₦airaland Forum

Blindersoff:
Lmao i knew a contender would fall for this trap i set

Now i made a claim that Ihedioha got more votes that voters accredited and you asked me to prove it right?

Same way Ihedioha and Inec claimed uzodinmas tendered results were fake and the Supreme court asked them to prove it.

They however could not and thus threw out their case and Uzodinma got the victory

You just simplified the ruling for yourself. Now it should be clear to you and others still contesting it.

sanpipita:
Lol did you hear yourself DCP tendered a sign results means they are authentic? How many police testified unit by unit that this results were excluded, go and read this same supreme court judgement on atiku and buhari and feel ashamed, how come burden on proof is suddenly on INEC and Ihedioha? how come this excluded results had only APC signature, let stop making excuses for bad behavior.

Sanchez01:
The added votes far exceeded the accredited voters count. That is the bone of contention and not how he won. The figures do not add up.

DesChyko:
You can call it a trap to attempt to wriggle out of the knot you got yourself into but even the blind could see the banner your cohorts did using 'Paint' on a PC, claiming that my LGA couldn't get up to 30000 voters accredited. You came across as one who could pinpoint the source, but I guess the apple never falls far from the tree.
As a statistician by profession, I was interested in seeing the source that will solidly claim it was impossible for Ihedioha to get an average of 200 votes per PU in the entire densely-populated Ahiazu-Mbaise LGA which has well over 140 PUs. Even the PU in my clan, which was under Oru-na-Lude, one of the smallest wards in Ahiazu were getting about 300 voters in total.


INEC are supposed to be the only body to verify the existence of such a document. If they rejected the initial document, for reasons best known to them, I wonder who else is empowered to enforce those documents as being valid.

Blindersoff:
Lmao so much nonsense piled into one post.

INEC/IHEDIOHA rejected verbally and by law he who makes an assertion must prove it. The SC demanded for proof of their assertion that the results hope submitted were fake THEY COULD NOT PROVIDE EVEN ONE EVIDENCE.

They were given the opportunity to verify that the results were fake as they alleged but did not and indeed could not. You cannot make careless comments in law. Everything must be deliberate and you have to be ready to defend your claim and this was what INEC/IHEDIOHA were asked to do.

INEC/IHEDIOHA could not produce copies of their own. If INEC could not provide copies why could PDP/IHEDIOHA not also present copies of their own? The reason is because INEC connived with PDP and thus both of them were caught in the same trap and could not produce anything to back up their claim.

Note it was UZODINMA vs INEC and PDP/IHEDIOHA

2 against 1 and yet the 2 could not provide even one evidence to defeat what 1 tendered.

I am done with you.

garfield1:
Oga,do you have issues with comprehension? The case of otti and imo are different.otti petitioned based on overvoting and non compliance which needs polling unit proofs while hope case was purely based on excuses of results or non computation and the standard of proof is mainly documentary.why cant you differrntiate the both?
How many times will i tell you that the inec guidelines is inferior to the electoral act which prohibits cancellations at collation level

garfield1:
Are you forgetting that aa and uche were disqualified

garfield1:
Based on the presidential and guber results,nobody was in full control of orlu.the only lgas nwosu won massively was his nkwerre and rochas ideato south.im the remaining part of orlu,he struggled to win.votes were shared.the results now shows that hope was actually the one in control.dont forget he was senator repping orlu

NORSYK:
You are always making senseless and baseless statements, how can you compare Presidential election with that of governorship election? Going by your logic it means that PDP swept the orlu zone during the governorship election because according to your logic PDP won 9 lgas out of 12 during the presidential election

DMerciful:
Does that invalidate the number of people that voted for them before the disqualification as zero?

NORSYK:
So, you know the law better than senior advocate of Nigeria?

garfield1:
In the eyes of the law

DMerciful:
You dont understand my question. In the 388 polling units, certainly AA would have gotten substantial votes to reduce the percentage of Uzodinma. If AA had gotten 100k votes for instance, disqualifying AA does not make Uzodinma get the AA votes so the impact of the vote splitting but Nwosu should still persist. I believe you understand my point.

garfield1:
I dont understand you but from the judgment,pdp got 1903 from those units meaning that aa got lower or got less than 50k.even if aa won there,it is meaningless,null and void because the court already disqualified aa and nwosu.all his votes were wasted and in the eyes of the law,aa never took part in the polls.

DMerciful:
They should atleast share the election results given this judgement into consideration so we know the final results of the election!

garfield1:
The summary is that hope won,pdp 2nd,apga third follow by the party ohakim contested on

DMerciful:
Yes but this needs to be documented and updated on INEC website in details for posterity!

garfield1:
I believe they will do so in future.up uzodinma

gidgiddy:
In other words, INEC has to prove its own results

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!

Obec70:
Between INEC & SUPREME COURT who has the right to accredit voters? How many voters are allowed in each polling unites? So policeman is now an INEC official? Who cross examined the so-called policeman? Is Supreme Court saying they are in Imo State did there own accreditation separately? & that 1+5 is no longer 6 but 9?
Senseless & unreasonable judgment, anyway if Rochas will be in the senate despite all that happened, anything else can happen!

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?

gidgiddy:
In other words, INEC has to prove its own results

DesChyko:
You can call it a trap to attempt to wriggle out of the knot you got yourself into but even the blind could see the banner your cohorts did using 'Paint' on a PC, claiming that my LGA couldn't get up to 30000 voters accredited. You came across as one who could pinpoint the source, but I guess the apple never falls far from the tree.
As a statistician by profession, I was interested in seeing the source that will solidly claim it was impossible for Ihedioha to get an average of 200 votes per PU in the entire densely-populated Ahiazu-Mbaise LGA which has well over 140 PUs. Even the PU in my clan, which was under Oru-na-Lude, one of the smallest wards in Ahiazu were getting about 300 voters in total.


INEC are supposed to be the only body to verify the existence of such a document. If they rejected the initial document, for reasons best known to them, I wonder who else is empowered to enforce those documents as being valid.

oyatz:
The accredited votes is not in contention and the Supreme Court can't dabble into it because

1) It's not stated whether the accredited votes released by INEC included accredited votes in the cancelled polling units.

2) It hasn't been determined if the votes before the Judgements (votes mostly allocated to Ihedioha) were already inflated. So how do you know the points of inflation?

Thanks brother. Exactly my thought.

I read this judgement all through.
Supreme Court did a good job.

My conclusion was that Ihedioha and his party did induced INEC officials at state level. Still pushed further to the tribunal and appelate courts to cover up.

But it didn't last forever.

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?

Blindersoff:
Lmao so much nonsense piled into one post.

INEC/IHEDIOHA rejected verbally and by law he who makes an assertion must prove it. The SC demanded for proof of their assertion that the results hope submitted were fake THEY COULD NOT PROVIDE EVEN ONE EVIDENCE.

They were given the opportunity to verify that the results were fake as they alleged but did not and indeed could not. You cannot make careless comments in law. Everything must be deliberate and you have to be ready to defend your claim and this was what INEC/IHEDIOHA were asked to do.

INEC/IHEDIOHA could not produce copies of their own. If INEC could not provide copies why could PDP/IHEDIOHA not also present copies of their own? The reason is because INEC connived with PDP and thus both of them were caught in the same trap and could not produce anything to back up their claim.

Note it was UZODINMA vs INEC and PDP/IHEDIOHA

2 against 1 and yet the 2 could not provide even one evidence to defeat what 1 tendered.

I am done with you.

DMerciful:
You dont understand my question. In the 388 polling units, certainly AA would have gotten substantial votes to reduce the percentage of Uzodinma. If AA had gotten 100k votes for instance, disqualifying AA does not make Uzodinma get the AA votes so the impact of the vote splitting but Nwosu should still persist. I believe you understand my point.

Olaolufred:
INEC should have presented all the evidences to nail Uzo's claim. But they didn't because they truly did some abracadabra.
Uzo's claim could be factual or fake, but INEC who deposed to bringing the correct results to disprove uzo's fake couldn't.

INEC in handling of IMO state guber were induced to carry out this hatchet job.

So disgusting.

Blindersoff:
I said earlier that I can deduce from all this that PDP connived with INEC to rig Ihedioha into office and what you said above was how they wanted it done.

However Uzodinma was adamant and dragged the case all the way and it took the SC to scatter all the plans already done by INEC and PDP.