garfield1:


Pdp is a foolish party.they are so idle that they clutch on to the most foolish and irrelevant issues

Kukutente23:

Why will he file appeal at midnight?
Is he a thief?

aQUINandmore:
Not nice at all

garfield1:


Is it illegal or outside the 14 days allowed?

garfield1:
PDP have nothing to say as usual

Kukutente23:

Why will he file appeal at midnight?
Is he a thief?

fergie001:
PDP cross-appealed.
APC & INEC made a fundamental error at the tribunal so all their pleadings and evidence were expunged at the tribunal.

They didn't appeal.

Kukutente23:

It is suspicious and reeks of mischief
Do courts even work at night?

garfield1:


Yes in an election matter.

Kukutente23:

Lol. Apc and wayo

garfield1:


I don't understand you...pdp are cross appealing the minority judgement which is expected.. the majority judgment expunged apc evidence based on oshoma vs njokamma 199(8

garfield1:


No wayo here.apc had until midnight of the 14 days to file appeal.by the way,legal wayo is allowed

fergie001:

That is not the reason it was expunged.
APC & INEC made a fundamental error.

They were in breach of Paragraph 15 of the First Schedule of the EA 2022.

Again, they made a fatal error in the name of the Nasarawa Gov.

APC used Audu Sule Adamu
The 1st Respondent used Audu Sule Alhaji.

The name of the 2nd Respondent is Audu Sule Abdullahi.

Again, 1st Respondent only tendered documents, no witnesses to speak to the document, so all documents attracted no probative value.

3rd respondents had only one unsworn witness.

So, the judgement was against the 2nd Respondent. It is assumed the 1st & 3rd respondents were not in the petition. Even adding them as respondents won't help, they will be struck off when the Appeal starts proper.

fergie001:

That is not the reason it was expunged.
APC & INEC made a fundamental error.

They were in breach of Paragraph 15 of the First Schedule of the EA 2022.

Again, they made a fatal error in the name of the Nasarawa Gov.

APC used Audu Sule Adamu
The 1st Respondent used Audu Sule Alhaji.

The name of the 2nd Respondent is Audu Sule Abdullahi.

Again, 1st Respondent only tendered documents, no witnesses to speak to the document, so all documents attracted no probative value.

3rd respondents had only one unsworn witness.

So, the judgement was against the 2nd Respondent. It is assumed the 1st & 3rd respondents were not in the petition. Even adding them as respondents won't help, they will be struck off when the Appeal starts proper.

garfield1:


Are you saying ombugadu will win

fergie001:
I will have said yes but for one problem, and it is very very key.

Subpoenaed witnesses.

garfield1:


Yes but that subpoenaed withess issue is 50 50 althought the pept has ruled and the appeal courts must abide by it.the tribunal stated that they are the witnesses of the court and are not required to get deposition or sworn statements and not bound by the 21 days stated by EA2022.

fergie001:

That is the only way Sule can survive. He has no case on all others. It was clear that there was wrong calculation.

Bashir v. Kurdula said they are witnesses of the Court but Ararume v INEC same year expunged all subpoenaed witnesses that didn't have witness depositions filed alongside the Petition.
Tsammani read the leading judgement here.

ANDP v INEC in 2020 per Olabisi Ige JCA followed the same path as Tsammani.

Then the PEPT also followed same. We know that Bashir v Kurdula's judgement was on point in law, however in conflicting judgements of the Appeal Court the latest always suffice.

Good a thing, the Supreme Court will touch on it before the Appeal in Nasarawa will take place.

garfield1:
The problem here is that the apex court will likely adopt the pept ruling totally like in 2019 without touching on individual issues.
There was wrong calculation but apc votes in two two units were ruled out as overvoting because the voters register wasn't tendered ...
The party agents pdp brought as witness did not satisfy legal requirements in gayam and chiroma.
How can two agents testify for the entire wards?

fergie001:

The wrong calculation happened in the Wards (EC8B).
One of the materials to prove over-voting is the register, Sule alleged that his votes were excluded in 31 PUs and presented only Form EC8A.

It is calculation from EC8As hat should form EC8B.
Let me gie you some examples.
In Awe LGA:
Azara Ward (Ward 08) 31 PUs
Form EC8A calculation for all 31 PUs
APC 5736
PDP 2388

When they wanted to record it in Form EC8B it was APC 6978 PDP 1313

Kanje Abuni (Ward 06)
EC8A: APC 2382 PDP 711
When they entered it in EC8B: APC 2964 PDP 131

Lafia LGA
Gayam Ward
EC8A: APC 9753 PDP 2979
INEC entered it in EC8B: APC 29857 PDP 1453

It was not collated in the original Wards HQs, the PDP made official complaints before it was even entered in EC8C.

State House of Assembly held same day: no of voters 14588
Governorship; no of voters 33136 (very inflated).

1 PU here was also not added, no reason given;
K/Abdul Aziz PU (046): APC 25 PDP 90. EC8A was presented. The tribunal added it.

Chiroma Ward:
EC8A: APC 14474 PDP 3506
INEC entered into EC8B as APC 50944 PDP 851

Ashigie Ward (Ward 06) 36 PUs
1 PU cancelled

The results for 35 PUs from form EC8A and EC8B were
APC 2673 PDP 4488

When it got to the LGA, INEC cancelled the whole ward.

INEC provided Form EC40G but you election from PUs aren't cancelled at LGA stage (EC8C)

And so many others.......

The tribunal held that the issues were not in the Polling units. Form EC8As were not contested. The wrong calculation happened at the Ward Collation Centres.

PDP had 22 witnesses: 5 were PUs, 8 were in the Wards, the rest were subpoenaed witnesses.

fergie001:

The wrong calculation happened in the Wards (EC8B).
One of the materials to prove over-voting is the register, Sule alleged that his votes were excluded in 31 PUs and presented only Form EC8A.

It is calculation from EC8As hat should form EC8B.
Let me gie you some examples.
In Awe LGA:
Azara Ward (Ward 08) 31 PUs
Form EC8A calculation for all 31 PUs
APC 5736
PDP 2388

When they wanted to record it in Form EC8B it was APC 6978 PDP 1313

Kanje Abuni (Ward 06)
EC8A: APC 2382 PDP 711
When they entered it in EC8B: APC 2964 PDP 131

Lafia LGA
Gayam Ward
EC8A: APC 9753 PDP 2979
INEC entered it in EC8B: APC 29857 PDP 1453

It was not collated in the original Wards HQs, the PDP made official complaints before it was even entered in EC8C.

State House of Assembly held same day: no of voters 14588
Governorship; no of voters 33136 (very inflated).

1 PU here was also not added, no reason given;
K/Abdul Aziz PU (046): APC 25 PDP 90. EC8A was presented. The tribunal added it.

Chiroma Ward:
EC8A: APC 14474 PDP 3506
INEC entered into EC8B as APC 50944 PDP 851

Ashigie Ward (Ward 06) 36 PUs
1 PU cancelled

The results for 35 PUs from form EC8A and EC8B were
APC 2673 PDP 4488

When it got to the LGA, INEC cancelled the whole ward.

INEC provided Form EC40G but you election from PUs aren't cancelled at LGA stage (EC8C)

And so many others.......

The tribunal held that the issues were not in the Polling units. Form EC8As were not contested. The wrong calculation happened at the Ward Collation Centres.

PDP had 22 witnesses: 5 were PUs, 8 were in the Wards, the rest were subpoenaed witnesses.

garfield1:
The Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, in Nasarawa State has faulted Governor Abdullahi Sule for filing an appeal against the verdict of the Governorship Election Petition Tribunal that removed him from office close to midnight on Sunday.


The tribunal had sacked Sule of the All Progressives Congress, APC, and declared David Ombugadu of the PDP as the winner of the governorship election in Nasarawa State.

In a statement made available to DAILY POST, Mike Omeri, the Director, Media and Publicity for Ombugadu Campaign Organization, said the timing of the submission of the Sule’s appeal has raised eyebrows and is viewed as a deliberate attempt to obstruct the progress of the PDP candidate.


Omeri has raised suspicions that the late-night filing was intended to prevent Ombugadu from filing a timely notice of cross-appeal, as prescribed by law.

He maintained that the move is an effort to hinder the due process and fairness of the legal proceedings, which will further complicate an already contentious electoral dispute.

The campaign organization stated the need for a fair and transparent legal process, free from any manipulative tactics that may undermine the democratic principles at play.


Parts of the statement reads, “The Ombugadu Campaign Organization is deeply concerned by the recent actions of Governor AA Sule, who filed his appeal challenging the verdict of the Election Tribunal that sacked him from office at 10 pm on a Sunday night.

“This untimely and unusual filing appears to be a deliberate attempt to frustrate our candidate, Hon. David Ombugadu, who was declared the winner of the March 2023 governorship election in Nasarawa State by the tribunal. Clearly, the hidden motive was to prevent him from filing a notice of cross-appeal in a timely manner prescribed by law.

“The timing of Governor Sule’s appeal filing raises questions about transparency, fair play, search for justice, and respect for due process.


“This further underscores the uncanny way through which they want to win at all cost, not minding the attendant chaos such might cause.

“Dr. Ombugadu has stated in several fora that his ambition is not worth the flow of blood of any common man, woman, or child as well as the destruction of properties.

“The late night weekend timing also suggests a lack of willingness to engage in a fair and open legal determination of the matter in issue. It is our belief that justice should not only be done but should also be seen to be done for our people and our democracy.”



https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://dailypost.ng/2023/10/17/nasarawa-tribunal-judgement-pdp-knocks-gov-sule-for-filing-appeal-close-to-midnight/&ved=2ahUKEwjo8rCLyYeCAxV5TkEAHVNYAz0QFnoECAsQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1wu6OATnQWzeNwkTt2h0AD


Mynd44
Nplfmod
Obinoscopy
Lalasticlala
Seun
Seunmsg
Saintkiel
Saintinoo
Calmobserver
Seanfer
Generalpula
Cajal
Seanfer
Yarimo
Fergie001
Afamed
Mymouth
Kukutenla
Rolams
Penguin2
Raccoon
Heninues
Benuejosh
Kyase
Sionkpo

garfield1:
The EC40G were duly filled at the polling units by presiding officers.

moreovet EA2022 gave inec at all levels powers to cancel results at the units...

The minority judgement found that there was no overvoting except in one unit.

You cannot use house of assembly results to compare with guber,the apex court won't have that.

5 unit agents cannot cover all the disputed unitd

fergie001:

The 1st Respondent (INEC) amongst their documents tendered EC40G for Ashigie Ward (36 PUs) and Gayam Ward (1 PU).

For Ashigie, there was no record of cancellation because the results were properly entered at PU and Ward levels for 35 PUs.


Hmmnm

The tribunal held that in events of cancellation of any PU, the Presiding Officer shall fill form EC40G and attach a report stating in his report the reason why it was cancelled.

See Section 64(3) of the EA2022:
The presiding officer shall prepare a statement on rejected ballot papers, stating the number rejected, the reason for rejection and their serial number, and he or she shall on request, allow a candidate or a polling agent to copy the statement.

Also in Paragraph 43 of the INEC Regulations and Guidelines:
For a Polling Unit where election is not held or is cancelled, or poll is declared null and void in accordance with these Regulations and Guidelines, the Presiding Officer shall report same in writing to the RA/Ward Collation Officer explaining the nature of the problem and the Collation Officer shall fill Form EC40G as applicable.

None of these reports was tendered in Court. Again, like I said the fatal error already struck out all documents from the 1st Respondent in this case.

Again, only the Returning Officer or Collation Officer asides the PO can cancel results at that level only if it affects issues regarding official watermark or signatures of ballot papers.

Again, at the Ward Collation Centres, they had only a record of a PU cancelled.

This also affected the Gayam Ward (1 PU).

Good, that means the minority judgement was also in line that only one out of 36 was affected.


The accreditation took place at same time and place, before both ballot papers were handed over to the voters. They didn't do different accreditation for both positions.

Forms EC8A, EC8B, EC8C, BVAS accreditation reports were tendered in evidence.


Like I said the issues here surrounds Collation at the Ward levels.

We also have issues at the PUs of over-voting in about 4 or 5 PUs of which witnesses testified as well.

Like I have told you, that subpoena witness depositions is the main thing. This is because if the SC upholds it, Ombugadu's petition collapses immediately.

fergie001:

The 1st Respondent (INEC) amongst their documents tendered EC40G for Ashigie Ward (36 PUs) and Gayam Ward (1 PU).

For Ashigie, there was no record of cancellation because the results were properly entered at PU and Ward levels for 35 PUs.



The tribunal held that in events of cancellation of any PU, the Presiding Officer shall fill form EC40G and attach a report stating in his report the reason why it was cancelled.

See Section 64(3) of the EA2022:
The presiding officer shall prepare a statement on rejected ballot papers, stating the number rejected, the reason for rejection and their serial number, and he or she shall on request, allow a candidate or a polling agent to copy the statement.

Also in Paragraph 43 of the INEC Regulations and Guidelines:
For a Polling Unit where election is not held or is cancelled, or poll is declared null and void in accordance with these Regulations and Guidelines, the Presiding Officer shall report same in writing to the RA/Ward Collation Officer explaining the nature of the problem and the Collation Officer shall fill Form EC40G as applicable.

None of these reports was tendered in Court. Again, like I said the fatal error already struck out all documents from the 1st Respondent in this case.

Again, only the Returning Officer or Collation Officer asides the PO can cancel results at that level only if it affects issues regarding official watermark or signatures of ballot papers.

Again, at the Ward Collation Centres, they had only a record of a PU cancelled.

This also affected the Gayam Ward (1 PU).

Good, that means the minority judgement was also in line that only one out of 36 was affected.


The accreditation took place at same time and place, before both ballot papers were handed over to the voters. They didn't do different accreditation for both positions.

Forms EC8A, EC8B, EC8C, BVAS accreditation reports were tendered in evidence.


Like I said the issues here surrounds Collation at the Ward levels.

We also have issues at the PUs of over-voting in about 4 or 5 PUs of which witnesses testified as well.

Like I have told you, that subpoena witness depositions is the main thing. This is because if the SC upholds it, Ombugadu's petition collapses immediately.