engineerboat:


The ground they are seeking review bothers on using Kogi case study.

They are two separate events that never agree to each other.

In kogi case
1. Result had not been announced
2. Fake does not contest in APC governorship primary (a ground PDP could have used at the tribunal)
3. APC is at the Mercy of using their discretion to give another replacement.

In bayelsa case it was a pre-election matter.
1. Their undoing was going ahead to still present the man after the high court judgement. They were using strong head, they were advised to replaced the man. But no they went ahead


Well let's see how it plays out at the review next week

Silva fvcked up by hoisting that man on them.

Iamgrey5:
Actually this further proves the judgment was very political


There's no evidence the certificates were
forged


No one came forward that the other names belonged to them


Forgery is a serious criminal case that needs to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The accused person has not even made any public statement yet you re fast to defend him.

There is a case against him whether you like it or not and he had the time during the court procedure to defend himself.

Oyo!

fergie001:

No grounds.....
I think they are using this case to kill Imo.

Because the pdp is doing same, they want to.
They are also citing the case of Adamu Mu'azu in 1999...holds no waters.

I will try to get more facts yet protect the individual. If you what I mean.

okay!

You sure have to protect that individual - he's a source of material resource.

Caseless:
Silva fvcked up by hoisting that man on them.

You have said it all.........

Caseless:
okay!

You sure have to protect that individual - he's a source of material resource.

Yap....thanks!

Dansuqi:

Pdp were supposed to call those authorities that issued the certificstes to testify

Actually, if there was any need to call the institution, that would have been APC's responsibility. However PDP was not arguing the authenticity or otherwise of those certificates, rather ownership was the crux of the matter because the name of the deputy Gov candidate did not match the documents he tendered at INEC. I hope you can see the difference?

maasoap:


Upon all that, did any institution claim that they didn't know him? The answer is no. That's why we said that the man was merely punished for being irresponsible with names. The judge knew that those certificates were genuine and belonged to him.

That is just it,this is crucial.forgery is a criminal case and must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.i think they have enough grounds to call for a review

Iceman2017:

You are really a big disappointment to the institution you graduated from.
Don't you know that electoral candidates do submit their credentials to inec before election?
So you are telling us SC gave him a document that bears those names

on the contrary you are missing a point here. to forge a certificate is to provide one for yourself where it does not exist in reality but here this man may have impersonated someone but again certificates are signed for before collection, has it been proved that he didnt finish from those institutions？if it was issued in proxy who collected it, are there no photograhs used in the registaration of these exams he wrote, its not fair to say he bought certificates when there are no proves. i think the defense tean didnt do s good job

ChristianNorth:

Very good lawyer and one of the finest but not a match to Wole.

You can win Wole in a trial court but you must be a beast to win him at SC.

In fact, we have a Support Analyst whose work is to collect and analyze wole's and Ikpeazu arguments.

You have to give to Wole anyway. He earned my respect on rivers and akwa ibom elections in 2015. The same argument he pushed in rivers case was the argument he defeated in in akwa ibom case...and he won both cases.

Lyon will never forgive this man even in the next generation to come.Haba only you 5 affidavits

mushystuff:


Actually, if there was any need to call the institution, that would have been APC's responsibility. However PDP was not arguing the authenticity or otherwise of those certificates, rather ownership was the crux of the matter because the name of the deputy Gov candidate did not match the documents he tendered at INEC. I hope you can see the difference?

Pdp alleged so needed to proof.see atiku vs buhari 2019 supra.
You need both documentary and verbal evidences.your arguments is the same thing,if there is discrepancies in names,it means that he may not be the owner.

Caseless:
Silva fvcked up by hoisting that man on them.

And that is the selfishness of politics and godfatherism

Caseless:


You have to give to Wole anyway. He earned my respect on rivers and akwa ibom elections in 2015. The same argument he pushed in rivers case was the argument he defeated in in akwa ibom case...and he won both cases.

He lost in akwa ibom,he reprezwnted apc.he's the greatest lawyer on election cases

cckalima:
on the contrary you are missing a point here. to forge a certificate is to provide one for yourself where it does not exist in reality but here this man may have impersonated someone but again certificates are signed for before collection, has it been proved that he didnt finish from those institutions？if it was issued in proxy who collected it, are there no photograhs used in the registaration of these exams he wrote, its not fair to say he bought certificates when there are no proves. i think the defense tean didnt do s good job

I align with you.that is why i said that the proofs were not conclusive.adeleke and lalong had same cases and won.
I also blame the defense team,rookie lawyers going agsinst a seasoned san.lyon should have gotten at least yusuf alli,awomolo,akintola,dodo,Chris uche etc

codedguy1:


If you can't see how and where they erred then I can't really help you.

Allocating votes submitted by the plaintiff without verification from INEC and when added to total votes surpasses the total number of accredited votes on that day. The SC used those figures to remove a gov.

If you don't know why even the international community is blacklisting all the SC judges because of that judgement then like I said I can't help you.

You are wrong and will continue to be wrong . When court sense an injury or mischieve, the court will come in to remedy the situation. To answer your question in a straight forward manner. Hope uzodinma provided the result of that excluded unit duely signed by inec and the police even got a copy of it ...which is the standard whenever election is conducted. When Inec was Called to verify the result tendered, they agreed it was their designated officers that signed it...that makes it authentic result. I don't understand what you meant by not verifying it from Inec.

The facts speak for its self .....based on the facts before supreme court, they took a decision facts are not always truth ......but court works with facts...,.I rest my case

Dansuqi:

Pdp alleged so needed to proof.see atiku vs buhari 2019 supra.
You need both documentary and verbal evidences.your arguments is the same thing,if there is discrepancies in names,it means that he may not be the owner.

They proved their allegation by pointing out the discrepancies in the names on all certificates compared to his current name as deputy governorship candidate, the irregularities of using mere affidavits and a faceless, unknown notary public. That was the issue and not whether he got them from any institution or not.

Dansuqi:

That is just it,this is crucial.forgery is a criminal case and must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.i think they have enough grounds to call for a review

When they call for review....will they call the exam bodies?
Will they also call the faceless Notary Public whatever?

Will he also justify why he had two affidavits in a day?

Drop it bro....

greggng:



You are wrong and will continue to be wrong . When court sense an injury or mischieve, the court will come in to remedy the situation. To answer your question in a straight forward manner. Hope uzodinma provided the result of that excluded unit duely signed by inec and the police even got a copy of it ...which is the standard whenever election is conducted. When Inec was Called to verify the result tendered, they agreed it was their designated officers that signed it...that makes it authentic result. I don't understand what you meant by not verifying it from Inec.

The facts speak for its self .....based on the facts before supreme court, they took a decision facts are not always truth ......but court works with facts...,.I rest my case

Oga try read the excerpt. I rest my own case too...


With the decision of the Supreme Court that Uche Nwosu was the duly nominated candidate of the APC, it becomes logical to conclude that Senator Hope Uzodinma was not a candidate at the election. This is because by the provision of section 87 of the Electoral Act, no person can contest for any elective position unless he contests and wins a primary election and a duly nominated candidate is the only one who can stand for election unless he withdraws in writing or he dies.

An application by Rt. Hon. Emeka Ihedioha for a determination that Hope Uzodinma was not a candidate at the election having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court on the 20th of Dec, 2019 and upholding Uche Nwosu as the duly nominated candidate of APC was brushed aside by the Supreme Court.

The appeal filed by Senator Araraume (SC/1461/2019) at the Supreme Court was heard and judgment was stood down to be delivered the same day.The appeal by Senator Hope Uzodinma (SC/1462/2019) was equally heard the same day and judgment was stood down.

The appeal or cross-appeal by Emeka Ihedioha (SC/1470/2019) was also heard and judgment stood down.The Supreme Court had expressed worry and concern that in each of these appeals, there were volumes of records which they were yet to read or study.

They also expressed worry that there were in each case at least 4, 5 or more briefs of arguments as the appellants each had one brief, the respondents had 3 sets of briefs and there were reply briefs to read in other to do justice to the case, parties were therefore constrained to adoption of their briefs of argument only, to save time and enable their lordships study the records.

Surprisingly, even though the Supreme Court stated that the time for determination of the appeals lasted up to Friday, January 17, 2019, the Supreme Court decided to give summary judgment on the appeals without studying the records of appeal, the evidence adduced at the trial and the arguments canvassed by the respective parties in their briefs of argument.

The Supreme Court stood down for one hour, 30 minutes to enable them come up with their judgment.All counsel in the matter had to comply, thinking that the Supreme Court would pronounce its judgment and defer the reason for the judgment to be given on a date to be communicated to the parties.

Incidentally, when their Lordships came out, they read a full and final judgment which was silent on the evidence adduced at the trial and also silent on the arguments canvassed by the respective parties. The judgment did not last up to ten (10) minutes.

In their judgment, the Supreme Court stated that their judgment in Hope Uzodinma’s appeal will resolve all the issues in the two other appeals.After delivering judgment in Hope Uzodinma appeal, other appeals were deemed overtaken by events.

They simply stated the reliefs claimed by the Petitioner/Appellants, and proceeded to hold that Hope Uzodinma’s scores in the 388 disputed polling units were wrongfully excluded and that the two lower courts were wrong when they held that the APC candidate ought to have called eye witnesses i.e. polling units agents and ward collation agents as according to them, the Appellants’ case was that of exclusion of votes.

They ordered that votes as tabulated by Hope Uzodinma in his table in his petition which had been discredited under cross-examination should be added to his scores without any form of recomputation of the results or arithmetic to determine if even with the addition of the votes, Hope Uzodinma met the constitutional requirement of geographical spread as enshrined in Section 179(2) of the constitution. The Supreme Court proceeded to declare him winner of the election and also held that he had satisfied the mandatory constitutional threshold of geographical spread when there was no iota of evidence on record to that effect.

On the 22nd day of January, the Supreme Court released a 42 paged judgment as against the one they read out in open court.

To all intents and purposes, this judgment was a premeditated judicial coup d’état and rape against democracy and the rule of law and particularly against the people of Imo State whose mandate has been transferred to a candidate that came fourth in the election, improperly.

It is important to point out the following:
-All the documents tendered by Hope Uzodinma as stated earlier were tendered through the bar.
-Poling unit agents were called for only 28 polling units leaving 360 polling units dumped on the tribunal.

-There was no evidence showing that the contents of the 388 polling units tallied with the tabulation contained in Hope Uzodinma’s petition.

-There was no evidence showing that those documents produced by the police witness came from any of the 388 polling units or the contents of those documents as they were only dumped on the tribunal without more.

-There was also no attempt to match those documents produced by the police witness with those tendered by Hope Uzodinma and his lawyers.

It is surprising that the Supreme Court had forgotten its judgments and decisions as contained in our law reports on the need to call eye witness evidence in proof of election petitions, inadmissibility of hearsay evidence including documentary hearsay and also the import of dumping of documents without having them demonstrated in open court or relating them to aspects of the petitioners’ case, even as their decision in the case of Abubakar Atiku v. Major General Buhari is very much fresh in their memory.

For us, the judgment is a miracle as it completely overthrew all known judicial precedents and electoral jurisprudence in Nigeria. It would appear to be based on extra legal considerations, therefore requires a desired reversal by the Supreme Court as dictated by precedent

Therefore, does the Supreme Court possess the powers to review or reverse its earlier decision?
Delivering the lead judgment in *Adegoke Motors Ltd. v. Adesanya* [1989] 13 NWLR (Pt.109) 250 at page 275A, Justice Chukwudifu Oputa, also known as the *Socrates* of the Supreme Court considered the powers of the Supreme Court (as the final Court in the land) to review its earlier decisions and said inter alia:

*We are final not because we are infallible; rather we are infallible because we are final. Justices of this Court are human-beings, capable of erring. It will certainly be short sighted arrogance not to accept this obvious truth. It is also true that this Court can do inestimable good through its wise decisions. Similarly, the Court can do incalculable harm through its mistakes. When therefore it appears to learned counsel that any decision of this Court has been given per incuriam, such counsel should have the boldness and courage to ask that such a decision be over-ruled. This Court has the power to over-rule itself (and has done so in the past) for it gladly accepts that it is far better to admit an error than to persevere in error*

fergie001:


When they call for review....will they call the exam bodies?
Will they also call the faceless Notary Public whatever?

Will he also justify why he had two affidavits in a day?

Drop it bro....

Yes,they can allow him to

mushystuff:


They proved their allegation by pointing out the discrepancies in the names on all certificates compared to his current name as deputy governorship candidate, the irregularities of using mere affidavits and a faceless, unknown notary public. That was the issue and not whether he got them from any institution or not.

Is discrepancies now a crime or fundamental enough to prove forgery? Is pointing out same as proving beyond reasonable doubt

engineerboat:


What help the judgement was that They have not been sworn in.

Buhari had already been sworn in and we all know what plays out then.

whats your take about imo, he was still removed after six months in office, i dont agree with you, SC knows how to do their things

isthatso:
The problem we have in this country is that we have people in positions of power who are not intelligent. The requirement for office is a minimum school leaving certificate. He didnt have to tender all these certificates, all he had to do was tender one that complied with the minimum requirement and beared his proper name...end of story.

This is what Ogun state governor did, he knew he didnt have NYSC so he didnt tender his degree and just tendered his WASC. In this case all Degi had to do was tender his degree which bears the name he wants to use and forget the WASC. WASC is not required if you have a higher qualification.

There is nothing in the constitution that says you have to tender all your certificates. You have the choice of which certificate to tender as your qualification to contest, so long as what you tender meets the requirement.

You can only be judged on what you tender!!! Note the judgement did not say he did not meet the requirement to contest, it said he presented forged documents.

Stupidity of the highest order and IMHO shows the calibre of leadership he would have brought to Bayelsa state!!!

Long and short......He will go down in history as a man who forged/presented a document that was never required and thereby disqualified himself.

I really like your submission Sir

fergie001:

The law states that it is a joint ticket.

Hence, whatever affects A affects B....same as President-Elect/VP-Elect.

i think that the court should start looking at sanctioning inec for not disqualifying that deputy abinitio,i suspect inec ploted the apc fall

cckalima:
i think that the court should start looking at sanctioning inec for not disqualifying that deputy abinitio,i suspect inec ploted the apc fall

Inec lacks disqualification powers.

cckalima:
i think that the court should start looking at sanctioning inec for not disqualifying that deputy abinitio,i suspect inec ploted the apc fall

Section 31 of the Electoral Act 2010 says that INEC does not have the powers to disqualify any candidate(s) as nominated by the political parties. So if they weren't nominated in accordance to the constitution....leave them like that!

So INEC has no faults.

isthatso:
The problem we have in this country is that we have people in positions of power who are not intelligent. The requirement for office is a minimum school leaving certificate. He didnt have to tender all these certificates, all he had to do was tender one that complied with the minimum requirement and beared his proper name...end of story.

This is what Ogun state governor did, he knew he didnt have NYSC so he didnt tender his degree and just tendered his WASC. In this case all Degi had to do was tender his degree which bears the name he wants to use and forget the WASC. WASC is not required if you have a higher qualification.

There is nothing in the constitution that says you have to tender all your certificates. You have the choice of which certificate to tender as your qualification to contest, so long as what you tender meets the requirement.

You can only be judged on what you tender!!! Note the judgement did not say he did not meet the requirement to contest, it said he presented forged documents.

Stupidity of the highest order and IMHO shows the calibre of leadership he would have brought to Bayelsa state!!!

Long and short......He will go down in history as a man who forged/presented a document that was never required and thereby disqualified himself.

Your second to last paragraph says a lot.

I am happy with what happened. Even Lyon doesn't look like someone that would take the state anywhere. He looked lime who Timipreywbsilva will be pushing around lime a yoyo.

Don't know Diri that much but he and his deputy will not go any better. All these politicians are just a bunch of fraudulent opportunist that will not allow those who want to do thinks right aspire yo high offices like gov.

A right thinking straight person will not be able to do the rotten things these guys are ready and willing to do and as such not want to get involved with rubbish. That's why we are where we are today.

Dirty, fraudulent, illiterate, opportunistic, pompous and arrogant nonentities that don't know their left from right but are ready to scheme, deceive, lie and bribe their ways to power because they know there are no consequences for things like that in these parts.

Dansuqi:

He lost in akwa ibom,he reprezwnted apc.he's the greatest lawyer on election cases

I thought he represented pdp there.

Feemmy:

I really like your submission Sir

Thank you. He even submitted primary school leaving certificate that nobody asked him for and this was one of the documents cited as a basis for the verdict of forgery.

mushystuff:

And that is the selfishness of politics and godfatherism

true!

codedguy1:



Oga try read the excerpt. I rest my own case too...


With the decision of the Supreme Court that Uche Nwosu was the duly nominated candidate of the APC, it becomes logical to conclude that Senator Hope Uzodinma was not a candidate at the election. This is because by the provision of section 87 of the Electoral Act, no person can contest for any elective position unless he contests and wins a primary election and a duly nominated candidate is the only one who can stand for election unless he withdraws in writing or he dies.

An application by Rt. Hon. Emeka Ihedioha for a determination that Hope Uzodinma was not a candidate at the election having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court on the 20th of Dec, 2019 and upholding Uche Nwosu as the duly nominated candidate of APC was brushed aside by the Supreme Court.

The appeal filed by Senator Araraume (SC/1461/2019) at the Supreme Court was heard and judgment was stood down to be delivered the same day.The appeal by Senator Hope Uzodinma (SC/1462/2019) was equally heard the same day and judgment was stood down.

The appeal or cross-appeal by Emeka Ihedioha (SC/1470/2019) was also heard and judgment stood down.The Supreme Court had expressed worry and concern that in each of these appeals, there were volumes of records which they were yet to read or study.

They also expressed worry that there were in each case at least 4, 5 or more briefs of arguments as the appellants each had one brief, the respondents had 3 sets of briefs and there were reply briefs to read in other to do justice to the case, parties were therefore constrained to adoption of their briefs of argument only, to save time and enable their lordships study the records.

Surprisingly, even though the Supreme Court stated that the time for determination of the appeals lasted up to Friday, January 17, 2019, the Supreme Court decided to give summary judgment on the appeals without studying the records of appeal, the evidence adduced at the trial and the arguments canvassed by the respective parties in their briefs of argument.

The Supreme Court stood down for one hour, 30 minutes to enable them come up with their judgment.All counsel in the matter had to comply, thinking that the Supreme Court would pronounce its judgment and defer the reason for the judgment to be given on a date to be communicated to the parties.

Incidentally, when their Lordships came out, they read a full and final judgment which was silent on the evidence adduced at the trial and also silent on the arguments canvassed by the respective parties. The judgment did not last up to ten (10) minutes.

In their judgment, the Supreme Court stated that their judgment in Hope Uzodinma’s appeal will resolve all the issues in the two other appeals.After delivering judgment in Hope Uzodinma appeal, other appeals were deemed overtaken by events.

They simply stated the reliefs claimed by the Petitioner/Appellants, and proceeded to hold that Hope Uzodinma’s scores in the 388 disputed polling units were wrongfully excluded and that the two lower courts were wrong when they held that the APC candidate ought to have called eye witnesses i.e. polling units agents and ward collation agents as according to them, the Appellants’ case was that of exclusion of votes.

They ordered that votes as tabulated by Hope Uzodinma in his table in his petition which had been discredited under cross-examination should be added to his scores without any form of recomputation of the results or arithmetic to determine if even with the addition of the votes, Hope Uzodinma met the constitutional requirement of geographical spread as enshrined in Section 179(2) of the constitution. The Supreme Court proceeded to declare him winner of the election and also held that he had satisfied the mandatory constitutional threshold of geographical spread when there was no iota of evidence on record to that effect.

On the 22nd day of January, the Supreme Court released a 42 paged judgment as against the one they read out in open court.

To all intents and purposes, this judgment was a premeditated judicial coup d’état and rape against democracy and the rule of law and particularly against the people of Imo State whose mandate has been transferred to a candidate that came fourth in the election, improperly.

It is important to point out the following:
-All the documents tendered by Hope Uzodinma as stated earlier were tendered through the bar.
-Poling unit agents were called for only 28 polling units leaving 360 polling units dumped on the tribunal.

-There was no evidence showing that the contents of the 388 polling units tallied with the tabulation contained in Hope Uzodinma’s petition.

-There was no evidence showing that those documents produced by the police witness came from any of the 388 polling units or the contents of those documents as they were only dumped on the tribunal without more.

-There was also no attempt to match those documents produced by the police witness with those tendered by Hope Uzodinma and his lawyers.

It is surprising that the Supreme Court had forgotten its judgments and decisions as contained in our law reports on the need to call eye witness evidence in proof of election petitions, inadmissibility of hearsay evidence including documentary hearsay and also the import of dumping of documents without having them demonstrated in open court or relating them to aspects of the petitioners’ case, even as their decision in the case of Abubakar Atiku v. Major General Buhari is very much fresh in their memory.

For us, the judgment is a miracle as it completely overthrew all known judicial precedents and electoral jurisprudence in Nigeria. It would appear to be based on extra legal considerations, therefore requires a desired reversal by the Supreme Court as dictated by precedent

Therefore, does the Supreme Court possess the powers to review or reverse its earlier decision?
Delivering the lead judgment in *Adegoke Motors Ltd. v. Adesanya* [1989] 13 NWLR (Pt.109) 250 at page 275A, Justice Chukwudifu Oputa, also known as the *Socrates* of the Supreme Court considered the powers of the Supreme Court (as the final Court in the land) to review its earlier decisions and said inter alia:

*We are final not because we are infallible; rather we are infallible because we are final. Justices of this Court are human-beings, capable of erring. It will certainly be short sighted arrogance not to accept this obvious truth. It is also true that this Court can do inestimable good through its wise decisions. Similarly, the Court can do incalculable harm through its mistakes. When therefore it appears to learned counsel that any decision of this Court has been given per incuriam, such counsel should have the boldness and courage to ask that such a decision be over-ruled. This Court has the power to over-rule itself (and has done so in the past) for it gladly accepts that it is far better to admit an error than to persevere in error*

INEC recognises Hope Uzodimma as Imo APC guber candidate

11/10/2018

This is coming after the INEC published its provisional list which did not carry the name of any APC governorship candidate.

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has published the name of Senator Hope Uzodinma as the governorship candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Imo state.

This is coming after the INEC published its provisional list which did not carry the name of any APC governorship candidate, according to Punch.

Vanguard reports that INEC published Uzodinma’s name following a decision by a court to strike out a suit filed by the Imo Governor, Rochas Okorocha’s faction.

https://www.pulse.ng/news/politics/inec-recognises-hope-uzodimma-as-imo-apc-guber-candidate/331jzf6.

If Ihedioha is trying to base his appeal on your lies or the fact that Hope was not APC's rightful candidate in that election, he's on a long thing because Hope was placed on that ballot by INEC via a court order.

INEC conducted that election with Hope's name on the ballot and the PDP and Ihedioha did not challenge Hope's name on the ballot before and after the election, they did not even raise the issue during the appeals so why is that cluelessness part of any appeal after the fact.

They should have just disqualified the Deputy and ban him from public offices instead of removing the man that won 75% of the total vote cast.

Let me ask a question here, what if the deputy dies before swearing in. ...what happens?

isthatso:


Thank you. He even submitted primary school leaving certificate that nobody asked him for and this was one of the documents cited as a basis for the verdict of forgery.

I think they were charmed.

Apologies to stupid people, they can't even do something as silly as this.