oyatz:


Obidients like you create a scenerio in your minds and start to propagate it at the Gospel.


Where and when was Chicago State University 'survived a court order to produce CTC of Tinubu's certificate'?


Which court order? Nigerian court order to US University


Are you for real? Do you even sit down to think deeply about your warped falsehoods before coming here to propagate these silly and unintelligent lies?

You people only listen to the Petitioners and jumped into your biased conclusions but the Tribunal will listen to the Respondents when they open their defense before delivering Judgement

So what made them provide the CTC of Tinubu’s documents, including the attestation letter from the College s/he graduated from which acknowledged that s/he is female?

fergie001:

When the word "at least" is used, this means that anything above that is acceptable. No Court will ask Tinubu to provide Primary and Secondary Schools unless it is proven he forged papers of schools that are non-existent or which has been confirmed to be untrue.

For the female part, we have seen the pictures of the alumni, haven't we?

We have seen Tinubu in the pictures in their alumni workbook and that person is not female.

You have not followed the recent Supreme Court decision in Musa Muhammad Adamu V. Hon. Nasiru Garba Dantiye & Ors (2020)

Contentious Names
Mohammed Musa Adam
Musa Muhammad Adamu

Hear the SC:
“The names in dispute, Muhammed Musa Adam, Muhammed Musa Adamu and Muhad Musa Adamu appear similar and by the arguments of learned senior counsel Maikyau, SAN for the 2nd Defendant, there could be some disparity in the writing of the names premised on some accepted norms, errors or misnomer. Since this matter revolves around the WAEC results and alleged false information, the only way the facts in issue can be resolved is by evidence from WAEC to the effect that the 2nd Defendant is not the owner of the result in dispute and that the result and certificates did not emanate from WAEC to the 2nd Defendant in person. The Plaintiff in proving his case failed to write to or visit the West African Examination Council to ascertain the true state of things but relied on mere assumptions and speculations. The Plaintiff has the burden to establish by credible and cogent evidence that the result does not belong to the 2nd Defendant. The burden of proof…. rest squarely on the Plaintiff who is alleging false representation… It is the duty of the Court to consider and act only on credible evidence and not on speculations or unfounded assumptions”.



and Francis Chukwuma Ibezim v Asomugha Elebeke (2021)
WAEC: Frank Chukwuma Ibezim
Voters Card: Ibezim Francis Chukwuma

Hear the SC:

The trial Court referred to different arrangements in the sequence of the three names Ibezim, Francis Chukwuma in the different documents and the use of the names Ibezim Chukwuma Frank in one of the documents and found that the Appellant portrays himself by different names. It is worthy of note that the 1st Respondent did not allege or prove that any of the variants of Ibezim Francis Chukwuma as variously stated in the documents submitted to the 3rd Respondent is false or that the Appellant differentially stated those names for a fraudulent purpose or that each belonged to another person.
The trial Court did not find that the names were false or belong to different persons or were stated differently to falsify any document or commit fraud. It merely found that Appellant portrayed himself by different names. Yet if found that the Appellant made false statements in the document bearing Ibezim Chukwuma Frank, Ibezim Francis Chukwuma and those in which the three full names were differently arranged.

In the absence of any evidence that the differently arranged names or the shortened one Ibezim Chukwuma Frank are false or do not belong to the Appellant and belong to other person, the finding is perverse. It is perverse to find that there are false statements in a document and that the documents bearing them are false. It is speculative, perverse and unreasonable to simply infer from the fact that the names which have not been disputed to belong to the Appellant are differently arranged or stated in each of the documents submitted to the 3rd Respondent, are false.


Edevbie v Oborevwori...
Oborevwori had about 4 names and the SC affirmed him.

The two precedents you just provided have one thing in common - same set of names but arranged differently. “Musa Adamu Muhammed” were consistently appearing in the variations, same as “Frank (Francis) Chukwuma Ibezim” was consistent (everyone knows, worldwide, that people who bear Francis are sometimes called Frank, fondly).

But not so with Tinubu. “Ahmed” replaced “Adekunle” without any supporting affidavit of change of name. Do you really think that this is same, in facts and spirit, with the two cases you cited above?

Again Tinubu submitted NYSC Exemption Certificate that is date 1983 while NYSC started issuing Exemptions in 1985 and by so doing lied under oath. That’s not talking about the fact that the NYSC certificate is for a female. If you argue that NYSC is not a constitutional provision for the office of president, then what about lying under oath.

Again, in the absence of a primary and secondary school certificate, what prove does Tinubu have to show that he has been educated beyond secondary school level other than his degree?

And if his degree is his only proof, can he present only the degree certificate without NYSC certificate? If yes, why did he present NYSC certificate then? And if no, then can he be excused for presenting fraudulent NYSC certificate?

fergie001:

When the word "at least" is used, this means that anything above that is acceptable. No Court will ask Tinubu to provide Primary and Secondary Schools unless it is proven he forged papers of schools that are non-existent or which has been confirmed to be untrue.

For the female part, we have seen the pictures of the alumni, haven't we?

We have seen Tinubu in the pictures in their alumni workbook and that person is not female.

You have not followed the recent Supreme Court decision in Musa Muhammad Adamu V. Hon. Nasiru Garba Dantiye & Ors (2020)

Contentious Names
Mohammed Musa Adam
Musa Muhammad Adamu

Hear the SC:
“The names in dispute, Muhammed Musa Adam, Muhammed Musa Adamu and Muhad Musa Adamu appear similar and by the arguments of learned senior counsel Maikyau, SAN for the 2nd Defendant, there could be some disparity in the writing of the names premised on some accepted norms, errors or misnomer. Since this matter revolves around the WAEC results and alleged false information, the only way the facts in issue can be resolved is by evidence from WAEC to the effect that the 2nd Defendant is not the owner of the result in dispute and that the result and certificates did not emanate from WAEC to the 2nd Defendant in person. The Plaintiff in proving his case failed to write to or visit the West African Examination Council to ascertain the true state of things but relied on mere assumptions and speculations. The Plaintiff has the burden to establish by credible and cogent evidence that the result does not belong to the 2nd Defendant. The burden of proof…. rest squarely on the Plaintiff who is alleging false representation… It is the duty of the Court to consider and act only on credible evidence and not on speculations or unfounded assumptions”.



and Francis Chukwuma Ibezim v Asomugha Elebeke (2021)
WAEC: Frank Chukwuma Ibezim
Voters Card: Ibezim Francis Chukwuma

Hear the SC:

The trial Court referred to different arrangements in the sequence of the three names Ibezim, Francis Chukwuma in the different documents and the use of the names Ibezim Chukwuma Frank in one of the documents and found that the Appellant portrays himself by different names. It is worthy of note that the 1st Respondent did not allege or prove that any of the variants of Ibezim Francis Chukwuma as variously stated in the documents submitted to the 3rd Respondent is false or that the Appellant differentially stated those names for a fraudulent purpose or that each belonged to another person.
The trial Court did not find that the names were false or belong to different persons or were stated differently to falsify any document or commit fraud. It merely found that Appellant portrayed himself by different names. Yet if found that the Appellant made false statements in the document bearing Ibezim Chukwuma Frank, Ibezim Francis Chukwuma and those in which the three full names were differently arranged.

In the absence of any evidence that the differently arranged names or the shortened one Ibezim Chukwuma Frank are false or do not belong to the Appellant and belong to other person, the finding is perverse. It is perverse to find that there are false statements in a document and that the documents bearing them are false. It is speculative, perverse and unreasonable to simply infer from the fact that the names which have not been disputed to belong to the Appellant are differently arranged or stated in each of the documents submitted to the 3rd Respondent, are false.


Edevbie v Oborevwori...
Oborevwori had about 4 names and the SC affirmed him.

The issue with those naysayers is that they don't read widely on legal matters.i used to fault the apex court rulings until I started reading them and found valid points to agree with them.

Penguin2:


The two precedents you just provided have one thing in common - same set of names but arranged differently. “Musa Adamu Muhammed” were consistently appearing in the variations, same as “Frank (Francis) Chukwuma Ibezim” was consistent (everyone knows, worldwide, that people who bear Francis are sometimes called Frank, fondly).

But not so with Tinubu. “Ahmed” replaced “Adekunle” without any supporting affidavit of change of name. Do you really think that this is same, in facts and spirit, with the two cases you cited above?

Again Tinubu submitted NYSC Exemption Certificate that is date 1983 while NYSC started issuing Exemptions in 1985 and by so doing lied under oath. That’s not talking about the fact that the NYSC certificate is for a female. If you argue that NYSC is not a constitutional provision for the office of president, then what about lying under oath.

Again, in the absence of a primary and secondary school certificate, what prove does Tinubu have to show that he has been educated beyond secondary school level other than his degree?

And if his degree is his only proof, can he present only the degree certificate without NYSC certificate? If yes, why did he present NYSC certificate then? And if no, then can he be excused for presenting fraudulent NYSC certificate?

Is Adam and adamu the same thing? it is even worse being the surname.adekunle is his middle name.can you prove that adekunle is not his name? Can't you see that he dropped the adekunle for Ahmed due to his Islamic religion? Buhari usually uses two names,if he now introduces his third name,is it your business?

I've begged you severally to try and read about court judgments and update yourself and avoid all these nonsensical arguments.the apex court has clearly stated that the best way to prove forgery is from the issuing institution not mere speculations.the apex court has once ruled that nysc is not a constitutional requirement

garfield1:


Is Adam and adamu the same thing? it is even worse being the surname.adekunle is his middle name.can you prove that adekunle is not his name? Can't you see that he dropped the adekunle for Ahmed due to his Islamic religion? Buhari usually uses two names,if he now introduces his third name,is it your business?

I've begged you severally to try and read about court judgments and update yourself and avoid all these nonsensical arguments.the apex court has clearly stated that the best way to prove forgery is from the issuing institution not mere speculations. the apex court has once ruled that nysc is not a constitutional requirement

If you are right that the apex court has ruled before that NYSC is not a constitutional requirement, then why did Tinubu submit one?

Penguin2:


If you are right that the apex court has ruled before that NYSC is not a constitutional requirement, then why did Tinubu submit one?

Go and ask him.you saw how nysc has dealt with mbah,atiku should have done same.even if tinubu forged nysc,they cannot testify against him just like waec covered for buhari in 2019.it is all media noise and sensationalism.tinubu might have forged his records along the line probably in his primary or secondary level. but he has covered his tracks well legally.the opposition has nothing on him..

garfield1:
Notwithstanding the headline,this is surely how the court will rule.this is based on what the petitioners tendered in court.ill write the final analysis once the defence close their case.just as the court combined or consolidated atiku and obi petitions,I'll attempt to do so.the petition is hinged on five grounds namely;
1) that obi and atiku won the elections and that their votes were suppressed.

2) that there was massive violation of inec guidelines necessitating in irregularities which calls for outright cancellations and a rerun.

3) that tinubu should be disqualified based on a conviction or punishment by u.s court

4) that shettima is guilty of double nomination

5) that 25% requirement in FCT is mandatory
6) that tinubu is not qualified by being a citizen of guinea and he is also guilty of perjury and inconsistencies in his educational qualifications

Ground one: Peter obi has not proven that he won the election and has not brought any proof to that effect.all his evidences points to the fact that tinubu won and that there was irregularities.even the mathematician prof ofoedu's analysis showed the only difference in the overall results was in benue,rivers and 18,000 units that were blurred.no evidence points to peter winning.it is safe to say that obi has abandoned this prayer and wants fresh polls.
For atiku,most of his evidences points to irregularities.a watery report akin to the 2019 server debacle focusing on 26 states tendered by Sam oduntan showed he won but did not give details as to how and was based only on irev data.atiku is focusing on disqualifying tinubu and declaring himself winner or a rerun.

Ground 2:it is settled law that one will not only prove irregularities but do so substantially and show how it affected the overall results.lp lawyers claim inec promised electronic transmission but has failed to prove that inec failed to transmit electronically.the only called one witness to that effect who claimed that elections was free abd fair.atiku called five adhoc staffs who also testified to that effect.this unfortunately only affects the polling units they worked as evidence in election cases are restricted to each units.inec can easily call 10 staffs who will testify that results were sucessfully transmitted.in any case,the electoral act plus a fhc judgment gives inec the leeway to transmit anyhow.inotger words,both manual and electronic transmission are allowed.those witnesses that said they couldn't transmit didn't blame inec but the bvas and eventually sent the results to the collation units.the purpose of electronic transmission by virtue of section 60-65 of the EA2022 is to aid collation.no collation officer was called to testify.again,the law says the collation officer will compare the hardcopy with the transmitted results.the transmitted result that was uploaded is still on the bvas in image form so the collation staff can easily look at the bvas image and form ec8a.
Lp also called an amazon staff to show that there was no glitch.apart from the fact that she is partisan and on her own frolic without AWS permit,she confirmed that they could be localized glitch within inec.even if there was a glitch,it does not prove anything.the adeleke vs oyetola supra case placed reliance on physical evidence and tagged online evidences as thirdhand and unreliable.
The only somewhat concrete evidence of irregularities obi provided was from 18000 units of blurred results which was based only on irev which are secondary results.lp lawyers should have verified with primary hardcopies.if they could he a victory,it will be here as 9 mil voters are domiciled here and 2.5 mil voters came out during the last polls.in another rerun,fewer will come out.outside this,no substantial infraction has been proven.notjing compelling has been tendered.see okereke vs umahi 2015 supra.obi petition is full of mere allegations and averments and these are not evidence.see uzodinma vs pdp supra 2020.most of the evidences tendered were not pleaded.see the above case laws...
To further destroy obi's case,the apex court has severally stated that guidelines cannot be a ground for election petition.see wike vs dakuku, okereke vs supra,pdp vs yari...

Ground four: no arguments has been canvassed on the fct matter so it can be seemed abandoned.but if not,a community reading of section 28,section 42 and 299 of the constitution has placed fct as a state.the body language,orbiter dictum,innuendoes of the court has shown where they will stand.again,the principle of legal ambiguity presupposes that where an ambiguity in law exists,the jurists will choose the most sensible, meaningful option for the lawmakers are not confusuonists or intent to create chaos.
In reality,fct is less than a state and cannot all of a sudden be elevated above a state without bringing equality first.moreover,other similar democracies do not practice such absurd voting system...

Ground three: section 182 d and e clearly says within a period of 10 years,he has been imprisoned or convicted by any court in nigeria.tinubu forfeiture wasn't a conviction and even if,10 years has elapsed and the judgment wasn't registered in Nigeria

Ground four; the shettima issue has been buried by the supreme court.they clearly stated that it was a pre election matter and internal to a party and that it can only extend beyond if he was nominated by 2 parties.sectiin 84 of the electoral act clearly makes nomination a pre election matter and only aspirants have locus standi.double nomination is not a constitutional matter and only constitutional matters pertaining to qualifications can be raised at a tribunal.again,the apex court found out that shettima was never guilty of double nomination and lp has no new evidence necessitating a review.

6) concerning perjury,the inec form has two questions on nationality.whether one has ever changed nationality? This is a no for tinubu.secondly,whether tinubu has ever voluntarily acquired citizenship elsewhere.this is a no because he never sought for guinean citizenship,he was only conferred and given a diplomatic passport to that effect.
On the so-called evidences supplies by atiku witness,the witness a lawyer rubbished most of them.the Female gender was recorded in his transcript and he never submitted transcript to inec as it's not a constitutional requirement.adekunle has been in his name and the apex court has severally ruled on name variations.the age differences is of no effect as the apex court noted that as far as a candidate is up to 40 years,he is good to go.see AGI vs ayade supra..



Mynd44
Lalasticlala
Nplfmod
Vicdom
Helinues
Calmobserver
Kyase
Afamed
Yarimo
Donphilopus
Famology
Seanfer
Muykem
Aiel123
Ogodigbodigbo

Atiku did not prove he won the election, they went to court to lament, instead.

For the other big empty head olodo, he was there for entertainment

duro4chang:
I disagree. There is no way they will cross check about 176,000 pictures before they will announce. Remember that the IREVs results are in picture forms not in text or data form. If the results from the polling units given to the INEC office are not blurred and the ones with the party agents are not blurred and they correspond I think there is no issue. If INEC had to sit down and download all the results on the IREVs before they will announce, it will take not less than two weeks. Because you have to download and still write down the figures andvthen compute. I tried it for my own local government and got fed up.
In fact,IREVs is not for the INEC to crosss check but it's for the people to view . The results sent to the INEC from various polling units is what will be used to announce.

The error in your response is that you think INEC is only the national collation centre. But INEC collation starts from the ward centres. From there it graduates to the national.

Now if any party agents objects to the process, the right thing for the collation officer at that level to do is to call for a review where the results are matched with the IREV. Please refer to the electoral act below.

Spy360:

The error in your response is that you think INEC is only the national collation centre. But INEC collation starts from the ward centres. From there it graduates to the national.

Now if any party agents objects to the process, the right thing for the collation officer at that level to do is to call for a review where the results are matched with the IREV. Please refer to the electoral act below.

That is what happened at the various collation centres.complsints in results were resolved there but pdp and lp foolishly took their complaints to the national level.so far,they haven't brought proofs of unresolved complaints at collation centres

you guys just keep giving these corn eaters red hot heating.....chai

garfield1:


Go and ask him.you saw how nysc has dealt with mbah,atiku should have done same.even if tinubu forged nysc,they cannot testify against him just like waec covered for buhari in 2019.it is all media noise and sensationalism.tinubu might have forged his records along the line probably in his primary or secondary level. but he has covered his tracks well legally.the opposition has nothing on him..

Okay.

So essentially, you are not hoping on Tinubu winning the case on its legal merit but by brute force, distortion of established precedents and laid down laws of the land.

I can’t fault you for having such mentality though. Did INEC not do the same thing?

garfield1:


That is what happened at the various collation centres.complsints in results were resolved there but pdp and lp foolishly took their complaints to the national level.so far,they haven't brought proofs of unresolved complaints at collation centres

Simple question, did the form EC8A results show evidence of manipulation?

Yes?

No?

Penguin2:

Okay.

So essentially, you are not hoping on Tinubu winning the case on its legal merit but by brute force, distortion of established precedents and laid down laws of the land.

I can’t fault you for having such mentality though. Did INEC not do the same thing?

That's just it. They know that Tinubu is a fraud but are relying on the weakness of the judiciary to win the case.

But when the evidence are enormous, even the judiciary can not twist it.

Tomorrow INEC will begin their defense, we will all be here to see how they will defend fraud.

Spy360:

Simple question, did the form EC8A results show evidence of manipulation?

Yes?

No?

No.

Penguin2:

Okay.

So essentially, you are not hoping on Tinubu winning the case on its legal merit but by brute force, distortion of established precedents and laid down laws of the land.

I can’t fault you for having such mentality though. Did INEC not do the same thing?

Where did I mention brute force? By atiku not calling on nysc,the nysc cert is deemed genuine.you just saw the cases Fergie cited,you are still arguing.what exactly is your problem?

garfield1:


No.

So Tinubu won Rivers state?

Yes?

No?

Spy360:

That's just it. They know that Tinubu is a fraud but are relying on the weakness of the judiciary to win the case.

But when the evidence are enormous, even the judiciary can not twist it.

Tomorrow INEC will begin their defense, we will all be here to see how they will defend fraud.

Even if tinubu is a fraud,pdp and lp haven't proven so.inec does not need to defend anything.worst case is for them to bring original copies of the 18000 so called blurred results

Spy360:

So Tinubu won Rivers state?

Yes?

No?

Based on irev not the hardcopies

Millimann:
Punctuations = 0

Capitalization = 0

Word spacing = 0

Is that why you came to read this article you pained English Teacher?

Spy360:

So Tinubu won Rivers state?

Yes?

No?

Yes.

garfield1:


Even if tinubu is a fraud,pdp and lp haven't proven so.inec does not need to defend anything.worst case is for them to bring original copies of the 18000 so called blurred results

You have not been following. The original results sheets certified by INEC have already been submitted by LP as evidence in court. The blurred results are just a proof that INEC manipulated the final outcome in favour of APC and hid the results in blurred pictures.

Why do you think INEC refused to issue CTCs of Rivers and Abuja?

garfield1:


Based on irev not the hardcopies

yes or no

sapele914:
Yes.

Is that what is on IREV?

Yes?

No?

Spy360:

You have not been following. The original results sheets certified by INEC have already been submitted by LP as evidence in court. The blurred results are just a proof that INEC manipulated the final outcome in favour of APC and hid the results in blurred pictures.

Why do you think INEC refused to issue CTCs of Rivers and Abuja?

Lp only tendered result sheets without linking,demonstrating or leading evidence on them.it is called dumping.blurred results means nothing until you verify with other copies

Spy360:

You have not been following. The original results sheets certified by INEC have already been submitted by LP as evidence in court. The blurred results are just a proof that INEC manipulated the final outcome in favour of APC and hid the results in blurred pictures.

Why do you think INEC refused to issue CTCs of Rivers and Abuja?

Still deceiving yourself from your modernized hut in that your remote hamlet?

Spy360:

yes or no

The most important evidence is the hardcopy.irev is secondary.court will go with hardcopy except there's no hard copy.obi has not proven anything

Spy360:

Is that what is on IREV?

Yes?

No?

Go & ask INEC, since you have appointed yourself as an accredited Obidient electoral observer.

Spy360:

Is that what is on IREV?

Yes?

No?

What is on the hardcopy is more important

sapele914:
Go & ask INEC, since you have appointed yourself as an accredited Obidient electoral observer.

I see how you dodged the bullet. When stupid people say 'go and ask so and so' or ' go to court' you know they are hiding something.

They mumu yourself until sense fall on top that your small head like big rock.

garfield1:


What is on the hardcopy is more important

What is on the hard copy SHOULD be what's on IREV. Normally.

Yes?

No?

garfield1:


The most important evidence is the hardcopy.irev is secondary.court will go with hardcopy except there's no hard copy.obi has not proven anything

Agreed.

What's the purpose of IREV?

Spy360:

Agreed.

What's the purpose of IREV?

It is the online result copy and second most important one