The All Progressives Congress, APC, on Monday, closed the forgery case it instituted against Governor Godwin Obaseki of Edo State, after it called a total of six witnesses and tendered 17 Exhibits.

Lead counsel to the APC, Chief Akin Olujimi, SAN, announced decision of the party to rest its case, shortly after the court discharged the sixth witness, PW-6, Dr. Mikano Asekome, who is an Associate Professor in Banking and Finance Department at Benson Idahosa University, Benin city, Edo state.

The PW-6 told the court that he was on December 23, 2020, summoned to appear as witness in the matter.

The witness went ahead and tendered in evidence, the original copy of his certificate in Agricultural-Economics, which the University of Ibadan awarded to him on July 31, 1978.

Under cross-examination, the witness told the court that as at 1974 when he gained admission into University of Ibadan, the Join Admission & Matriculation Board, JAMB, was not in existence.

“As at then, it was the responsibility of the University of Ibadan to set criteria for admission. However, in order to guide students, the criteria was always documented and published.

“The conditions differed from Faculty to Faculty, though the number of credits that must be passed by intending students remained basic.

“There were two modes of admission then, which was either by direct entry or through consessional entrance exam that was also called prelim or pre-degree.

“In my case, I went in through prelim. That was why I spent four years in school.

“As at then, the University of Ibadan was not offering prelim on courses in Faculty of Arts. Even in sciences, certain students entered through direct entry and they only spend three years”, the witness added.

Under further cross-examination, the witness told the court that he had never seen governor Obaseki’s original certificate.

Earlier, the PW-4, Mr. Raphael Onwuzuligbo, who is a retired Assistant Superintendent of Police and a forensic document examiner, said he analysed governor Obaseki’s certificate following a request that was made by a person he identified as “Faithful Steward”.

He however admitted that what was sent to him for analysis was not the original copy of the certificate, but the Certified True Copy, CTC.

“I don’t know who certified it, but on the face of the document there is Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC.

“I don’t know the origin of the document”, the witness added.

The PW-5, Engineer Gabriel Iduseri, identified himself as the former South South zonal youth leader of the APC and the present caretaker zonal youth leader of the APC.

He tendered a copy of a suit marked FHC/B/CS/124/2016, which the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, previously instituted against Obaseki for allegedly forging his certificate.

The witness told the court that the case was subsequently struck out after the time for its determination elapsed.

He told the court that Obaseki had in 2016, submitted an affidavit of loss of certificate to INEC, adding that the said affidavit was not part of documents he submitted alongside his nomination form (Form EC9) in the 2020 election circle.

The witness told the court that Obaseki had in the Form CF001 he submitted in 2016, claimed that he attended University of Ibadan between 1976 to 1979.

Asked if he ever visited University of Ibadan or WAEC to confirm the authenticity of Obaseki’s credentials, the witness answered in the negative.

Meantime, following APC’s decision to close its case, Justice Ahmed Mohammed, directed governor Obaseki to open his defence on Tuesday.

The APC had in the suit it jointly filed with one of its members in Edo, Mr. Williams Edobor, alleged that Obaseki forged the University of Ibadan degree certificate he submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, in aid of his qualification for the election.

In the suit marked FHC/B/CS/74/2020, the Plaintiffs equally alleged that there were discrepancies in the subjects that Obaseki claimed he passed in his West African Examination Council (WAEC) exam and subjects in his testimonial.

They are therefore praying the court to declare that Obaseki’s claim in his INEC form EC9 at column C, sworn to on June 29, 2020 at the Federal Capital Territory High Court Registry to the effect that he obtained from the University of Ibadan in 1979, a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Classical Studies, is false and contrary to Section 31 (5) and (6) of the Electoral Act, 2010.

As well as an order declaring that Obaseki lied on oath when he swore to an affidavit on June 29, 2020 that he worked in Afrinvest Limited from 1994 to 2014 when he retired.

The INEC was listed as the 3rd Defendant in the matter.

Meanwhile, in line with section 285 (10) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, the 180 days stipulated for the trial court to conclude hearing on the pre-election suit, will elapse on Sunday.

In a related development, the court, dismissed a joint suit the National Rescue Mission, NRM, and one of its chieftains, Mr. Steven Ozoro, filed to challenge the eligibility of APC’s governoship candidate in Edo State, Pastor Osagie Ize-Iyamu and his Deputy, Abdulganiyu Daudu.

The court held that the suit had become academic, stressing that no legal benefit could accrue to any of the parties in the matter.

Cited as Defendants in the matter were INEC, APC, Ize-Iyamu and Daudu.

AAA593:
You want to fake his certificate even when the issuing authority has confirm it's genuineness. It will not work

The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, on Wednesday, admitted two more exhibits into evidence in the certificate forgery suit against Edo State Governor, Godwin Obaseki.

Recall that the court had on Tuesday admitted Obaseki’s nomination form into evidence. The nomination form, which enabled him participate in the September 19, 2020, governorship election was tendered by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

At the resumed hearing on Wednesday, an Associate Professor in the Department of Economics, University of Lagos, Emmanuel Balogun, appeared as the third principal witness (PW-3) in the case.

The witness tendered the original copy of his own degree certificate in Agricultural Economics, which was awarded to him on July 6, 1979, by the University of Ibadan. Obaseki had said he obtained a Bachelor of Arts degree in Classics from the same university in the same year.

On whether the governor’s certificate was forged, Balogun said he could not comment on it because he had not seen the certificate before.

Under cross-examination, the PW-3, told the court that he got admission into University of Ibadan in 1975 through prelim.

He said as of that time, there were students that were also admitted through direct entry, adding that while those that entered through prelim spent 4 years, those that got into the school through direct entry spent only 3 years.

Balogun noted that he would be surprised that “somebody can get admission into the University of Ibadan as at then with only three O’level results or two A level results with a minimum of 2 HSC papers.”

“As at 1976, there were different entry requirements for prelim and direct entry students,” the witness said.

“As at then, admission requirements varied from one faculty to the other. The basic requirement for admission was 5 credits, including Maths and English, but anyone coming in through direct entry must have made the 5 credits and then choose two subjects in HSC.

“Generally, a certificate is signed by the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar, with a date on it. Generally, all certificates issued by University of Ibadan are coloured with a coloured logo on it.
“The certificate is usually larger than the normal A4 papers.”

He stated that if any attempt is made to compress and photocopy a certificate in an A4 paper, some parts of the certificate would be left out and would no longer be a reflection of the original certificate.

The witness said he was subpoenaed by the plaintiffs on December 23 to produce the original copy of his degree certificate before the court.

The presiding judge, Justice Ahmed Mohammed, admitted his certificate into evidence and marked it as Exhibit PL-4.
After the original certificate was admitted into evidence, counsel to the plaintiffs, Akin Olujimi, SAN, applied to substitute it with the photocopy, arguing that the original document is very valuable and irreplaceable.

But Obaseki’s counsel, Ken Mozia, and that of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), Razaq Isenalohme, opposed the request, insisting they would make use of the exhibit in the course of the hearing.

After the PW-3 completed his testimony and was discharged by the court, the plaintiffs produced a retired Assistant Superintendent of Police and a forensic document examiner, Mr. Raphael Onwuzuligbo, as their next witness.
Onwuzuligbo said he was in court on the strength of a subpoena that was also issued on him.

The subpoena was tendered into evidence and marked as Exhibit PL-5.

The defendants resisted an attempt by counsel to the plaintiffs to tender a document that contained report of investigation that was conducted by the witness.

The defendants argued that the document was neither pleaded nor in the court’s file, insisting that it did not qualify to be admitted as evidence in the case.

They noted that the document was made on November 16, during the pendency of the suit.
They further argued that the plaintiffs failed to establish the relevance of the document to the case.

The defendants, therefore, urged the court to reject the document.

Responding, the plaintiffs’ counsel urged the court to dismiss the objections and argued that a document that is needed to prove a fact does not need to be pleaded.

Olujimi said the report touched on Obaseki’s certificate that is in issue.

The report was admitted in evidence as Exhibit PL-6. However, the court held that it would consider objections against its admissibility in the final judgement.

Justice Mohammed, thereafter, adjourned the case till Thursday to enable the defendants to cross-examine the witness.

The APC and one of its members in Edo, Williams Edobor, had filed a suit marked FHC/B/CS/74/2020 against Obaseki in July 2020.

They alleged that the governor forged the University of Ibadan degree certificate he submitted to INEC in aid of his qualification for the election.

The plaintiffs equally alleged that there were discrepancies in the subjects that Obaseki claimed he passed in his West African Examination Council (WAEC) exam and subjects in his testimonial.

Consequently, they are praying the court to declare that his claim in his INEC form EC9 at column C, sworn to on June 29, 2020 at the Federal Capital Territory High Court Registry to the effect that he obtained from the University of Ibadan in 1979, a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Classical Studies, is false and contrary to Section 31 (5) and (6) of the Electoral Act, 2010.

Also, they are seeking an order declaring that Obaseki lied on oath when he swore to an affidavit on June 29, 2020 that he worked in Afrinvest Limited from 1994 to 2014 when he retired.

Obaseki defeated APC candidate, Osagie Ize-Iyamu, in the election to secure re-election.

….as court dismisses PDP’s suit against Ize-Iyamu

By Ikechukwu Nnochiri, Abuja

The Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, on Tuesday, tendered in evidence before the Federal High Court in Abuja, the nomination form Governor Godwin Obaseki filled and submitted for the purpose of the governorship election that held in Edo State on September 19.

Justice Ahmed Mohammed admitted and marked the document known as Form EC9, along with other attachments that accompanied it, as Exhibit PL-2.

He dismissed objection the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, raised to query the admissibility of the document which INEC was summoned to produce before the court in the forgery case the All Progressives Congress, APC, instituted against Obaseki.

The APC had in the suit it jointly filed with one of its members in Edo, Mr Williams Edobor, alleged that Obaseki forged the University of Ibadan degree certificate he submitted to INEC in aid of his qualification for the election.

In the suit marked FHC/B/CS/74/2020, the Plaintiffs equally alleged that there were discrepancies in the subjects that Obaseki claimed he passed in his West African Examination Council (WAEC) exam and subjects in his testimonial.

Consequently, they are praying the court to declare that Obaseki’s claim in his INEC form EC9 at column C, sworn to on June 29, 2020, at the Federal Capital Territory High Court Registry to the effect that he obtained from the University of Ibadan in 1979, a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Classical Studies is false and contrary to Section 31 (5) and (6) of the Electoral Act, 2010.

As well as an order declaring that Obaseki lied on oath when he swore to an affidavit on June 29, 2020, that he worked in Afrinvest Limited from 1994 to 2014 when he retired.

Meanwhile, at the resumed hearing of the case on Tuesday, following a subpoena that was issued against it on December 23, INEC, produced a Certified True Copy, CTC, of Obaseki’s nomination form, through one of its legal officers, Mr Samuel Omale.

Obaseki’s lawyer, Mr Ken Mozia, SAN, and that of the PDP, Mr Razaq Isenalohme, had insisted that Omale who appeared as the second principal witness in the case, PW-2, lacked the capacity to tender the document in evidence.

They argued that under the rules of the court, the INEC official was not supposed to be sworn on oath before the court since he was merely subpoenaed to produce documents and not to tender them as a witness in the matter.

Mozia, SAN, argued that the PW-2 did not file a written witness deposition as required by Order 20 Rule 3 of the Federal High Court Rules, adding that the documents were not duly certified as prescribed by the Evidence Act.

“My lord, ex-facia from the document, there is no proof of payment as mandatorily required by section 104 (1) of the Evidence Act”, he added.

Similarly, PDP’s lawyer, Mr Razaq, argued that the Exhibit sought to be tendered was a computer-generated document that was downloaded from INEC’s website, contending that it did meet the requirement of section 84 of the Evidence Act.

He said since it was computer-generated, there ought to have been a certificate that was attached to it.

On its part, INEC, which is the 3rd Defendant in the suit, through its lawyer, Mr M. A. Bawa, said it was not opposed to the admissibility of the document.

Responding, counsel to the Plaintiffs, Chief Akin Olujimi, SAN, urged the court to dismiss the objections.

“I agree that when a witness is subpoenaed to produce a document pursuant to section 219 of the Evidence Act, that such a person does not become a witness by the mere fact that he produced the document and cannot be cross-examined, unless and until he is called as a witness.

“However, the mere fact that a witness was sworn on oath in error does not derogate from the fact that he was merely subpoenaed to produce a document and cannot be subjected to a cross-examination”, Olujimi submitted.

The Plaintiffs’ counsel said in the interest of justice, he would not object to the court allowing the Defendants to cross-examine the PW-2, stressing that the document INEC was subpoenaed to produce, was already pleaded by all the parties in the matter.

“There is no element of surprise here because both the Plaintiff, the 1st and 2nd Defendants are also seeking to rely on this same document.

“This is an official document in the custody of the 3rd Defendant (INEC), to whom it was submitted to by the 1st Defendant.

“INEC is the 3rd Defendant in this case. There is no way I can ask an adverse party to come and make a statement on oath. The only way to bring him before your lordship is by an order compelling him to appear before this court”, he added.

He equally denied that the document was downloaded from a website.

In his ruling, Justice Mohammed noted that though the PW-2 was not supposed to be sworn on oath, he held that the document sought to be tendered was “very relevant and should not be rejected on the ground that there was an error in the manner it was produced by the witness”.

Justice Mohammed held that since a substantial part of the suit centred on the Form EC9, it made the document very relevant.

“In fact, without the Form EC9, this case will collapse like a pack of cards”, the Judge held, adding that the Defendants were at liberty to cross-examine the witness.

While under cross-examination, the PW-2, told the court that in line with COVID-19 protocols, the Form EC9 was published online for candidates to download, fill and upload on INEC’s website.

Asked if the copy he tendered before the court was downloaded from the website, the witness said: “This is a copy from the file that we have it in our custody. It is also part of what the 2nd Defendant filled and submitted online”.

Meantime, in a separate judgement, Justice Mohammed, dismissed the suit PDP filed to disqualify APC’s candidate, Pastor Osaze Ize-Iyamu, from participating in the Edo State governorship election.

The court held that the suit had turned to an academic exercise since the crux of the action was to stop Ize-Iyamu from participating in the election that had since been held and won by the PDP and its candidate, Obaseki.

PDP had in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/ CS/69/20, contended that Ize-Iyamu was not a product of a valid primary election.

It told the court that the indirect primary election that produced Ize-Iyamu was conducted by the Adams Oshiomhole- led executives of the APC, at a time they were already sacked by a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, with the decision affirmed by the Court of Appeal

The All Progressives Congress (APC), yesterday, opened its case on certificate forgery against Edo State Governor, Godwin Obaseki, by calling a professor of law, Omoregie Edobo, as its first witness.

The case opened before Justice Ahmed Mohammed after Obaseki’s failed bids to have the court and the Court of Appeal halt the hearing pending the determination of an appeal he had filed in respect of the case.

The Court of Appeal in Abuja ruled that pre-election cases such as the one instituted against Obaseki were time-bound and could not be halted based on an interlocutory appeal.

In his evidence in chief, Edobo of the University of Benin tendered various documents to prove that the Bachelor of Arts in Classical Studies presented to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) by Obaseki was forged.

The party in the suit filed in July 2020 is claiming that Obaseki forged his degree certificate, which he presented to the INEC to secure his candidacy in the September governorship election.

In the pre-election suit filed through a chieftain of the party, Mr. Williams Edobor, it is specifically seeking the disqualification of Obaseki who became governor in 2016 under its platform.

Justice Ahmed Mohammed of the Abuja division of the Federal High Court had in September said rulings in all applications as well as objections would be delivered alongside judgment ordered the APC to call its witnesses to prove allegations made against Obaseki.

When the trial commenced yesterday, the plaintiffs through their lead counsel, Chief Akin Olujimi, called their first witness, Edobo, and presented various documents to prove the case of the plaintiff.

Although, the defendants had used the same documents to cross examine the witness, the documents were however not admitted following defendants claim that Edobo was not the maker and as such cannot tender them.

But the position of the plaintiffs is that the said documents sought to be tendered were same documents of Obaseki in his defense.

However, during cross examination by Obaseki’s lawyer, Mr Ken Mozia, the witness who identified the University of Ibadan Bachelor of Arts in Classical Studies certificate issued on July 6, 1979 to Godwin Obaseki, observed that while the signature of the vice chancellor was clear that of the registrar was “not legible.”

On qualification for direct entry into the university, the witness told the court that candidates with Advanced Level or Higher School Certificate (HSC) were admitted for a three years degree programme and went ahead to confirm Obaseki’s HSC certificate issued to him by West African School Certificate (WASC) in June 1976.

However, when asked by the People’s Democratic Party (PDP’s) lawyer, Rasaq Isilalomhe, if he had ever cited the original copy of the UI certificate issued to Obaseki, the witness said: “I am not aware that an original copy of the degree certificate was issued to the 1st defendant by UI.”

Edobo also told the court that he has never seen the original of the HSC certificate WASC issued to Obaseki in 1976.

He also told the court that his allegation of forgery against Obaseki was based on photocopies of certificates Obaseki presented to INEC. He explained that there are two BA degrees Obaseki presented to INEC, adding that in the one of 2020 the signature of the Registrar was not legible.

INEC’s lawyer, Mr M.A Bawa, had no questions for the witness.

Justice Mohammed discharged the witness and adjourned the matter till December 29 for further hearing.

b]***Declines to stay proceedings[/b]

The Abuja division of the Federal High Court on Wednesday ordered the All Progressive Congress (APC) to open its case against Edo State Governor. Godwin Obaseki in the alleged certificate forgery suit.

This was after the court refused to stay proceedings in the suit as requested by the Governor.

Justice Ahmed Mohammed in his ruling said the court will comply with the order of the Court of Appeal directing the court to continue with the trial on day to day basis.

The judge observed that his court will continue with the trial as directed by the Court of Appeal until the order is set aside.

Justice Mohammed noted that his court must obey the hierarchy of courts in line with the provisions of the law.

He held that given the order of the Court of Appeal and the nature of the case, the Christmas vacation is not enough ground to stay proceedings.

Accordingly, the court directed the plaintiff to open and close his case within two days beginning from Thursday, December 24 to Tuesday, December 29.

It equally gave the defendants two days to open and conclude their defence effective from Wednesday 30 to Thursday 31 of December 2020.

Earlier, counsel to the plaintiff, Chief Akin Olujimi, SAN, had informed the court about the ruling of the Court of Appeal on December 16, 2020, directing the trial court to proceed with the trial after dismissing the application for stay of execution brought by the governor, Godwin Obaseki.

He urged the court to proceed with the trial in compliance with the ruling of the Abuja division of the Court of Appeal.

But in opposition, counsel to the governor Obaseki, Ken Mozia, SAN, urged the court not to proceed with the trial as his client has entered an appeal at the Supreme Court against the decision of the Court of Appeal, including an application to stay further proceedings on the matter.

He urged the court in the circumstances, to tarry a while and await the decision of the Supreme Court on the appeal.

‘My lord, the first defendant not satisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal, has filed an appeal against the ruling and the consequential orders to the Supreme Court, which is the final court,’ he said.

‘The notice of appeal has been duly served on the parties in this case. Also, the record of appeal from the Court of Appeal has been duly transmitted to the Supreme Court, where it has been entered as appeal No: SC/C6/989/2020, and copies of the notice of appeal, the application for stay and other reliefs earlier mentioned are all exhibited in an affidavit deposed to by Abraham Olajide.

‘Also exhibited are the enrolled orders to appeals nos: CA/B/128/2020 and CA/B/128a/2020, the Court of Appeal Benin after delivering judgment directed the state High Court to continue with proceedings in suit No. FHC/B/CS/48/2020, between Kenneth Asekomeh and Another V All Progressive Congress (APC), and 3 others, where despite that order, the counsel to the defendant still filed an appeal at the Supreme Court and followed it up to the Federal High Court with an application for stay of proceedings and insisted that the Federal High Court await the determination of the appeal at the Supreme Court.

‘The Federal High Court acceded to that request, they cannot honestly ask this court to proceed having posited that the Federal High Court must wait, they have a duty to continue to maintain that position to say that the Federal High Court is obliged to await the determination of the appeal before the Supreme Court.’

He argued that once a party has taken steps to contest a decision of Court of Appeal by way of a further appeal to the Supreme Court and follows it up with an application for stay of proceedings, the judgment of the Court of Appeal will not be treated as final until the steps taken are completely resolved.

The second leg of his argument was predicated on the fact that the trial cannot be conducted during the Christmas vacation as contained in a circular issued by the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court.

The said circular dated December 18, titled, “Notification of Federal High Court Christmas Vacation for 2020”, stipulated that only matters bordering on national interest, human rights-related issues and release of vessels shall be entertained during the vacation which begins on Tuesday, December 22 and ends on Friday, January 8, 2021.

The lawyer noted that by the said notification, the vacation Judge for the Abuja division of the Federal High Court is Justice Evelyn Maha.

‘Today, being within the period declared for Christmas vacation and this case not being one of the cases listed as those that can be entertained by vacation Judge, including the fact that your lordship is not a vacation judge, the court cannot exercise any jurisdiction on the matter.’

He argued that whether the matter is urgent or not is determinable by the facts contained in affidavit evidence led before the court adding that nothing short of that will suffice.

‘There is manifest non compliance in this case such that the court is not even in a position to contemplate whether this case is urgent or not by law.’

Mozia informed that the defence team has withheld their consent for any proceedings to be done during the Christmas vacation period.

The counsel to the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), Isilalomhe Razak, aligned himself with the argument canvassed by counsel to Obaseki in urging the court to suspend proceedings and await the outcome of the appeal before the Supreme Court.

But responding, the counsel to the plaintiff, Olujimi, urged the court to discountenance the submissions of the defence team and proceed with the trial in compliance with the ruling and directive of the Court of Appeal.

While noting that the matter is time-bound, Olujimi argued that section 285 (a) of the 1999 Constitution (4th Alteration Act) is a compelling provision that proceedings at the trial court should not be stayed based on preliminary and interlocutory issues.

‘The compelling provisions of section 285 (a) is to the effect that where a preliminary or interlocutory issue is raised, the court shall suspend it’s ruling and deliver it at the stage of final judgment.

‘Secondly, the first and second defendants failed to appreciate that the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court has since July 24, 2020, settled the issue of hearing of all categories of pre-election matters in the Practice Direction number two issued by the Chief Judge.

‘What the Chief Judge issued in July was a Practice Direction which is legislation issued by him to regulate pre- election trials.’

He submitted that the said Practice Direction mandates a Judge to hear a pre-election matter pending before his court until judgment is delivered.

‘The Chief Judge did not say the practise direction applies only to annual vacation but includes all manner of vacation in general. A circular is not a rule of court. It is not legislation or law unlike the practice direction,’ Olujimi argued.

He argued further that paragraph two of the practice direction stated that nothing in the Federal High Court shall prevent the hearing of a pre-election matter to judgment.

He submitted that the position of the law, as settled by the Supreme Court is that where time is of the essence in a case before the court, there shall be no stay of proceedings pending appeal.

‘What the defendants are asking the court to do is to go against the directive of the Court of Appeal, which has not been set aside. I urged the court to decline such an invitation.’

The APC, in the suit marked FHC/B/CS/74/2020, prayed the court for an order disqualifying Obaseki from contesting the September 19 governorship election in Edo State on the grounds that he supplied false information on oath to INEC, an act said to be contrary to Section 31(5) and (6) of the Electoral Act, 2010.

The party accused the governor of forging his university certificate presented to INEC in aid of his qualification for the governorship election in Edo State.

The APC also claimed that there are discrepancies in the subject Obaseki claimed he passed in his West African Examinations Council (WAEC) exam.

The governor won the September 19 governorship election in Edo to secure a second term in office.

Simeonjoe1:
Can someone post how much they get paid

fergie001:
Congrats, Professor Maduebibisi Ofo Iwe

fergie001:

What the Court of Appeal says today will tell the direction of the Court.

senatordave1:


Yes but its not unusual.I still wonder why apc cannot make inroads into owerri zone esp mbaise.rochas did well in owerri and mbaike and ngor okpala but failed in mbaise.apc has started failing in mbaike considering that the deputy is from ikeduru and madumere is from mbaitoli @ kahal

fergie001:

Cancelled why?
Over-voting, Violence...which?

fergie001:

I was even surprised seeing the results. (5k difference)

And you had Ararume and Ibezim together o.

And I gathered they cancelled some PUs in Obowo. That is why I wanted to ask Kahal29, how big Obowo is?

APC's strongest zone is still Imo West by far.

I think Imo North's closeness to Abia & Imo East , is the reason.

senatordave1:


That difference of 5k is disturbing.from the results you posted,apc were winning at the units massively even in obowo.pdp did not win any and yet they difference is just 5.
In other words,it goes to prove what I told kahal that apc are not too strong in okigwe zone.in 2016 senate rerun,late uwajumogu won athan narrowly.even last year,he actually lost but the courts declared him controversially.funny enough,apc won the two reps seats with a bigger margin.rochas cannot win orlu with nothing less than 10,000.compare okigwe to cross river north margin and you will see that apc does not really rig like pdp.it means bayelsa is very open.
Where is obuksbayelsa

senatordave1:


Who controls ihitte uboma?
I disagree with you that okigwe is where apc is strongest,it is orlu where apc is strongest.orlu usually gives apc votes more than the other two.ideato north and south gives almost the same as okigwe did for apc.apc biggest margins is from here.uche nwosu and uzodinma got their highest votes here.rochas won easily here compared to late benji

senatordave1:


Isiala mbano is araraume stronghold so am not surprised

fergie001:

So, na Governors dey control every now

fergie001:
kahal29.....Imo North oooo.....Give us Results o

senatordave1:
Where is kahal

fergie001:
There are two judges I fear;

Inyang Ekwo and Sirajo. If they give a judgement against you...You need prayers o.

Ekwo gave the first judgement against Degi & Uche Nwosu...and they stood throughout to the SC.

Ibezim suppose dey panic now.