Thread by @OyedeleFatai

@AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari CONTINUATION😊: DUMPING OF DOCUMENTS ON COURT AS EXHIBITS

While the petitioners claimed to have tendered loads of documents as exhibits before the court, no witness of theirs was asked to identify any of the documents, how much more, speaking to them.

@AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari The petitioners were unable to demonstrate or tie any of the documents to any aspect of their case, through any of the 62 witnesses called before the court. As visible on the face of the petition, their case is structured on the tripod of having the majority of votes cast;

@AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari corrupt practices and non-compliance; and purported disqualification of the 2nd respondent. Like every other allegation in an adjudicatory process, and particularly, in an election petition, documentary evidence plays a very pivotal place in the establishment of the case

@AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari submitted before the court. It is, perhaps, in the right understanding of this prime place of documentary evidence that the petitioners bombarded the Court with an intimidating cache of documents, whereat, the respondents all reserved objection to the final address stage, and the

@AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari court marked same as indicated above. To the surprise of everyone, however, THEY HAVE not MANAGED to DEMONSTRATE ANY ASPECT of THEIR CASE, through any of the array of documents tendered by them, with the aim of establishing their allegations.

@AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari In fact, they deliberately failed to establish the slightest linkage, between the said documents and any aspect of their case. As legibly visible from the record of the court, the petitioners’ template modus, was the introduction of witnesses, and the adoption of the respective

@AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari statements on oath, without more. As dominis litis of their own case, they, for reasons known to them, did not refer any of the 62 witnesses called to any of the documents tendered, with the aim of striking any affinity or consanguinity with any aspect of their case.

@AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari While this point will remain a recurring decimal under each of the successive issues identified above, it is safe to state at this point that the petitioners have not proved any of the grounds submitted before the Honourable Court.

@AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari Though it is not denied that at the court at its pre-hearing ordered that documents be tendered from the Bar, authorities are replete that when documents are tendered from the Bar, a party still has the bounden task of demonstrating before the court the relevance of each of the

@AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari said documents to his case. In Akintola v. Solano (1986) 4 S.C. 141 the apex court stated the law thus:
“…evidence is the means by which any matter of fact, the truth of which is submitted to investigation may be established or disproved.

@AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari An intrinsic aspect of the adversarial nature of the Nigerian jurisprudence, and specifically, electoral matters, is reflected in the fact that beyond the tendering of documents before a court, it behoves the party tendering same to establish the nexus between his case

@AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari and the document tendered by him. This duty is very fundamental, standing at the core of adjudication, that courts have remained consistent in their uncondoning attitude towards the failure of parties to link their evidence with relevant aspect of their case.

@AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari See: APGA v. Al-Makura (2016) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1505) 316. In Udom v. Umana (2016) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1526) 179 at 244, the Supreme Court condemned an attitude similar to that of the petitioners herein, while relying on its earlier decisions in Omisore v. Aregbesola (supra).

@AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari In simple terms, dumping a document on Court during trial, means putting the document in evidence as an Exhibit without the vital evidence of witnesses to relate or link it with the specific aspect or part of the case in support of which the document was tendered or

@AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari put in evidence by a party. This was the principle enunciated in the case of Awuse v. Odili (supra) wherein the Court stated that:- “The correct view of the law is that a party relying on documents in proof of his case must specifically relate each of such documents to that part

@AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari of his case in respect of which the document is being tendered. The court cannot assume the duty of tying each bundle of documentary exhibits to specific aspect of the case for a party when the party has not done so himself.

@AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari The foundation of the principle is that it is an infraction of fair hearing for the Court to do in the recesses of its chambers what a party has not himself done in advancement of his case in open Court…”

@AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari Glowing as the above rendition of the law is, the point being made therein, is that once a party to a legal proceeding shies away from his duty of proving his case on the balance of probabilities or beyond reasonable doubt, as the case may be, the court cannot help the party

@AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari in any manner. In fact, not only would the party have been expected to adduce relevant evidence, he is expected to do so, as provided by law. In effect, though they never made any reference to the documents, mere reference would not have sufficed, except through persons with the

@AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari legal capacity of giving admissible evidence on them. In the recent unreported decision of the Supreme Court in SC. 409/2019-PDP& Anor. v. INEC & 2 Ors, delivered on 24th May, 2019, the APEX Court, while relying on an array of earlier judgments delivered by it, emphasized the

@AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari fact that it was not expected to embark on the frolic of linking the evidence of a party to his case, on his behalf. It then took the point a lot further, when it held thus on pages 24-25 of the judgment: “On no account must counsel dump documents on the trial court.

@AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari No court will spend judicial time linking documents to specific areas of party’s case…Let me say emphatically that it is not enough to argue that PW31 and PW32 and other witnesses referred to those 2, 952 exhibits tendered through the bar and even identified them in their

@AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari testimonies without showing that these witnesses can give admissible evidence on them. In the case of polling unit results, it must be shown that the witnesses witnessed the making of the results or were signatories to them.”

@AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari The attention of the court is drawn to the fact that a good number of the documents tendered as exhibits by the PETITIONERS, particularly on 19th July, 2019, WERE WRAPPED IN BOXES AND SEALED, without the petitioners making the slightest attempt of opening the boxes or unsealing

@AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari them, how much more, of identifying and later relating them to their case or deposition of their witnesses. Do the PETITIONERS expect the court to unseal them for them, or to unlock the boxes? No; the court cannot do that, otherwise, the court will be acting

@AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari contrary to the admonition of the Supreme Court, as well as the Court of Appeal itself, in a host of cases, including Onibudo v. Akibu (supra). On this note, again, the 2nd Respondent urged the court to dismiss the petition.

@AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari In short, the PETITIONERS TURNED COURT OF APPEAL TO DUMP SITE! 😀