Spy360:

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

Yes?

No?

Yes but what is on the first result sheet is more preferable.

Spy360:

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.

Empty Barrel, what bullet? Please go and ask Eye Neck you Confused Obidient, since you irrelevant Nairalander, wants to choose & pick what you want to believe from your electoral body.

garfield1:


Yes but what is on the first result sheet is more preferable.

I put it to you that the reason why the hard copy is not the same as IREV is because they have been mutilated. If not explain why?

sapele914:
Go and ask Eye Neck you Confused Obidient, since you irrelevant Nairalander, wants to choose & pick what you want to believe from your electoral body.

You obviously don't trust INEC. A thief cannot trust a thief. I wish someone will slap this foolishness out of your stupid head.

Spy360:

I put it to you that the reason why the hard copy is not the same as IREV is because they have been mutilated. If not explain why?

Gerrout of here inconsequential Empty Barrel, before elections you were running your Basketmouth upandan, who do you think has your time today, to listen to you perennial Loser?

sapele914:
Gerrout of here inconsequential Empty Barrel, before elections you were running your Basketmouth upandan, who do you think has your time today, to listen to you perennial Loser?

Lol.

You are angry because your stupidity has been exposed. Hit your head on the wall. Do it now you slowpoke.

Spy360:

I put it to you that the reason why the hard copy is not the same as IREV is because they have been mutilated. If not explain why?

It is in your place to prove the mutilations not me.

Spy360:

You obviously don't trust INEC. A thief cannot trust a thief. I wish someone will slap this foolishness out of your stupid head.

I blame the mumus whose misconstrued thinking, imagined Eye Neck to give them free & fair elections in the country of the fantastically corrupt.

Let Peter Gringory Obi & his army of oblivious Obidients be waiting for Elijah.

Let’s just admit that you have been used & dumped again by the system.

Spy360:

Lol.

You are angry because your stupidity has been exposed. Hit your head on the wall. Do it now you slowpoke.

Cannot be as bad as Peter Obi’s stupidity, Just imagine Gringory was fooled & used by APC, Apga Judas/Pdp runaway, wants to be president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria? Joker indeed.

Why exchange words with a Loser like yourself, cry from now till Jericho, Obi will never enter Aso Rock in your lifetime.

sapele914:
I blame the mumus whose misconstrued thinking, imagined Eye Neck to give them free & fair elections in the country of the fantastically corrupt.

Let Peter Gringory Obi & his army of oblivious Obidients be waiting for Elijah.

Let’s just admit that you have been used & dumped again by the system.

Having confirmed that INEC is corrupt and Tinubu is a beneficiary, you have accepted that you are the foool here and the self delusional one.

You are stupid, take that to the bank.

Spy360:

Having confirmed that INEC is corrupt and Tinubu is a beneficiary, you have accepted that you are the foool here and the self delusional one.

You are stupid, take that to the bank.

Isn’t your father like them (Corrupt INEC & Tinubu), or are you not Nigerian? Incoherent Peasant.

sapele914:
Cannot be as bad as Peter Obi’s stupidity, Just imagine Gringory was fooled & used by APC, Apga Judas/Pdp runaway, wants to be president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria? Joker indeed.

Why exchange words with a Loser like yourself, cry from now till Jericho, Obi will never enter Aso Rock in your lifetime.

There's a better possibility that Tinubu the drug baron would be disgraced out of office. What a way of karma f*cking shit out of a criminal.

And the foolishness of idiotic imbeciles like you will be exposed.

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

Lamentations and delusions of another mumu agbadorian.

garfield1:


It is in your place to prove the mutilations not me.

Ok. So we wait for the judges.

Spy3[b]60:

There's a better possibility that Tinubu the drug baron would be disgraced out of office. What a way of karma f*cking shit out of a criminal.

And the foolishness of idiotic imbeciles like you will be exposed.

Whoever is giving you info there in Phnom Penh, is giving you false intel.

sapele914:
Isn’t your father like them, or are you not Nigerian? Incoherent Peasant.

I don't expect less stupidity from the bastard child of a wayward prostitute. Your papa behaved like INEC, fck and clean mouth, that is why you have no papa.

sapele914:
Whoever is giving you info there in Cambodia, is giving you false intel.

You are going to trek to work tomorrow. Probably it's suffer that is making you reason like a mad man. That your big empty head cannot hold 1bit of sense.

Spy360:

I don't expect less stupidity from the bastard child of a wayward prostitute. Your papa behaved like INEC, fck and clean mouth, that is why you have no papa.

Keep wailing oblivious Obidient, Eye Neck done teach una strong thing, as e they pain you, e dey sweet us.

sapele914:
Keep wailing oblivious Obidient, Eye Neck done teach una strong thing, as e they pain you, e dey sweet us.

Suffering and smiling.

Spy360:

You are going to trek to work tomorrow. Probably it's suffer that is making you reason like a mad man. That your big empty head cannot hold 1bit of sense.

Frustration well expressed in your post?, won’t blame you, we blame the person(s) that deceived Apga Judas Peter Gringory Obi to runaway from Pdp to contest for President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Confused Clown chasing an illusion to be pursued, but never attained.

Spy360:

Suffering and smiling.

Yet na picture of the laughing clowns Datti & Obi you used to illustrate your imagination?

Sorry for you oblivious spy360.

sapele914:
Yet na picture of the laughing clowns Datti & Obi you used to illustrate your imagination?

Sorry for you oblivious spy360.

That's your head laughing at you stupid slowpoke

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).

I also think Bola Tinubu was consistent. A was consistent as well...

Adekunle has always been his name, that he infuses it with Ahmed and so on to sack him for forgery will need the burden of proof. Evidence is too weak.

In the case of Edevbie v Oborevwori
FSLC - Oborevwori Francis
WAEC - Oborevwori O. Francis
BSc - Oborevwori Sheriff Francis
NYSC - Oborevwori Sheriff F
MSc - Oborevwori Francis Sheriff Orohwedor

The SC dismissed the appeal because there were no witnesses from the makers of the documents.

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?

In the case of Ibezim, he lost both at the High Court and the Appeal Court. The Judges opined that Francis and Frank might be two different people and he had no right to change his name without an affidavit.

However, the Supreme Court stated clearly that it has departed from PDP v Degi-Eremienyo and that it is not to be cited anymore. Again, the SC comprehended that since the WAEC certificates were in question, the best thing was for the Appellants to have written to WAEC to get the true position.

If you say Bola Tinubu is female, when the respondents start their job, and they call CSU to testify and they tender the alumni booklet, what it does is to straightaway puncture every ounce of evidence the petitioners have tendered.

This for me is speculations, in criminal-related cases, the evidence must be fool-proof.

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?

The 1999 CFRN didn't ask all these questions... Let me reproduce:-
S131(d): A person shall be qualified for election to the office of the President if he has been educated up to at least School Certificate level or its equivalent.

The Constitution went on to define what School Certificate is in S318(1):
(a) a Secondary School Certificate or its equivalent, or Grade II Teacher’s Certificate, the City and Guilds Certificate; or

(b) education up to Secondary School Certificate level; or

OR used here is disjunctive and not conjunctive.

You said it yourself that CSU has confirmed he graduated there.

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.

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?

I have been seeing everywhere that he submitted an exemption letter, I don't seem to understand. What he submitted to INEC is ATTACHED below. I am not seeing any exemption there... It shows he supposedly served from 1982 to 1983. I cannot tell where the exemption letter is.

Anyways, we are talking about serious crimes of forgery and/or perjury here;

Lying under oath i.e. Perjury is a criminal offence and must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The consistent holding of the Supreme Court is that documents of this nature that tends to ascertain criminality should be tendered by their makers.

In Okezie Victor Ikpeazu v Alex Chioma Otti:
Hear the SC:
It is settled law that a party who did not make a document is not competent to give evidence to it. The maker must be called to testify the document's veracity and credibility.

Again, in Udom Emmanuel v Okon Umana:
Hear the SC:
..any document tendered from the bar without calling the maker thereof or a witness who has knowledge of the document and will have the opportunity to be cross-examined, attracts no probative value [/i]

It is trite law that what the petitioners are asking for are declaratory reliefs and hence must guide the Court with credible evidence and not assumptions. The petitioners must succeed on their case with and not rely on the weaknesses of the respondents (if any).

You say he allegedly submitted a forged exemption certificate and the maker of the document (NYSC) was not called upon. This lays flat that aspect....

Spy360:

That's your head laughing at you stupid slowpoke

Just look 👀 @ those joking clowns?
My goodness gracious.

Spy360:

That's your head laughing at you stupid slowpoke

Laughing @ me ke? Or they are laughing @ their mumu Obidients like Yourself, that thought these, & us Pdp/LP clowns of political coup plotters stood any chance whatsoever?

With the recent revelations from CSU.... we can comfortably assumed Asiwaju used another person identity at CSU.....so if he present a school cert, it will conflict with what CSU has in the entry requirement he presented.

Wait until The States Department are forced by court order to release a CTC of what information they have about Bola Adekunle Tinubu.... you'd shock who the lady is, and maybe, just maybe a murder investigation would be opened.

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?

Bigkoko:
With the recent revelations from CSU.... we can comfortably assumed Asiwaju used another person identity at CSU.....so if he present a school cert, it will conflict with what CSU has in the entry requirement he presented.

Wait until The States Department are forced by court order to release a CTC of what information they have about Bola Adekunle Tinubu.... you'd shock who the lady is, and maybe, just maybe a murder investigation would be opened.

He used another person’s result, Yet on his return home, Mobil oil Nigeria, an American conglomerate made him their Treasury?

Some of you Obidients just show how naive, myopic & shallow minded you really are, no wonder it was that easy for the Apga Judas/Pdp runaway to deceive you lot.

Tufiakpa.

Spy360:

Ok. So we wait for the judges.

Yes but bear in mind that it's lost

Bigkoko:
With the recent revelations from CSU.... we can comfortably assumed Asiwaju used another person identity at CSU.....so if he present a school cert, it will conflict with what CSU has in the entry requirement he presented.

Wait until The States Department are forced by court order to release a CTC of what information they have about Bola Adekunle Tinubu.... you'd shock who the lady is, and maybe, just maybe a murder investigation would be opened.

Lol!

As long as Tinubu remains president, I doubt the State Department can do anything of such sha. But the there’s enough evidence that is enough to disqualify Tinubu.

We are waiting and looking at the judiciary.

fergie001:

I also think Bola Tinubu was consistent. A was consistent as well...

Adekunle has always been his name, that he infuses it with Ahmed and so on to sack him for forgery will need the burden of proof. Evidence is too weak.

In the case of Edevbie v Oborevwori
FSLC - Oborevwori Francis
WAEC - Oborevwori O. Francis
BSc - Oborevwori Sheriff Francis
NYSC - Oborevwori Sheriff F
MSc - Oborevwori Francis Sheriff Orohwedor

The SC dismissed the appeal because there were no witnesses from the makers of the documents.


In the case of Ibezim, he lost both at the High Court and the Appeal Court. The Judges opined that Francis and Frank might be two different people and he had no right to change his name without an affidavit.

However, the Supreme Court stated clearly that it has departed from PDP v Degi-Eremienyo and that it is not to be cited anymore. Again, the SC comprehended that since the WAEC certificates were in question, the best thing was for the Appellants to have written to WAEC to get the true position.

If you say Bola Tinubu is female, when the respondents start their job, and they call CSU to testify and they tender the alumni booklet, what it does is to straightaway puncture every ounce of evidence the petitioners have tendered.

This for me is speculations, in criminal-related cases, the evidence must be fool-proof.

The 1999 CFRN didn't ask all these questions... Let me reproduce:-
S131(d): A person shall be qualified for election to the office of the President if he has been educated up to at least School Certificate level or its equivalent.

The Constitution went on to define what School Certificate is in S318(1):
(a) a Secondary School Certificate or its equivalent, or Grade II Teacher’s Certificate, the City and Guilds Certificate; or

(b) education up to Secondary School Certificate level; or

OR used here is disjunctive and not conjunctive.

You said it yourself that CSU has confirmed he graduated there.

I have been seeing everywhere that he submitted an exemption letter, I don't seem to understand. What he submitted to INEC is ATTACHED below. I am not seeing any exemption there... It shows he supposedly served from 1982 to 1983. I cannot tell where the exemption letter is.

Anyways, we are talking about serious crimes of forgery and/or perjury here;

Lying under oath i.e. Perjury is a criminal offence and must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The consistent holding of the Supreme Court is that documents of this nature that tends to ascertain criminality should be tendered by their makers.

In Okezie Victor Ikpeazu v Alex Chioma Otti:
Hear the SC:
It is settled law that a party who did not make a document is not competent to give evidence to it. The maker must be called to testify the document's veracity and credibility.

Again, in Udom Emmanuel v Okon Umana:
Hear the SC:
..any document tendered from the bar without calling the maker thereof or a witness who has knowledge of the document and will have the opportunity to be cross-examined, attracts no probative value [/i]

It is trite law that what the petitioners are asking for are declaratory reliefs and hence must guide the Court with credible evidence and not assumptions. The petitioners must succeed on their case with and not rely on the weaknesses of the respondents (if any).

You say he allegedly submitted a forged exemption certificate and the maker of the document (NYSC) was not called upon. This lays flat that aspect....

Let’s wait for the courts to rule and exonerate Tinubu like you have said.

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

Your submission is fair, but is the transcript not a rex gestae on the Chicago' certificate?

Munamu:




Your submission is fair, but is the transcript not a rex gestae on the Chicago' certificate?

Rex gestae principle is obsolete and cannot count as tinubu never submitted it.