SUPREME COURT APPEAL UPDATE
Analysis of Ground 9 by MissPearls
Ground 9 of our grounds for appeal states that the judges erred in Law and OCCASIONED A GRAVE MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE when they held that we were unable to establish our allegation of non-compliance by INEC with section 73(2) of the Electoral act.
—We argued that the evidence of PW12 on the failure of INEC to comply with 73(2) was not challenged by the respondents under cross examination
—The court below overlooked the fact that no other witness gave evidence on the issue of non-compliance within section 73(2) of the act
—S73(2) of the electoral act states that an election conducted at a polling unit without the prior recordings prescribed by the Commission of the quantity, serial numbers and other particulars of results sheets, ballot papers and other sensitive electoral materials made available by the Commission for the conduct of the election shall be INVALID.
—The court failed to take into account the fact that INEC did not deny reciepts of exhibits PCQ1-PCQ6 which established the above and did not explain its refusal or failure to respond to it.
READ ALSO : David Hundeyin grants Interview on ABC news USA regarding Tinubu (video)
—The onus on section 73(2) is on the balance of probabilities and the statutorily prescribed consequence for failure to comply with that mandatory requirement is to render the election INVALID!
…
A strong Obidient, UC Maxwell has summarized the entire Prayers of LP…
Read Below :
SUMMARY OF PETER OBI’S NOTICE OF APPEAL – PART 2
GROUND 9:
The Petitioners will be arguing that the Tribunal failed to take account of the several letters issued to INEC (Exhibits PCQ1 to PCQ6) which they refused to avail the documents requested for.
They will also argue that INEC failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 73(2) of the Electoral Act and even though the petitioners proved it in court, INEC didn’t call any witness, not even a Presiding Officer, to prove otherwise.
SUMMARY OF PETER OBI’S NOTICE OF APPEAL – PART 3A
GROUND 11:
Recall that 10 of the 13 witnesses of the Petitioners were rejected because their witness statement on oath was not front-loaded. The Petitioners will argue that…
– on the basis of 2 previous judgments (Dickson v Sylva (2017) and Uzodinma v Ihedioha (2020)) that the Supreme Court held that the evidence of witnesses on subpoena was admissible, and the court evaluated and gave weight to the evidence.
– That the subpoena was not objected to, neither did the court set them aside and by this, the subpoenas were still binding on the court and all the parties. That for a subpoena to be set aside, there must be valid reasons and since the court did not provide any or set it aside, it lacked jurisdiction to nullify the evidence from the 10 witnesses. (wow, strong argument)
READ ALSO : Atiku wins in US court as Court Orders CSU to Release Tinubu’s records
SUMMARY OF PETER OBI’S NOTICE OF APPEAL – PART 3B —– THIS WILL INTEREST YOU!
GROUND 11:
For those who listened to my submissions on Mindset’s Space, 1MMC Space and ObiDatti TV on Youtube, recall I made reference to a recent judgment of the Court of Appeal on 10th of August 2023 about allowing subpoena witness to testify… It was included in the Notice of Appeal of Peter Obi and will be argued under Ground 11
– Under this Ground, the Petitioners will argue that the PEPT failed to appreciate the judgment in this unreported case of CA/PH/EP/SEN/06/2023 : APM v INEC & ORS, that it will be incongruous and preposterous to hold the statements on oath of the subpoenaed witness must accompany the Petition.
Note also that in this APM Judgment, it was a unanimous finding. Frame 3: Lead Judgment. Frame 2: second judgment.
#LiveFromPEPT
#AllEyesOnTheJudiciary
#AllEyesOnTheSupremeCourt
TO Be continued….
About Author
