matter and not to prove that elections were fairly or fraudulently conducted. In this case, INEC should have tendered the Original Form for which duplicates were presented to prove that the figures were altered or incorrect. Unfortunately, there is no need to do that as all parties involved know that the presented evidences (Original Duplicate Forms) by Hope were original without alterations, so presentations will only support Hope's application. Therefore, INEC should not be blame for not presenting the original forms even though they suppose to. They choose not to because they knew it will give strong evidence to support for Hope and APC application.

PDP failed woefully in their defence, they should learn their lessons and move on. We should be cloud by our emotions, moral stands, or political affiliates by blackmailing the judiciary for upholding the law of the land, instead work towards changing the law that make criminals and fraudsters go away with their crimes.

Esseite:
INEC which conducted the election said the result is fake with evidence, but the supreme court which had no business in the election said it's not fake and the evidence submitted would not stand even with votes count more than accredited voters...

Supreme ice-cream indeed.

zikter:
No please, we should be open minded on this one. SC said INEC disputed the documents. and even alleged forgery which is criminal. In the criminal justice system, he who alleges must prove beyond reasonable doubt. Hope alleged that, his votes were cancelled and though this is not criminal in this context, he had to still prove it with the documents he duly tendered. INEC who alleged forgery now had the onus to prove it, it was no longer Hope's business to prove whether his documents were fake or original.

Blindersoff:
Have some sense pls.

Uzodinmas counsel presented the documents as true copies of the original. Inec called it fake and forged thus the onus is now on the one who called it fake and forged to prove their claim by producing the ORIGINAL copies.

They however could not and this then rendered the documents true copies indeed.

Uzodinmas counsel did not need to prove anything

socialmediaman:
I’ll reply to this though I’ll report it for the needless provocation. I wonder the kind of people on here sometimes

Anyway, what happened to the onus when Atiku presented all the evidence and much more against the tyrant? Even if the judgement went against APC you guys will still agree with it, anywhere belle face

socialmediaman:
So what happened when Atiku presented same documents and provided other evidence against the tyrant? The onus was nowhere to be found abi? Keep rationalizing fraud