Summary Of Peter Obi’s Notice Of Appeal – PART 2

Echezonam Ibezim Jk

1 year ago

This is a continuation of the Summary…

Hope you Read Summary Of Peter Obi’s Notice Of Appeal – PART 1?

Let’s continue with Part 2 below :

SUMMARY OF PETER OBI’S NOTICE OF APPEAL – PART 4A

GROUND 15
Recall that the court discountenanced and expunged evidence of PW4, PW7, and PW8 as being interested persons in the case. The Petitioners will argue that…

– they rely on the case of Anyaebosi v BRSCO (1987) where a person interested is defined as a person who has pecuniary (monetary) or other material interest. And that the respondents did not adduce any evidence that the witnesses had any pecuniary or material interest.

– the evidence of the witnesses was purely intellectual exercise and there was no adverse finding by the court that the witnesses had any pecuniary or material beneits which made them interested persons.

SUMMARY OF PETER OBI’S NOTICE OF APPEAL – PART 5

GROUNDS 21, 22 & 23
These grounds are pivotal as the Petitioners will prove the importance of technology and electronic transmission. The petitioners will argue on these grounds…

– that the tribunal undermined and overlooked that the introduction of technology to elections was pivotal to the integrity/credibility and transparency of elections.

– that the witness of INEC agreed that copies of Forms EC8A uploaded to IReV ought to be and are the same with hard copies of Form EC8A… and the fact that they are blurred showed the non-compliance and corrupt practices.

– that the tribunal overlooked the fact that presiding officers were mandated/obligated to upload/transmit results, the number of accredited voters to the IReV from the BVAS

– that the tribunal ‘mistakenly’ concluded that INEC Result Viewing Portal is not a collation system. and ignored and overlooked the key objective of the electoral act which is the introduction of technology to guarantee integrity, credibility and transparency of the election.

– that the tribunal overlooked Paragraph 2.9.0 of INEC Manual for Election Officials; Sections 47(2), 60(1,2&5), 64(4a & 4b) and 64(5) of the Electoral Act which confers INEC with the power to transmit election results electronically

#LiveFromPEPT
#AllEyesOnTheJudiciary
#AllEyesOnTheSupremeCourt
#AllEyesOnJusticeAriwoola

Meanwhile, have you read below?

PRESS RELEASE FROM LABOUR PARTY

Obi, Labour Party land at Supreme Court lists 51 Grounds Against The Judgment of Justice Tsammani’s PEPC.

The final legal battle for the Contentious February 25th, 2023 Presidential Election begins with the Labour Party Presidential Candidate, Peter Gregory Obi, and the Labour Party, filing an appeal against the September 6, 2023 ruling of the Presidential Election Petition Court, PEPC.

Obi and LP’s team of lawyers led by Dr Livy Uzokwu SAN beat the deadline for the filing of the Appeal and are approaching the apex court on 51 grounds which they termed an error in law to prove that the All Progressives Congress, APC Presidential Candidate in the election, Bola Ahmed Tinubu did not win the election and that it was wrong for both INEC and the PEPC to declare him winner of the election when many incontrovertible points were proving otherwise.

In their reliefs Obi and the Labour Party sought from the apex Court, four key points; Allow the Appeal, set aside the perverse Judgment of the PEPC, and grant the Reliefs sought in the petition, either in the main or in the alternative.
On the issue of the 25% requirement for Abuja, Obi and the Labour Party listed the particulars of error by the PEPC as follows. That the PEPC failed to appreciate that for the President to assume the office or position of the Governor of Abuja, is also under a mandate to secure 25% of the votes cast in the FCT.

They also accused the PEPC of overlooking the fuller purport of section 299 which will be more glaring on a calm examination of section 301 of the constitution.

No date yet has been fixed for the hearing of the case.

SIGN

Obiora Ifoh
National Publicity Secretary.
Labour Party
19/09/2023