Thread by @OyedeleFatai

@Naijavote It's unfortunate that most of you on Twitter has been badly affected by poor journalism in Nigeria. The reply filed by the APC contained over 500 paragraphs of 3 Vols. Atiku & PDP in his Petition challenged the qualification of PMB to participate in the election.

@Naijavote The APC being the 3rd Respondent to the Petition filed by Atiku and PDP filed its REPLY to the petition and as a threshold issue, the 3rd respondent urged the court, by way of preliminary objection to dismiss or strike out the said petition wholly or in part as may be appropriate

@Naijavote The grounds upon which the said objection is brought includes:
1)The Honourable Court/tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the petitioners’ allegations predicated on grounds (d) that the 2nd Respondent(PMB) was at the time of the election not qualified to contest.

@Naijavote contest the said election and (e) that the 2nd Respondent submitted to the 1st Respondent an affidavit containing false information of a fundamental nature in aid of his qualification for the said election. This can be found in paragraph 15 of the petition.

@Naijavote since by the mandatory provisions of S. 31(5)(6) of the EA (as amended)& S. 285(9) of the CFRN 1999 (as amended), 4th Alteration, the claims contained therein have become statute barred and the court/tribunal is not even the appropriate forum to entertain same;

@Naijavote 2)Allegations of non -compliance must be made distinctly and proved on polling unit basis and this is not the case in respect of the said petition;
3)Petitioners in the allegations used the vague or generic expressions such as “in many polling units in the country”

@Naijavote "in some states, LGs, wards and PUs of the Federal Republic of Nigeria”, “some of such polling units”, “in some polling units and local governments across Nigeria”, without giving particulars of the affected PUs and wards, which doesn't justify the grant of any reliefs sought.

@Naijavote 4)In the entire petition and/or the itemized paragraphs (stated in ground (7) herein), petitioners did not provide the particulars of polling unit(s) where any irregularity, malpractice, corrupt practices or non – compliance took place;

@Naijavote 5)5)Failure of the petitioners to plead with specificity the particulars in terms of names, codes and/or PUs where the alleged malpractices, corrupt practices, non-compliance, irregularities, took place is a fundamental violation of paragraph 4(1)(d) of the 1st Schedule

@Naijavote to the EA, 2010 (as amended in 2015), which fact renders the petition incompetent and an abuse of court process; among other grounds.

@Naijavote Now on the REPLY TO THE PETITION ON THE MERIT,
the 3rd Respondent vehemently denies paragraph 1 of the petition (wherein the Petitioner claimed he's a citizen of Nigeria by birth) and states that the 1st petitioner ab initio had no right to be voted for and returned

@Naijavote in the election to the office of President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria held on Saturday 23rd February, 2019 having regard to the clear provision of Section 131(a) of the (CFRN) 1999 as amended which unequivocally stipulates inter alia,

@Naijavote that for a person to be qualified for election to the office of President, he must be a citizen of Nigeria by birth.

@Naijavote Sequel to the above, the 3rd respondent further states that the 1st petitioner is not a citizen of Nigeria by birth and ought not to have even been allowed in the first place, to contest the election.

@Naijavote In law, it is a common thing for a defendant to challenge the following: juristic personality of the plaintiff, locus standi of the plaintiff and qualification of the winner in an election petition. Where this is the case, the onus of proof is on the plaintiff to proof otherwise

@Naijavote by providing material particulars, which is exactly the case here. Atiku claimed in his Petition that he's a citizen of Nigeria by birth, the 3rd respondent (APC) says he is not, the onus is shifted to Atiku to rebutt. This is a legal strategy and not a MISTAKE.