A certain SAN (name withheld) was told to keep his phone outside before accessing the court. He simply looked, hissed & went in with his phone without being stopped. 😂😂😂
People are seated in court and carried out civil disobedience to the rule of keeping their phones outside.
The court is trying to determine issues as to allotment of time and breaks that will be taken day-to-day of the Petitions.
Wole SAN is informing the Court that He will like to bring to the tribunal's notice of a Supreme Court Judgment of Friday which resolved one of the issues
on the petition (Double Nomination). He says it is important that the court is aware.
The Counsel of the APM (Petitioners) have just prayed the court to adjourn the hearing of the petition to enable them apply to the Supreme Court for the Friday Judgment.
This was in response to the position of Wole (2R & 3R) reminding the court of the judgement which settled...
The issues of the Petitioners.
He requested for an adjournment till Friday 2nd June 2023.
The Court have adjourned the Petition of the APM till Friday May 2, 2023 to enable parties obtain the Supreme Court Judgment SC/CV/501/2023 between PDP v. INEC & 2 ORS.
INEC raises observations about the tendering of documents as a process that should have been done during the Pre-Hearing. That they need time to review the documents before the tendering.
The court informs them that they can view the documents IN COURT as they are being tendered
Petitioners inform the court that there's no law that compels them to show the respondents the documents before coming to court. Moreover, INEC, the 1st respondents were the ones that certified the document, so why the need to see the documents before tendering them in court.
The Pet. further informs the court that the law only compels them to show them the list of documents, not the actual document and they have a right to tender those documents any time in court as far as it has been listed and pleaded in the Petitions.
The proceedings of the petition between PETER OBI, LP v. INEC & ORS. resumes.
There's a stopwatch in court to time all parties during the Examination of witnesses... It's going to be one hell of a debate in the 8-walled courtroom.
Court encourages Parties to file schedules of documents early enough so all parties can be aware.
The court noted vehemently that the stage of requesting time to inspect documents is past and cautioned INEC. That they should know their certification by a simple glance.
Counsel to the Petitioners appealed to the court that there may be instances where they may file their schedule later than expected due to the fact that they've not gotten all documents within hand.
We will now proceed to tendering of documents by the Petitioners.
All 4 documents have been tendered by the Petitioners, 4 of which are INEC certified documents. All the respondents do not have any objections to the documents.
The court has admitted them as Exhibits PA1-4
(Make Senior Advocate no make Judge vex ooo, voices are high) 😀
First witness in the box identified as one LUNN & has identified his witness statement on oath which he deposed to. The witness is making an oral application to the court to amend Paragraph 10 of his witness statement on oath. He wants to amend the word 'February' to read 'July'
He claims there's a mistake there and wants it amended.
ALL RESPONDENTS DO NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THE AMENDMENT.
The Amended Witness Statement on Oath have now been adopted.
Amina JSC of the Supreme Court in the PDP suit against Shettima held that the principles in Nwosu v APC (2019) cannot apply for 2 reasons:
1. That Nwosu was nominated by two parties 2. That Nwosu participated in two primaries but Shettima participated in one
I TOTALLY DISAGREE!
The provisions of S. 35, Electoral Act 2022 is in no different from S. 37, Electoral Act 2010 which applied to the Nwosu case.
ON THE FIRST REASON:
The law is clear that a CANDIDATE stands voided if he is nominated by:
a. More than one party
b. In more than one constituency...
It is clear by this provision that whether multiple nomination was done by multiple parties or done in multiple constituencies, such candidate stands voided and can never participate in an election.
Nwosu's case was in two parties, Shettima's case was in two constituencies...
Let's review the Supreme Court judgment of Adeleke and Oyetola...
Recall I told you that I won't make comments until I have digested the Judgment, however, for now, I'll work with the media reports.
I want the public to pay attention, but this attention is free of cost...
@thecableng reported that "The court further said that NO LAW REQUIRES PRESIDING OFFICERS TO TRANSMIT THE NUMBER OF ACCREDITED VOTERS or accreditation of the polls TO THE DATABASE or backend server of INEC by BVAS."
Let's probe the court's views in line with the law.
Follow me.
S.60(5), Electoral Act-EA provides that "The PRESIDING OFFICER SHALL TRANSFER the results INCLUDING TOTAL NUMBER OF ACCREDITED VOTERS (NAV) and the results of the ballot in a manner as prescribed by the Commission."
The law is unambiguous that the PO SHALL transfer Total NAV...
My name is UC Maxwell, and my support for Peter Obi’s mandate remains firm. I am not interested in crumbs, access, or whatever. I simply want a better society. If you approve, RT. ✊