Thread by @OyedeleFatai

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari PART 2: A REPLY TO THE PETITIONERS’ FINAL ADDRESS

A calm and cursory analysis of the petitioners’ address would reveal that the petitioners are attempting to achieve through counsels’ address what they could not achieve during the hearing of the petition and thus,

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari this is tantamount to giving evidence via address. This is forbidden in law, as the law is now trite that address of a counsel no matter how brilliant or eloquent cannot take the place of legal and valid evidence. See:GUNDIRI vs. NYAKO (2014) 2 NWLR (PT. 1391) 211; UDOM vs. UMANA

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari In addition, contrary to several misleading statement of fact in the Petitioners’ Written Address, court and parties are bound by the record of the court. See: O.O.M.F. LTD. V. N.A.C.B.LTD. (2008) 12 NWLR (PT.1098).

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari The record of the court will reveal clearly and contrary to the petitioners’ position, that the state of pleadings and review of evidence in paragraphs 3.0 – 3.28 of 3rd Respondent’s Written Address is a true reflection of what transpired at the hearing.

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari It is also paramount and instructive to note that the petitioners attempted though unsuccessful to demonstrate and link up the legion of documents they tendered at the trial through the medium or avenue of their final written address.

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari This is what the petitioners ought to have done in the open court by demonstrating those documents through competent witnesses based on their allegations in various states of the Federation to prove their case but unfortunately, they failed to do so.

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari It is therefore too late in the day to do so, and of course not via the medium of a written address. What the petitioners purported to do is not permissible in law. This is because it runs foul of the purpose of final written address.

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari A final written address is designed ordinarily to assist the court, it is not evidence and no fine speech in an address can make up for lack of evidence to prove or establish the fact or otherwise disprove and demolish an issue.

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari A brilliant written address if there is any from the petitioners in this case, is no substitute for evidence. See: UCHA vs. ELECHI (SUPRA).

All the purported demonstrations of documents particularly under issues 3, 4 and 5 of the petitioners’ final written address

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari in purported arguments of the issues for determination are most unwarranted and unfounded in law. Such style has no place in our electoral jurisprudence having failed to do so in the open court as required by law. This is because of the trite position of the law

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari that all facts that entitle the party to the court’s indulgence must be demonstrated in open court to ensure that in arriving at its decision on the matter, the court is as detached and neutral as anyone could easily see. See: MAKU vs. AL-MAKURA (2016) 5 NWLR (PT. 1505) 201.

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari IMPLICATION OF THE FAILURE OF THE PETITIONERS TO ANSWER LEGAL POINTS MADE BY THE 2ND & 3RD RESPONDENTS IN THEIR’ FINAL ADDRESS.

It is to be noted that the 2nd & 3rd Respondents in their final written address made certain crucial and fundamental submissions which the petitioners

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari have failed to answer or have been unable to answer or respond to in their final written address.

For instance, the 3rd Respondent had argued in paragraphs 5.32 – 5.39 on pages 20 – 21 of its’ final address under the sub-head “NON – QUALIFICATION OF THE 1ST PETITIONER”

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari the crucial issue of the lack of locus and/or non-qualification of the 1st Petitioner himself, particularly his non entitlement to the reliefs sought in this petition in the absence of requisite locus standi, having not been qualified as a Nigerian citizen “by birth”

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari as mandatorily stipulated in section 131(a) of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), to contest for the election into the office of the President of Nigeria, ab initio.

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari Unfortunately, the petitioners failed and/or omitted to respond to all the salient submissions on this issue and more, in their final address.

It signifies that the petitioners are deemed to have conceded the salient and crucial arguments on the said issue.

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari The law is now trite that where a party fails or refuses to respond or react to issues raised or submissions made by his opponent in his process, he is deemed to have no answer and therefore, conceded such point(s) to his opponent. See: ADESANYA vs. OTUEWU (1993) 1 NWLR (PT. 270)

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari SPECIFIC RESPONSE TO THE PETITIONERS’ SUBMISSIONS

PETITIONERS’ ISSUES 1 AND 2
With all due respect the petitioners’ submissions in their entire final written address, particularly paragraphs 3.02 – 3.57 thereof, are not only grossly misconceived but overtly ambitious

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari without appreciating the peculiar state of pleading/facts of this petition and paucity of credible evidence vis-à-vis the relevant established position/principles of our electoral jurisprudence. In response to petitioners’ paragraphs 3.02 – 3.06,

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari the 2nd Respondent (PMB) possesses the requisite qualifications to occupy the office of the president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The conjunction “OR”, as they appear at the end of each subsection 1 (a) (b) and (c) of Section 318 of the Constitution are to be interpreted

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari disjunctively respectively save for paragraph (C) which generously used the word “AND”, and so that paragraph along with paragraph (D) are to be read conjunctively. In other words, a candidate may choose to rely on any or all of (a) or (b) or (c) and/or (d) of Section 318 (1)

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari of the 1999 Constitution as amended. It suffices to say that any candidate relying on Section 318 (1) (c) must also satisfy the conditions in (i), (ii) and (iii). The above interpretation was given judicial recognition in the case of BAYO V. NJIDDA (2004) 8 NWLR (Part 876)

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari It is, therefore, preposterous for petitioners to argue that in this case 2nd Respondent (PMB) relied only on (a) and (b), merely because he listed the schools he attended and qualifications obtained, without countenancing the attached curriculum vitae (CV) which copiously and

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari comprehensively contained germane information regarding his service in the public sector in the federation in varying capacity over a considerable period of time and which no doubt, must have influenced the decision of INEC in accepting 2nd Respondent as duly qualified.

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari Furthermore, contrary to the petitioners’ argument in paragraph 3.09 of their final written address that PMB has not proved his qualification to contest the election. It is elementary that in discharging the burden of proof in a civil case including an election petition,

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari the Plaintiff/petitioner must first prove the existence or non – existence of what he asserts by relevant, admissible and credible evidence. By virtue of section 136 of the Evidence Act, 2011, the onus is on the Plaintiff to establish first, his case by credible, cogent and

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari admissible evidence. It is after the Plaintiff may have established or proved his case that the onus would shift to the Defendant to rebut the case of the Petitioner/Plaintiff. Thus, petitioners who have not in the circumstances of this case, led credible evidence in support

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari of their case cannot shift the burden of proof to the Respondents. See: ANDREW vs. INEC (2018) 9 NWLR (PT. 1625) 507. The petitioners failed to first prove or establish the non – qualification of PMB in their petition. The petitioners are oblivious of the fact that

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari they are seeking declaratory reliefs, which include a declaration that PMB was disqualified from contesting the election. The Supreme Court have held succinctly in the case of OMISORE vs. AREGBESOLA (Supra)
“I seek to state further that with the case at hand being declaratory in

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari nature, the law makes it incumbent on the petitioner to prove their case and not rely on the absence of evidence by the Respondents. In a claim for declaration therefore, the onus is always on the person who alleges to establish his case and not rely on the weakness of the defenc

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari The petitioner must in such situation satisfy the court with cogent and compellable evidence properly pleaded, that he is entitled to the declaration. I wish to restate also that admissions by the Defendant may not satisfy as proof. See: BELLO vs. MAGNOS EWEKA (1981) 1 S.C. 101”

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari The petitioners herein totally failed in this regard. Nevertheless, it was the Respondents that proved the qualification of PMB ex abundantia cautela.

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari It is erroneous for the petitioners who are challenging the PMB’s qualifications to submit that all the evidence of the 2nd Resp to prove that he attended a secondary school, or primary school or that he attended some courses are irrelevant.

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari This is most mischievous because the end result of attending primary school and secondary school is to obtain relevant certificate which 2nd Respondent did obtain and was produced and tendered in court. The case of AMAECHI vs. INEC & ORS is not applicable in this petition.

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari The 2nd Respondent in this matter has led evidence as to his participation in the West African Examination Council Examination which was indeed certified by the University of Cambridge. It is evident from Section 131 (d), read along with Section 318 (1) of the Constitution,

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari Candidates who are educated up to Secondary School Certificate level or its equivalent with or without School Certificate are qualified to contest Elections under the 1999 Constitution for the office of the President.

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari This is to say that peradventure a contestant in an election does not possess a WAEC Certificate, the ability to read and write in English alone or any other qualification as defined under Section 318 of the Constitution would suffice.

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari The Constitution further made it abundantly clear that the INEC is saddled with the power to determine the acceptable educational qualification for a candidate’s eligibility to contest for an elective office, including office of the President.

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari Further, it is submitted that the issue of forgery raised by the petitioners in their address is not covered by their pleading which at paragraph 15(d) merely alleged that the 2nd Respondent was at the time of the election not qualified to contest the said election.

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari If they intended to raise issue of forgery they ought to have alleged in accordance with Section 137(1)(i) that PMB has presented a forged certificate to INEC. Having made no such allegation part of their pleading it is not open to them to now raise it in their final address.

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari It is in also not correct as alleged by petitioners, that the documents from Cambridge were obtained in violation of section 83(3) of the Evidence Act. Those documents from Cambridge or even WAEC were not made during the pendency of this petition, as the documents were in existen

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari before the contemplation of this petition. All that was legally done was simply to obtain CTC of same. See: OKONJI V. NJOKANMA (1999) 14 NWLR (PT. 638) 250. What is more, Cambridge and WAEC have no interest (either personal or pecuniary) in this petition.

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari It is in order to obviate any iota of interest or favour that the PMB did not ask the authority of the Nigerian Army to produce his certificates in its custody. The 2nd Respondent called evidence of his qualification from the agencies or bodies outside his area of influence

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari Contrary to the petitioners’ contention that there are discrepancies on the certificates of the 2nd Respondent, we submit that the petitioners are like drowning men who will cling unto any straw while drowning. The alleged discrepancies are nothing but a misconception.

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari The other alleged discrepancy as contended by petitioners relates only to the spelling and pronunciation of the 2nd Respondent’s name on the certificates reading “Mohammed” and “Mohammadu”. The testimonies of RW5 is very apt on this when he testified thus:

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari “There is no difference between Muhammadu, Muhammed etc as it depends on the person pronouncing the name”. It is submitted that these exhibits and testimonies of RW4 and RW5 in particular shows that the certificates were not forged as claimed by the petitioners.

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari MISCONCEPTIONS ON NON- CALLING OF WITNESS:
The petitioners misconceived the position of the law on the clear-cut distinction between non – calling of witnesses and non-calling of evidence. Admittedly the 1st Respondent did not call any witness nor tender any document.

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari However, the petitioners called PW1 – P62 as witnesses and the 2nd Respondent called as witnesses RW1 – RW7 and 1st Respondent through these witnesses elicited crucial pieces of evidence in support of its pleading. The record of the court shows glaringly

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari that throughout the trial of this petition, the 1st&3rd Resps cross – examined the petitioners’ witnesses and the 2nd Respondent’s witnesses and elicited cogent and credible oral evidence from them in support of their pleadings in this petition.

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari The relevant and crucial pieces of oral evidence elicited through cross – examinations are sufficient to support and proof the facts pleaded in their respective pleadings to the detriment of the petitioners’ case. The non – calling of witnesses by the 1st&3rd Resps

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari is permissible in law having called evidence elicited through cross -examination which goes to support the case or defence of the 1st& 3rd Respondents. If at the end they decide not to call any witness, they can safely rely on the evidence elicited from cross examination

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari in establishing their case or defence, as it was done in this case, it is therefore, erroneous to argue as the petitioners have done that, they called no evidence in support of their case, merely because they called no witnesses. This is so because the evidence

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari elicited from their opponent under cross examination, which are in support of their case or defence, constitutes their evidence in the case as the 1st and 3rd Respondents have done in the circumstances of this petition. See: OMISORE vs. AREGBESOLA (Supra)

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari Therefore, the petitioners’ submissions on abandonment of pleadings do not represent the law on the situation/circumstances of this petition. The case of BUHARI vs. OBASANJO (2005) 2 NWLR (PT. 910) 241 and others cited by the petitioners are inapplicable in this circumstance.

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari contrary to the petitioners’ contention that the burden rests squarely on the 2nd Respondent to prove his qualification, it is the case of the petitioners and it is elementary that he who assert must proof.

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari Nevertheless, and apart from the fact that the 2nd Respondent has discharged the onus of proof out of abundance of caution, even though the petitioners failed to prove 2nd Respondent’s non-qualification.

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari In arguing issue 3, the Petitioners have laid emphasis on the result of the election which they claimed were transmitted to the INEC’S server. It has to be remembered that the evidence which the Petitioners have relied on for their unfounded proposition that a server existed

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari were the statements credited to INEC officials in the media in this regard. Apart from the fact that as it has been argued in the main address that the report of a statement which has been credited to another person in the newspaper is only proof of the fact that the statement

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari was made not probative of the truth of the statement, the Petitioners have not been able to trace the alleged obligation of the INEC to transmit the results of the election to any server to any statute, rules or regulations governing the election in question.

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari The law is that the policy of any Govt on an issue which has not received the force of law cannot be the basis for punitive measure or sanction. See: Federal Military Government vs. Sani (No2) [1989] 4 NWLR (PT. 117). On this score alone, petitioners’ submission is non sequitur.

@ErhireMagnus @AOBamiduro @DokunOjomo @trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs @IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari I rest my case! Adoption of final address by parties is slated for Wednesday 21, 2019. Delivery of judgement shall follow i.e on or before 16th September 2019. Let’s patiently wait for the judgment. I ran this thread purposely to clear the air! Good night.