UPDATE: There is serious resistance by lawyers against the idea of dropping their phones outside the court. I can confirm that at this moment, the draconian rule have not been allowed to be implemented as people are accessing the court with their phones & gadgets.
The court is addressing the issue of leaving their phones outside the courtroom. That whatever decision they have taken is in the best interest and they act based on security report which concerns everyone.
The court added that everyone should understand and appreciate whatever decision they take. As the decision should not cause the emotions it is causing.
"Once instructions are given,every should try to comply" the Lead Justice added.
The Court is concerned that the members of the public are not allowed into the court. He cautioned lawyers who are not appearing not to come to court robed and fill up the courts.
Please the above information applies to the APC legal team. They were commenting on issues concerning the press accessing the court & the Counsel to the APC made the revelation in passing.
So all lawyers representing APC can't speak to the press or risk expulsion from the team.
KEY TAKEAWAYS FROM THE HEARING REPORT OF APM V. INEC, TINUBU, SHETTIMA, APC, MASARI.
* On Consolidation, The petion of APM will be consolidated and all petitions will be dealt with as One Petition.
* Petitioners shall have 1 DAY to prove their case on 30th May.
UPDATE... THE CASE OF ATIKU, PDP V. INEC, TINUBU, APC HAVE NOW BEEN CALLED, APPEARANCES ARE BEING TAKEN AFTER WHICH WE WILL RECEIVE THE PRE-HEARING REPORT.
The report will bring to an end, all Pre-Hearing of the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal 2023.
KEY TAKEAWAYS FROM THE HEARING REPORT OF ATIKU, PDP V. INEC, TINUBU, APC.
* THE PETITION OF ATIKU IS CONSOLIDATED WITH OTHER PETITIONS AND SHALL BE HEARD AS ONE PETITION SINCE THEY RELATE TO THE SAME ELECTION AND RETURN AND JUSTICE DEMANDS SO.
PART 2: DID ATIKU PLEAD BOLA TINUBU'S CERTIFICATE FORGERY IN HIS PETITION?
After my last post on Atiku's Final Written Address and whether he argued forgery, a lot of people were in the comments and some came to my DM stating that 'ATIKU ONLY BROUGHT UP FORGERY IN HIS REPLY, NOT THE MAIN PETITION'.
So I have decided to set the record straight. I want you to follow this analysis carefully...
Atiku filed his Petition before the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal, signed and dated 20th and Filed on the 21st Day of March 2023. In Paragraph 146, Page 49 of the Petition, Atiku provided the 4th Ground for which he was challenging the election thus:
GROUND FOUR: NON-QUALIFICATION:
The Petitioners aver that the 2nd Respondent (Tinubu) was at the time of the election, not qualified to contest the election, not having the constitutional threshold.
The key words there are DISQUALIFICATION and CONSTITUTIONAL THRESHOLD. What is the Constitutional threshold for the disqualification of a person? They are all enscribed within the provisions of Section 137 of the 1999 Constitution and very clearly, under Section 137(1)(j), the ground for disqualification for forgery is properly encapsulated.
NOW, SOME MINIONS WILL SAY HE DID NOT SPECIFICALLY PLEAD IT — THAT'S A LIE, I'LL PROVE IT IN THE BELOW 👇
From Pages 217 to 223, Atiku filed the Petitioner's List of Documents to be Relied Upon, signed and dated 20th and filed 21st Day of March 2023. This list contains documents, specifically pleaded that Atiku intended to rely upon in trial.
Page 220, Paragraphs 43 to 46 listed the following documents...
43. 2nd Respondent's (Tinubu) INEC FORM CFO01 for Lagos State 1999 Governorship Election;
44. Lagos State House of Assembly Report of the Ad-Hoc Committee set up on Tuesday, September 21, 1999, to investigate the allegations of Perjury and Forgery levelled against the Executive Governor of Lagos State;
45. 2nd Respondent's (Tinubu) Affidavit in respect of lost certificate dated 29th of December, 1998; and
46. 2nd Respondent's (Tinubu) INEC FORM EC9 for the 2023 Presidential Election.
It is further instructive to mention that this List was reproduced other times (Pages 51/52; 93/94; 128), 1 in the main Petition and 2 by two different witnesses. This brings it to a total of 4 times this list was mentioned that the Petitioners will rely on it.
...
It is equally worthy of note that the Petitioners pleaded Form EC9 of Tinubu in Paragraph 46.
A cursory look at INEC Form EC9, there's a requirement to attach evidence of all educational qualifications. And since Tinubu listed his Forged Chicago State University Certificate in that Form, he equally attached it.
By this, the tendering of Tinubu's INEC Form EC9 is the automatic tendering of his forged certificate.
On the gamut of the entire analysis provided above, it makes for only the following logical conclusion.
1. Atiku raised Tinubu's Disqualification on basis of forgery in his Petition.
2. Atiku tendered documents duly certified as true copies of INEC Form EC9 of Tinubu with an attachment of his forged CSU certificate and thereby brought it in issue.
3. Tinubu joined issue in his reply to Atiku's Petition which led to further reply from Atiku.
4. Atiku canvassed arguments on the issue of forgery in his final written address.
PETER OBI'S BRIEF OF ARGUMENT AT THE SUPREME COURT - ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
Peter Obi filed his 40-page Brief of Argument yesterday, October 2, 2023. He formulated Seven (7) Issues for Determination and has argued these issues within 36 pages (Pages 4 to 39) of the document.
In this thread, I will reproduce these issues in seriatim and in subsequent threads, I will give summaries and analysis of the arguments on all issues.
ISSUE 1 IS FRAMED FROM GROUNDS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 16, 17 AND 50 OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL
1. Whether upon a community reading of the Appellants’ Petition and the applicable law, the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in striking out/expunging some paragraphs of the Petition and the documentary evidence tendered by the Appellants for being vague, generic, imprecise, nebulous and inadmissible.
ISSUE 2 IS FRAMED FROM GROUNDS 6 and 20 OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL
Whether upon a careful consideration of the Appellants' Petition, the Respondents' respective Replies to the Petition and the Appellants' Replies to the Replies of the Respondents, the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right when they struck out some paragraphs of the Appellants' Replies to the Replies of the Respondents to the Petition.
All of Tinubu's Chicago State University Results available to the Public and before the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal could be FAKE! Including the one tendered in court by PDP. YES, FAKE!
Frame 1:
Tinubu's Result from Chicago State University tendered in court by the PDP through Mr Enahoro-Ebah
Frame 2:
Tinubu's Result from Chicago State University submitted to INEC
Frame 3:
Dr Elnora Daniel, her signature is on both certificates in Frames 1 and 2
Frame 4:
Dr Niva Lubin, her signature is on Frame 1
Walk with me...
Now the Story: 1. The certificate supposedly issued to Tinubu from the Chicago State University has the following specifications:
a. Issued on 22 June 1979.
b. 3 people signed on it.
c. Dr. Elnora Daniel signed it on 22 June 1979.
2. The certificate supposedly issued to Mr Enahoro which was tendered by ATIKU at the PEPT has the following specifications:
a. Issued on 27 June 1979.
b. 2 people signed on it.
c. Dr. Elnora Daniel signed it on 27 June 1979.
d. Dr. Niva Lubin also signed.
🚧 DISCREPANCIES OF BOTH CERTIFICATES
1. Both have different dates. 2. Both have different numbers of signatures. 3. Both certificates have different numbers of signatories to it. 4. Both certificates have different logos. 5. Both Certificates have different fonts or handwriting.
🚧 SIMILARITIES OF BOTH CERTIFICATES
1. Dr. Elnora Daniels Signed both certificates.
Now let's consider the possible fraud in both certificates...
Live Updates from the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal... Reporting the Adoption of Addresses in the Peter Obi/LP Petition.
The court now sit and appearances are being taken.
#LiveFromPEPT
With Peter Obi, Yusuf Datti and Chimamanda Adichie (who's in court for the first time) already seated, here are the Lead Counsels for the parties.
- Dr. Livy Uzoukwu SAN leads the Petitioners Legal Team
- AB Mahmoud SAN leads the 1st Respondent Legal Team
- Wole Olanipekun SAN… https://t.co/Q8wIWe1kZjtwitter.com/i/web/status/1…
With Peter Obi, Yusuf Datti and Chimamanda Adichie (who's in court for the first time) already seated, here are the Lead Counsels for the parties.
- Dr. Livy Uzoukwu SAN leads the Petitioners Legal Team
- AB Mahmoud SAN leads the 1st Respondent Legal Team
- Wole Olanipekun SAN… https://t.co/HKyFM8wytQtwitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Sidi Dauda Bage, Retired Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria spoke to the Judiciary, Executive & Legislature.
He was speaking (in futuro) to the Justices of the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal & the Supreme Court on what they MUST do.
Please read what he told them!
While Justice Bage was delivering judgment in the case of SALEH v. ABAH & ORS (2017) LPELR-41914(SC), he said...
"This Court must take the lead, in righting the wrongs in our society, if and when the opportunity presents itself as in this appeal.
...Allowing CRIMINALITY AND CERTIFICATE FORGERY to continue to percolate into the streams, waters and oceans of our national polity would only mean our waters are and will remain dangerously contaminated. The purification efforts must start now, and be sustained as we seek,