@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

@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;

UPDATE ON CA/PEPT/002/2019 Between
1. ATIKU ABUBAKAR .... PETITIONERS
2. PDP
AND
1. INEC ......... RESPONDENTS
2. PMB
3. APC
@trolls_queen @FemiDenning @romanticboy77 @ProfOsinbajo @OfficialAPCNg @toluogunlesi @akandeoj @Mr_JAGs
@IsmaeelAhmedB @BashirAhmaad @MBuhari During the pre hearing session, the petitioners proposed to tenderer all their documents from the bar. All the parties however agreed that grounds of objection to those documents shall be filed separately at the address stage.

@trolls_queen @Naijavote @OfficialPDPNig @atiku I'm back again 😁. The media have reported different asymmetric news report on the ongoing Presidential election Petition after my last analysis. Here 👇 is the analysis of pleadings that were filed and exchanged in the last 2 weeks. @trolls_queen @Naijavote @OfficialPDPNig @atiku The 2nd Resp (PMB) filed& served his REPLY to the petition. As a threshold issue, the 2nd Respondent also urged the court, by way of PO to dismiss/ strike out the petition wholly or in part as may be appropriate.
The grounds upon which the objection was brought are as follows:

@trolls_queen @Naijavote @OfficialPDPNig @atiku The 3rd Respondent provided particulars of allegation made against the 1st Petitioner in the following ways:

i)The 1st petitioner was born on the 25th November, 1946 in Jada, Adamawa, in Northern Cameroon and is therefore a citizen of Cameroon. @trolls_queen @Naijavote @OfficialPDPNig @atiku ii)His father was Garba Atiku Abdulkadir who died in December, 1957

iii)Prior to 1919 Cameroon was being administered by Germany. But following the defeat of Germany in World War 1 which ended in 1918, Cameroon became a League of Nations mandate territory

@Naijavote It's unfortunate that most of you on Twitter has been badly affected by poor journalism in Nigeria. The reply filed by the APC contained over 500 paragraphs of 3 Vols. Atiku & PDP in his Petition challenged the qualification of PMB to participate in the election. @Naijavote The APC being the 3rd Respondent to the Petition filed by Atiku and PDP filed its REPLY to the petition and as a threshold issue, the 3rd respondent urged the court, by way of preliminary objection to dismiss or strike out the said petition wholly or in part as may be appropriate