Welcome back to part 4 of the PEPT report….
Are you ready?…. Let’s go!!!
4th Respondent (APC)
L. O. Fagbemi: The 4th Respondent filed a Written Address dated and filed on the 14th days of July, 2023. There’s also the 4th Respondent’s reply on Points of Law which is dated the 27th day by filed on the 28th day of July, 2023.
Respectfully, I adopt and rely on these two processes. I urge the court to dismiss this petition.
I will adopt the oral submissions of my A B Mahmoud and our leader, Chief Wole Olanipekun SAN. I have refrained myself but I have to be mild to say that this petition is ambitious. The 2nd Petitioner has abused processes. They suffered defeat in Abuja and ran to Lagos. They had a short victory, as the court appeal shows the results were disastrous.
Unless there is an appeal to overturn the decision of that court, this procedure here is a gross abuse of process. The investigation in an election is to see whether voting took place, the results declared & collation was done. I will give it to them where they have done well and that’s that they did not dispute that voting, counting, collation & result are the important things. The one at the Unit level is the most important. If anyone wants to attack the results, there has to be a polling unit by polling unit allegation and proof. If they are contending that there were contentions with the transmission, it has to be polling unit by polling unit proof, which was really lacking.
It is a question of before you go IREV you must start “LOWREV”. The much taunted issue of rerun is a two horse race between the two leading contenders vote wise which does not concern the petitioners. Section 134(3) of the constitution also buttresses this point. Even if you want to do this, your Lordships will ask where was the man who came second. It is one of the reasons why we will describe this as Meddlesome Interlopers.
Read also : BREAKING : Helicopter Crashes into Building in Ikeja, Lagos (video)
Disqualification means any body is qualified except he suffers under the provisions of section 137(d) of the constitution. It is not a criminal forfeiture, there was no charge, no trial and No conviction. So exhibit BA is devoid of the requirements. PW1 in this regard admitted that strictly speaking, there was no defendant for any criminal offense under cross examination. In any event, evidence abounds that there was clearance given to the 2nd Respondent, a clean bill of health.
The question of the status of FCT. FCT does not enjoy any special status as far as elections are concerned, especially presidential elections. The 2nd respondent scored more than 25% in about 29 states. That suffices & to do other wise will amount to constitutional absurdity. On the issue of IREV, there’s no point that has not been decided. The case has been settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in SC/CV/508/2023. It is reported in Oyetola v INEC (2023) 11 NWLR pt. 1894. This has cleared any doubt in the air as to deposition of INEC whether it adequately conducted the election. No one is perfect and INEC scored at least 90% in this election.
SAN Livy is now up with the microphone: testing testing 123
SAN Livy: My lord, it is my submission that the respondents have laboured in vain to diminish this petition.
“Hmmmm”
SAN Livy: As the case of Oyetola Vs INEC where the Supreme Court said IREV is part of electoral process, my lords, I will seek your indulgence to refer you to paragraph 22 of the witness disposition of RW1 which all the respondents have preferred to ignore and I will like to further drag them out of their uncomfortable zone.
READ ALSO : 3 Neighboring African countries pledge support for Niger, dare ECOWAS.
The witness, their own witness said the authentic portal on which results can be accessed for review or determination of the election is the IREV Portal.
Now they are saying that IREV is no more important.
And an election where 88,000 blurred results were uploaded on this IREV is a flawed election.
Oyaaaaa🔥🔥🔥
Livy: My lord, INEC gave results to the petitioners to present in this court and 88,123 of those results were blurred and they were certified by the same INEC and some were even blank copies of A4 papers, certified and among them you have pictures certified by them, INEC and they want to say they conducted an election properly so called.
My lord, let me repeat myself.
Justice Tsammani: We have heard you
Livy: My lord, let me say this, it is my submission that a CERTIFIED TRUE COPY of a document MUST BE AN EXACT REPLICA OF THE ORIGINAL.
Must be, there is no choice, you cannot give us blurred CTC
INEC can only have in its custody blurred blank result and not the original and so they have no basis as to what they used to declare that result, they only went to declare someone a winner and they don’t even have the original copies of results they certify because it could never have been any other thing apart from blurred sheets and pictures.
Fire on SAN
Livy: My lord, the 2nd respondent forfeited $460,000 on NARCOTICS, they don’t want to hear that, NARCOTICS
🤣🤣🤣
Livy ohhhh
Livy: My lord they have been quoting section 137 1D they are trying to form a case for us and avoiding the main case, even when you focus on money laundering which was part of the crimes of the 2nd respondent, the NARCOTICS should not be ignored and the constitution is clear on such crimes.
Now on rerun my lord, let us be clear, the only candidate who comes clear for a rerun is the 1st petitioner according to section 131 3D and my lord, in the case of Awolowo and Shagari, of course the provision now was not available then in that case.
And let me quickly refer to what the lawyer of the 2nd respondent said that the petition has been abandoned and I can’t believe this came from a brother I know, petition that you spent time filing replies and you don’t even have replies to file is what you’re saying abandoned.
A petition where you don’t even have any witness.
🔥🔥🔥
Livyyyy
Livy: My lord, I don’t want to spend time talking about FCT because the constitution is very clear on it, none of them even defined the meaning of AND.
I didn’t hear that from any of them whether disjunctive or otherwise and that would lead to manifest absurdity and they know so that is why they ignored that and did not urge my lord to interprete the AND as being disjunctive.
“The clerk rings the bell”
Livy: My lord, I’m replying 3 people, my time is not up
🤣😅🤣
Livy: My lord, the petitioners have proved their case and to the issue of noncompliance from INEC they have no defence. They said because of toner, that’s why results CTC are blurred
4 months after was when they explained a 4 hours glitch, 4 months after.
Up unto 29th of May, they were still giving us blurred documents of election result, 4 months after elections, how can you reconcile the 2. It’s not possible.
Justice Tsammani: Your time is to
Livy: My lord, one more sentence
the petitioners have proved that there was no glitch whatsoever in this election.
May it please my lordship.
Justice Tsamamani: Okay, we will announce the date for judgement to you all.
OMG
🥹
“Learned silks, this is it, it’s done”.
It’s going to be a testimony 🥹.
About Author
