1st respondent
We are ready for the adoptions of the written addresses
We are ready for the adoptions of the written addresses
Judge
Can we take 5mins each
Can we take 5mins each
Petitioner
May I propose 15mins each
Judge
Take 10 mins each
Take 10 mins each
Petitioner
2nd respondent served me there reply by 9 pm yesterday
I haven't gone through it
2nd respondent served me there reply by 9 pm yesterday
I haven't gone through it
Judge
Petitioner has 15min
While respondents have 13mins each
Petitioner has 15min
While respondents have 13mins each
3rd respondent
My lord pls can I take my own first ,because I have a flight to catch
My lord pls can I take my own first ,because I have a flight to catch
Judge
Granted
Granted
3rd respondent
Written address dated Oct.15 but filed Oct.17
The reply to the petitioner address is detailed and filed Oct 21,2015
We adopt this processes in urging your lordship to dismiss this petition devoid of merits
The address of the 3rd respondent is unique, because the Court of Appeal
ruled that the tribunal should deliver ruling on argued motion. Because the judge merely signed Which he didn't reply.
I cite a judgement of an EPT in Cross River
Evidence need to count before it is accepted
The EPT has no jurisdiction to sign this. There must be evidence of production of reliefs tendered.
The election of Eleme the petitioner wants you to uphold it and also want you to declare annulity of all the other elections which to us is unspeakable
Written address dated Oct.15 but filed Oct.17
The reply to the petitioner address is detailed and filed Oct 21,2015
We adopt this processes in urging your lordship to dismiss this petition devoid of merits
The address of the 3rd respondent is unique, because the Court of Appeal
ruled that the tribunal should deliver ruling on argued motion. Because the judge merely signed Which he didn't reply.
I cite a judgement of an EPT in Cross River
Evidence need to count before it is accepted
The EPT has no jurisdiction to sign this. There must be evidence of production of reliefs tendered.
The election of Eleme the petitioner wants you to uphold it and also want you to declare annulity of all the other elections which to us is unspeakable
1st respondent
I hereby adopt my written address
Which is dated 16 Oct,and filed on 18 Oct.
We rely on the main address
The central issue is on body of proof.
Petitioner is relying on series of Court ofAppeal decisions but the Supreme Court doesn't agree to that
Because the petitioner must prove his case beyond reasonable doubt and produce witness within each PU of the state. Because the PW from the subpoena from Army, Police and SSS shows evidence per LGA not PU
In respect of Card Reader, the Electoral Act doesn't envisage same
The evidence of PW 40 as to if they were binding. The result and certificate of return issued to the 2nd respondent is the sole responsibility of the Commission.
And it means we accepted the outcome of the process
The evidence of PW 40 wasn't demonstrated.
I hereby adopt my written address
Which is dated 16 Oct,and filed on 18 Oct.
We rely on the main address
The central issue is on body of proof.
Petitioner is relying on series of Court ofAppeal decisions but the Supreme Court doesn't agree to that
Because the petitioner must prove his case beyond reasonable doubt and produce witness within each PU of the state. Because the PW from the subpoena from Army, Police and SSS shows evidence per LGA not PU
In respect of Card Reader, the Electoral Act doesn't envisage same
The evidence of PW 40 as to if they were binding. The result and certificate of return issued to the 2nd respondent is the sole responsibility of the Commission.
And it means we accepted the outcome of the process
The evidence of PW 40 wasn't demonstrated.
2nd Respondent
Our final address was dated 16 Oct, but filed 17 Oct.
We reply based on point of law on 21 Oct.
We adopt and rely on the written addresses
We also adopt the argument
And direct attention tobthe places of emphasis
On the place of nomination of candidate, the primary that produced the petitioner was faulty. We cite CofA judgement against Labour party and Wike. With this 21 days is mandatory. They are supposed to call the members that conducted the elections.They didn't tender all forms They are supposed to tender Which they failed to do.
I cite the case of Ngige against INEC
The burden of proof remains with the petitioner
In the case of Card Reader, 292,802 was accredited as against what they told the court which is unacceptable and based on this we plead this case based on point of law.
PETITIONER
I refer to the written addresses of the petitioner against 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents filed on 19 Oct,and dated 16 Oct.
It is the pleading that define the dispute within the parties.When you see the pleading, No election was done within the armbit of the law
And none has been over ruled.
INEC and Olaolu is on election not on negative and positive assertions.
When they said between Buhari and Obasanjo, the contest was on section 150 of the 5th schedule. Their pleadings don't have any resemblance whatsoever.
On Card Reader, they failed to appreciate on the authority of the Card Reader. We present it here my Lord.
There is a decisions of panel 3 which they said is the best evidence for accreditation.
On 292,802 or any figure is a far distance to there allotted 1,100,00
Any documents prepared by PW 40,are INEC docs and they produced it as evidence and it binds on them
On locus standi you have taken a decision here, is unspeakable to present it here again because you can't over rule yourself. They can only appeal ,they can't raise it here again. Because you can't over rule your decisions
My Lord, I urge you not to reconsider their assertions what we are asking for is nullification of the elections
Our final address was dated 16 Oct, but filed 17 Oct.
We reply based on point of law on 21 Oct.
We adopt and rely on the written addresses
We also adopt the argument
And direct attention tobthe places of emphasis
On the place of nomination of candidate, the primary that produced the petitioner was faulty. We cite CofA judgement against Labour party and Wike. With this 21 days is mandatory. They are supposed to call the members that conducted the elections.They didn't tender all forms They are supposed to tender Which they failed to do.
I cite the case of Ngige against INEC
The burden of proof remains with the petitioner
In the case of Card Reader, 292,802 was accredited as against what they told the court which is unacceptable and based on this we plead this case based on point of law.
PETITIONER
I refer to the written addresses of the petitioner against 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents filed on 19 Oct,and dated 16 Oct.
It is the pleading that define the dispute within the parties.When you see the pleading, No election was done within the armbit of the law
And none has been over ruled.
INEC and Olaolu is on election not on negative and positive assertions.
When they said between Buhari and Obasanjo, the contest was on section 150 of the 5th schedule. Their pleadings don't have any resemblance whatsoever.
On Card Reader, they failed to appreciate on the authority of the Card Reader. We present it here my Lord.
There is a decisions of panel 3 which they said is the best evidence for accreditation.
On 292,802 or any figure is a far distance to there allotted 1,100,00
Any documents prepared by PW 40,are INEC docs and they produced it as evidence and it binds on them
On locus standi you have taken a decision here, is unspeakable to present it here again because you can't over rule yourself. They can only appeal ,they can't raise it here again. Because you can't over rule your decisions
My Lord, I urge you not to reconsider their assertions what we are asking for is nullification of the elections
Judge
Thank you very much. Written addresses have been adopted, we therefore adjourn for judgement
Thank you very much. Written addresses have been adopted, we therefore adjourn for judgement
0 comments