Pinhero SAN informs the court that during appearances, the Petitioners just served them the 2nd schedule to the documents they want to tender in court. That the court had cautioned about this development.
The Court reprimanded this conduct, and noted that the schedule should...
be filed prior to coming to court.
The Petitioners corrected the notion that the Schedule had been filed and is within the courts records. However, what was given to the 1st Respondents is not the Schedule.
The court rightly posits that the Petitioners are in order and we move.
Chief Emeka Opoko SAN will conduct the proceedings on behalf of the Petitioners.
They've arranged the public documents which they will be tendering according to LGA and they will start with tendering for 23 LGAs of Benue State.
This will include Froms EC8 series & EC4DG series.
The court asks the Petitioners how many states will they be tendering such documents for.
Emeka SAN responds that they are only concerned with about 18 states of the federation and for these states are the documents whey will tender.
The court is worried about the style of tendering documents and the fact that the documents are much. The court noted that for convenience, the Schedules to Documents should be specific as to the Forms and particular States on order to aid them in tagging Exhibits.
The Local Government Areas are as follows: 1. Andoni 2. Emohua 3. Ahoda West 4. Asari-Toru 5. Khana 6. Ikwerre 7. Opobo-Nkoro 8. Tai 9. Gokana 10. Akuku-Toru 11. Etched 12. Ogu-Bolo 13. Omuma 14. Ogba-Egbema-Ndoni 15. Degema 16. Opobo
Emeka SAN tendered Forms EC8As documents for 21 LGAs, but mentioned only about 16 LGAs.
The court suggested that they take an adjournment, go back and properly harness their documents as they find it difficult to list all the LGAs of Rivers State they have before the court.
The court noted that all documents in relation to one LGA for Forms EC8A should be put together and tagged and so on for the rest of the States.
The court noted that the entire process of today have been a waste of time as they've not been able to put their lists in order.
The Counsel to the Petitioners informed the court that they have documents for 21 LGA but they do not have them all listed due to typography error.
Awa Kalu SAN took over from Emeka SAN and I forms the court that they took an adjournment yesterday and refuse to take another today. He further noted that they will like to tender the Forms EC8As of 16 (listed) LGAs and will tender the rest should they have the list.
1st Respondent:
Pinhero SAN objected to the tendering of ALL THE DOCUMENTS that they will be tendering today, in line with the motion they have already filed before the Court.
They've gone through the documents sought to be tendered and will be objecting to their admissibility and thereafter state their reasons of objection at the time of written addresses.
Meanwhile, the court noted that there's no LGA as Opobo, but only Opbo-Nkoro. Hence, they are left with Forms EC8As for 15 LGAs in Rivers State, having excluded the earlier mentioned 'Opobo'.
The Counsel takes cognisance of this error and affirms that indeed, it's 15 LGAs.
The Court:
The Lead Justice held that it received Forms EC8As for 15 LGAs of Rivers State and went ahead to list them. He further admitted them in evidence and marked them as Exhibits PB1_15
They oppose the tendering of the documents and challenge their admissibility and will state their reasons at the time of written address, in line with the motion previously argued.
Informed the court that two envelopes were brought in respect of SULEJA and they are still being sorted. Hence, they will state if they object or not after they have properly been sorted out.
Awa Kalu now takes over from Emeka SAN and notes to the court that the time allotted for the day is spent as it is 1pm and prays the court for them to continue tomorrow.
The court posits that it's better to finish with the Forms EC8As before the adjournment.
Awa Kalu SAN however informed the court that they are done with what the 6 states they came with as they prepared in line with the timing allotted to them from 9am to 1pm.
Mr. Saturday is in court already, even though it's a Friday. Man is looking too good to be representing the Respondent.
Anyways, I'm in court too, with my dear elder brother @realevabest, please follow him. I want to appear as Amicus Curiae today 😏😏 But I forgot my wig & gown.
- Awa Kalu SAN leads the Petitioners Team
- AB Mahmoud leads the 1st Respondent Team
- Wole Olanipekun leads the 2nd & 3rd Respondent Team
- LO Fagbemi leads the 4tg Respondents Team
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.
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...