Igbo Corner

Tribunal Series (6): What Tinubu/Shettima told Court about manipulated election results

Published

2 years ago

July 18, 2023

Below are excerpts of what the All Progressives Congress (APC) presidential and vice presidential candidates, Alhaji Bola Ahmed Tinubu and Senator Kashim Ibrahim Shettima, respectively, told the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) respecting the blatantly manipulated election results.

In their response to the petition filed at the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal by Mr. Peter Gregory Obi and his Labour Party (LP), Tinubu/Shettima claimed that scoring 25% in a minimum of 29 States, with 20 States Governors, 59 Seats in the Senate, 162 seats in the House of Representatives, it would have been most improbable for the petitioners to win the presidential election and also most improbable for the respondents to lose it.

Read what he told the Tribunal below:

May we draw the attention of the court to the fact that this petition substantially challenges the results of the election in the States where the respondents did not win the presidential election, even as borne out by the petition itself. In paragraphs 72 and 73 of the petition, the petitioners challenge the election results in States like Lagos, Taraba, and Plateau, where they won, while also challenging States like Gombe, Katsina, Kaduna, Kano, Osun, Yobe, where the PDP and NNPP won.

May we further draw the attention of the court to the fact that these paragraphs are under ground 2 of the petition, alleging that “the election of the 2″ respondent was invalid by reason of corrupt practices and non-compliance with the provision of the Electoral Act, 2022.” We respectfully lay emphasis on the phrase “election of the 2″ respondent”, meaning that the petitioners are deliberately zeroing in on the election of the 2nd respondent, as against section 134(1)(b) of the EA, which provides as one of the grounds thus: “the election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices or non-compliance with the provisions of this Act.”

There is a world of difference between “the election of the 2nd respondent”, as pleaded in the petition and prayed for in the relief and “the election” as provided for in section 134(1)(b) of the EA. We submit that the EA envisages a situation where a petitioner will complain about results of the election in places where the overall winner did not win, hence, the provision of paragraph 49 of the First Schedule to the EA, which permits the petitioner to join two or more candidates as respondents.

Labour Party presidential and vice presidential candidates, Peter Gregory Onwubuasi Obi and Senator Yusuf Datti Baba-Ahmed at the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal

May we also draw the attention of the court to the witness statement of PW22, which reproduces the entire petition, including the foregoing paragraphs. It is our submission that it is not the intention of the legislature, that the respondents should be made willy-nilly, to defend the outcome of elections in places where he did not win, including Imo State, where the petitioners themselves won by over 77%. In like manner, the respondents cannot be made to defend whatever might have gone wrong in the States where the petitioners won the election, including Bauchi, Katsina, Kebbi and Taraba States, where the PDP and the NNPP won.

The point being made is that it will be against the Fundamental right of the respondents, as well as the spirit, tenor and intention of the EA, to make the respondents defend whatever is assumed to be wrong with the election, in the States where they did not win. Neither the EA, nor the Constitution contemplates the doctrine of vicarious liability in this regard. Arising from the foregoing, is the fact that the petition is improperly constituted, and, as such, at the end of evidence/trial, it is clear that it does not vest jurisdiction in this Honourable Court to entertain it, and more particularly, to grant the reliefs sought.

The essence of all these is that in the absence of the PDP and its candidate, the NNPP and its candidate, the grounds of the petition, the paragraphs making allegations against the parties and any evidence extracted during trial become incompetent and inadmissible in the absence of those panics. Without prejudice to the foregoing, it is our submission that there is no admissible evidence before this Honourable Court that will make it void or set aside the election of the 2nd respondent.

May we submit straightaway that the petitioners have not produced any evidence before this Honourable Court to warrant voiding or setting aside of the respondent’s election. While the petitioners called 13 witnesses, it is our submission that substantially, the cumulative effect of the terse evidence produced by them is against the petitioners. We further draw the attention of the court to the fact that most of the witness came to rehash the evidence of others before them. In essence, the end result of their evidence is the alleged non-transmission of already collated and entered results on form EC8A, to IREV portal.

We adopt our arguments under issue 1, insofar as they relate to the evidence of witnesses and are appropriate for this issue. While we have already raised and argued preliminary objections to the petition itself, it is our further submission that every criminal allegation contained in the petition has not been proved, assuming without conceding that petitioners have not abandoned them. Starting from PW1 through to PW13, each of them admitted the correctness of the polling unit results. The law is trite that polling unit results constitute the foundation of an election.

A successful challenge to the accuracy of a polling unit result is a condition precedent to the challenge of transmission of such result, whether to the ward level, Local Government level, State level or national level, whether manually or electronically. Right from the old case of Nwobodo v. Onoh (1984) 15 NSCC 1 at 23, the Supreme Court has held that election issues end at the polling booths where results are recorded in FEDECO forms (now form EC8A), and that even if any issue arises, those forms and the results therein can be added. In the words of the Supreme Court: “Polling stations are the concrete foundation on which the pyramid of an election process is built.”

Both the law and statute on this position have not changed, whether with the introduction of BVAS or transmission to IREV. With much respect to the petitioners, one would have expected them to have a rethink on proceeding further with this petition after the deliver of the decision of the Supreme Court in Adegboyega Isiaka Oyetola & Anor. V. Independent National Electoral Commission & 2 Ors. (Unreported) Appeal No: SC/CV/508/2023, delivered on 9th May, 2023, now reported as (2023) LPELR-60392 (SC), a decision which covers the field and clinically considers all issues which the petitioners are now agitating before this Honourable Court, including their failure, not only to tender, but identify or attempt to examine through any of their ‘experts’, or witnesses any of the BVAS machines deployed by INEC in the course of the election.

In the same judgment, the Supreme Court stated that the use of the Voters’ Register has not been discarded under the new dispensation. In this connection, most of the witnesses called by the petitioners testified to the proper, seamless and effective use of the voters’ registers as well as the BVAS machines. In Ojukwu v. Onwudiwe (1984) 1 SCNLR 247 at 284, the Supreme Court held that: “Another principle deeply enshrined in our jurisprudence is that admissions made do not require to be proved for the simple reason, among others that out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh and that no better proof is required than that which an adversary wholly and voluntarily owns up to.”

In this particular petition, nearly all the witnesses of the petitioners gave evidence which is against their interest, or which does not advance their case at all, but rather, diminishes it. Their evidence constitute(s) admission against interest. Besides, the petitioners have not given any evidence, nor demonstrated before this Honourable Court, first, that the non-transmission or uploading of primary results to IREV in real time, affected any of the results generated and recorded at any of the polling units and, second, how the alleged non-transmission electronically, has affected their scores, as against the final figure or results declared, giving details and specifics of what they ought to have scored as against what the respondents should have lost; or what the respondents have gained.

While we have raised objections to documents tendered by the petitioners, may we further submit that all the electronically generated evidence/exhibits tendered by the petitioners have been dumped on the court and that the position of the law remains that the court cannot countenance them. In Dickson v. Sylva (2017) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1567) 167 at 199, the Supreme Court held that: “one may ask if electronically generated evidence already an exhibit before the trial tribunal or court…was not to be demonstrated or played. What was the purport of admitting it in evidence? Was it simply to dump it on the lower tribunal, which is the roundabout effect and which will in effect, side tract the provision of paragraph 46 of the First Schedule of the Electoral Act, 2010?”

See the old case Duriminiya v. Commissioner of Police (1961) NRNLR 71 and Wada v. MEC (2022) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1841) 293 at 328, to the effect that none of the petitioners’ witnesses, including PW 12 had the capacity to demonstrate any of the documents tendered, as they were not the maker of the said documents. Lastly, the uncontroverted evidence before this Honourable Court is that the respondents won majority of the lawful votes cast at the election, scoring 25% in a minimum of 29 States, while his political party (APC) presently has 20 States Governors, 59 Seats in the Senate, 162 seats in the House of Representatives, controlling most of the Houses of Assembly in the States, etc.

By virtue of section 145(1X2) and (3) of the Evidence Act mandating the court to presume the existence of similar facts to similar circumstances, we urge this Honourable Court to hold that it would have been most improbable for the petitioners to win the presidential election and also most improbable for the respondents to lose it, drawing comparisons from the performances of all the political parties across board in the general elections. Read more.

—

©Copyright 2023 News Band

(If you would like to receive CURRENT NEWS updates from News Band on WhatsApp, or Telegram, or wish to send eyewitness accounts/ reports/ articles, write to elstimmy@gmail.com and we will respond instantly. Follow us on twitter @News Band; like our Facebook page: News Band.)

Post Views: 15

Analysis

Nigeria is radicalizing the Igbo, one injustice at a time ~ by Abolaji Rasaq

Published

3 months ago

May 21, 2025

kevin 'Jakpor

There’s something about persecution that does two things to a people: it either breaks them, or it makes them beasts of survival.

For centuries the Jews… they were hunted, hated, and humiliated by empires. But they didn’t vanish.

They evolved. They adapted. And today, the Jews are arguably the most powerful tribe in the world economically, intellectually, and politically. Ruthless when necessary.

They are unapologetic about their survival. Now, look at the Igbo. A tribe known for industry, resilience, and brilliance.

A people who just want to live, do business, and thrive. But Nigeria doesn’t want that. Nigeria wants control.

Nigeria wants submission. And the one thing the Igbo have never known how to do is bow. And that’s the real issue.

So what does Nigeria do? It sidelines them. Isolates them. Provokes them. Bombs their villages under the guise of security.

Locks up their agitators. Shuts down their businesses. Mocks their pain. Ignores their history. Prevent them from voting. Play politics with their education. Sponsored bigotry on them.

And then Nigeria pretends to be surprised that there’s growing radicalization in the East?

Let me be clear: The Igbo didn’t start this fire. Nigeria did.

And history, the very same history we keep refusing to learn from, has shown us that when you keep pushing a tribe that knows how to survive, they evolve into something stronger, something unstoppable.

It’s happened before. With the Jews. Europe tried to exterminate them. Instead, they became the backbone of global finance, media, tech, and diplomacy.

You don’t touch a Jew today without consequences. You don’t push them to the wall and expect them to stay quiet.

Now Nigeria is doing the same to the Igbo, pushing, prodding, provoking.

But here’s the warning: when you push an animal to the wall, it doesn’t stay calm. It fights back. It bites. And this time, when it bites, don’t act shocked.

But this isn’t just about the Igbo solely. Nigeria has perfected the art of creating monsters, then acting surprised when they bite.

The Niger Delta? Radicalized. The region was exploited for oil, polluted beyond repair, and ignored until their youths picked up arms.

The Fulani terrorists? Radicalized. Left behind by the same government that claimed to represent them, now manipulated by religion and resentment.

The Almajiri? Radicalized. Abandoned by an elite that used their poverty as a vote bank and then left them to rot.

The Agbero? Radicalized. Uneducated, weaponized, and unleashed as tools of political chaos.

Even the middle class is slowly being radicalized, not with guns, but with hopelessness. That, too, is a ticking time bomb.

A nation cannot continue to marginalize its most brilliant tribe and expect peace.

The Igbo are not docile. They are not quiet. They are not forgetful. They are survivors, and survivors don’t beg for space forever. At some point, they take it.

The Igbo didn’t set out to be radicals. They were made into one by a country that won’t stop seeing their confidence as a threat.

You can’t keep pretending unity means silence. You can’t keep preaching peace while planting injustice.

The Igbo are not asking for too much, they just want to live, build, and grow.

But if you insist on turning their dignity into defiance, their enterprise into enmity, and their survival into sedition, then you are creating a monster.

And if history has taught us anything, it’s this: when a persecuted people decide that survival is no longer enough, when they decide to stop running and start resisting, they don’t just fight back. They win.

Nigeria must understand this: you cannot keep pushing people into a corner and expect submission.

When you back a lion into a wall, don’t expect it to purr. It will roar. It will claw. It will tear through anything standing between it and freedom.

So here’s the final warning, for those who still care to listen: Nigeria is radicalizing the Igbo.

But worse, Nigeria is radicalizing everyone. And it won’t end well.

When the fire spreads, when the rebellion multiplies, when the beast we created begins to fight back, don’t act shocked; no tribe will be left untouched.

Don’t pretend it wasn’t preventable. We all made it happen. You don’t corner a lion and expect peace.

Abolaji Rasaq is a public affairs analyst.

Post Views: 41

Igbo Corner

Crisis hits Nnewi over Uruagu PG election, as BoT members protest, resign

Published

4 months ago

May 9, 2025

kevin 'Jakpor

Palpable crisis is brewing in Nnewi over the election of the President General of Uruagu Community in the industrial town of Anambra State, with a business mogul and owner of Organiser Plc., Chief Innocent Okoli, accused of upsetting the apple cart.

The crisis has led to protests and resignation of members of the Board of Trustees (BoT).

One of the resignation letters sighted by News Band was from a legal practitioner, J. N. Obi, Esq.

Barrister Obi, until his resignation served as the Secretary of the Executive Committee and member, Uruagu Board of Trustees.

Tendering his resignation letter, Obi cited brazen violation of the Constitution of Uruagu Nnewi Community Development Union.

The letter was referenced OB/03 /296/2025, dated May 8, 2025, and addressed to His Highness. Obi A. C. Obi (Ogidi IV).

In the letter entitled “Letter of resignation as member, Board of Trustees (B.O. T) Uruagu Nnewi. Obi announced his resignation based on the following reasons:

Article 8. 9 (a) of the Constitution of Uruagu Nnewi Community Development Union. 2022 (As Amended) states and I quote:
“The Board shall “Ensure the observance of this Constitution”.
Article 14.4 of the Constitution of Uruagu Nnewi Community Development Union 2022 (As Amended) states and I quote:
“Each ward shall submit a list of the Electors In writing to the Secretary General of the Union, one month before any election.
“The submission of the list of the Electors shall be done by the Ward Chairman In consultation with the Ward’s Obi.”
“The election sought to be conducted on Saturday, 10th day of May 2025, did not comply with the above provisious as it was on the Union’s general meeting of the I3th day of April 2025 that the expiration of the tenure of the Executives was announced.”

The legal pratictioner, however, noted that the election to be held on May 10 will not be up to one month.

He, therefore, resigned his membership of B. 0. T for failure to abide by the above provisions of the Constitution as stated above.

On his part, the former President General of Uruagu Nnewi, Chief Ambassador Charles Nwonye, decried series of illegalities in the proposed election championed by Chief Okoli.

He recalled the efforts of past and present stakeholders to ensure that Uruagu Nnewi Community Development Union is recognised as a legal and responsible entity in the state.

He, however, speaking in a voice note obtained by Diaspora Digital Media (DDM), regretted:

“It’s very, very unfortunate that those counsels that instituted Uruagu Development Union are no longer alive.

“They were the ones who were known for speaking out the truth. But at the same time, we will not all keep quiet.

“I, hereby, wish to bring the following to the attention of all Uruagu indigenes, scattered all over Nigeria and in the diaspora that four years ago, a similar thing happened.

“Uruagu Nnewi Constitution was also flagrantly violated four years ago.

“At the end, a lot of stakeholders asked the former Executive Committee to resign and leave en masse.

“The Constitution, however, allowed them to recontest.

“The Executive Committee then honourably resigned and no one of us recontested, ushering in a new Executive Committee.

“They argued that following the election, the Constitution will be amended to correct all the flaws and ensure no such flagrant abused repeats itself.

“They went for the election and what happened there was the same illegality we’re talking about.

“Some of our youths went and connived with mischief makers, disrupted the election and declared the present Executive Committee members winners.

“The youths stood by them in their misguided thoughts that the Executive Committee members enjoy special gains in the office.

“They disrupted the election and ensured that the present crop of Executive Committee members was ushered in.

“The election was heavily flawed and rigged in favour of Eloka Ike and Innocent Okoli, but we let go and left peacefully.

“The new Executive Committee promised to preside for only four years and leave, but we are currently seeing the same illegalities.

“I dare ask: Should Uruagu be known only for illegalities? I thought Ndi Uruagu are smart people?

“I have observed that there are certain individuals who are hell-bent on ensuring that the Uruagu leadership fails.

“They seem bent on destroying all our efforts, acting as agents of chaos and destruction.

“How can one man gather a bunch of Umuezeagu indigenes and take them to the court, claiming that they sued the union to court?

“They deceived the High Court and got a frivolous injunction against Uruagu people, all in the name of election!

“When I got this information, I knew that something was wrong.

“How can someone, after serving a tenure fraught with irregularities, fight his way to a second tenure against the people’s wish?

“I want to make it clear to all the delegates in the so-called election that it will not be possible to make an illegality legal.

“Anyone who casts a vote in that sham election is an agent provocateur, as well as a villain.

“Let it be on record that I denounced the so-called election founded on illegality and fraud and all participants, be it a delegate or participant in any manner is an enemy of the people.”

Chief Okoli and other responsible people of Nnewi leadership could not be reached for comment at the moment of this publication.

More details will follow…

Post Views: 36

Celebrity/Entertainment

Late Mbaise monarch—Eze Nwabueze Ugorji to be buried May 22, 2025

Published

5 months ago

March 14, 2025

kevin 'Jakpor

The remains of HRH Eze Stephen Nwabueze Ugorji, Orji Ukwu 1 of Lorji Nwekeukwu Autonomous Community in Aboh Mbaise Local Government Area, will be laid to rest on Thursday, May 22, 2025.

The late Eze Ugorji will be buried in his palace at Orji Ukwu Estate, Lorji, following a Catholic funeral Mass at St. Andrews Catholic Church, Lorji.

News Band was informed that His Excellency the Catholic Bishop of Ahiara Diocese, Bishop Okezuo Nwobi, has been invited to officiate at the ceremony.

Bishop Nwobi, it was learnt, has also accepted the family’s invitation to officiate at the funeral rites of the late grand traditional ruler.

This information was provided to members of the press in Owerri by the Opara Eze (First Son of the Eze), former Commissioner for Homeland Security and Vigilante Affairs, Dr. Ugorji Okechukwu Ugorji.

His Lordship Bishop Okezuo Nwobi, the Catholic Bishop of Ahiara Diocese (Mbaise) and Eze Nwabueze Ugorji’s First Son, Dr. Ugorji Okechukwu Ugorji

“The family is grateful to His Lordship for granting us a rare request to officiate at a funeral on a Thursday,” Dr. Ugorji said.

“Our father will feel honored and appreciated because he was not just a devoted Catholic, he shouldered the building of the St. Andrews Catholic Church at Lorji until his death,” the former commissioner added.

Post Views: 44

Igbo Corner

EXCLUSIVE: Ngozi Orabueze dissolves Biafra Govt In Exile as Simon Ekpa may spend longer time in prison

Published

6 months ago

February 13, 2025

kevin 'Jakpor

Dr. Ngozi Orabueze has abruptly dissolved the Biafra Government In Exile following secret information that his former boss, Simon Ekpa may not be coming out from Finnish detention in a hurry.

News Band reported that Mrs. Orabueze, a former Chief of Staff to Mr Simon Ekpa, the self-acclaimed Prime Minister of Biafra Government In Exile, toppled his principal after he was thrown into prison for promoting violent agitation and terrorism in the Southeast of Nigeria.

Ekpa’s trial is scheduled to start in May 2025.

Ngozi, a former chairperson of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Atlanta, United States in a statement on Wednesday, announced the dissolution of Biafra Government In Exile.

She said all assets of the Biafra Republic Government In Exile and it’s affiliates shall be transferred to the secretary of the State of the United States of Biafra.

Orabueze also directed all officers of the former exile government to report to their counterpart with the United States of Biafra for reassignment.

The statement reads, “It is resolved that the Biafra Republic Government In Exile (BRGIE) is hereby dissolved as it’s reason for the existence has been superceded by the November 29, 2024 Declaration of the restoration of the Independent United States of Biafra

“All assets of the Biafra Republic Government In Exile and it’s affiliates(BRGIE corporation ID: D237527271) shall be transferred to the secretary of the State of the United States of Biafra.

“All officers of the former exile government shall report to their counterpart with the United States of Biafra for reassignment. All activities of the Biafra Republic Government In Exile shall cease as of February 15, 2025”.

Meanwhile, an insider source in the movement reliably told News Band that Ngozi decided to dissolve BRGIE after receiving intel that Simon Ekpa might spend longer time in prison.

The source also revealed that the Nigerian government is doing everything within it’s power to nail Simon Ekpa for all his atrocious acts in the SouthEast region.

So, the only way to keep the agitation going in the absence of Ekpa is to dissolve BRGIE.

“Yes, Ngozi Orabueze dissolved the Biafra Republic Government In Exile so as to be fully in charge of the assets belonging to the movement. With the way the Nigerian government is going about the case of Simon Ekpa, he may spend longer time in prison”, the source said.

Moreover, before now, Orabueze has been at war with some arrowheads of the separatist movement who refused to acknowledge her authority.

This however, has led to series of fights, accusation and counter accusations among the agitators.

Post Views: 32

Igbo Corner

A tribute to Mrs. Roseline Udu Eze

Published

7 months ago

January 29, 2025

kevin 'Jakpor

We celebrate the life of Mrs. Roseline Udu Eze, a devoted wife, mother, grandmother, and pillar of strength.

Her unwavering love, kindness, and selflessness left an indelible mark on all who knew her.

Though we mourn her passing, we take solace in the legacy she leaves behind and the cherished memories we hold. Rest peacefully in the arms of the Lord, dear Roseline.

You will forever be missed.

May her soul rest in perfect peace.

Amen.

Post Views: 34