The Supreme Court of Nigeria after listening to arguments from all the parties in the case, agreed and consented to it.
The court then called for the adoption of the appeals as filed.
Dr. Livy Uzochukwu, on behalf of the PDP and Atiku/Obi called the file numbers and dates of the main appeal plus other interlocutory appeals and adopted same.
That is to say, all the six (6) appeals filed by the PDP and Atiku/Obi were admitted by the Supreme Court of Nigeria.
In adopting his appeals, Dr. Uzochukwu on the issue of qualifications, told the court that the 2nd Respondent, President Buhari failed to explain the disparity on the names Muhammadu and Mohamed as seen in the different statements of results tendered in evidence by Chief Olanipekun.
The CJN interjected and asked Dr. Uzochukwu if what he is saying is already in his appeals and he said yes. The CJN then asked him to make particular reference to the paragraph in his address and save the court time.
Dr. Uzorchukwu made reference to his written address in page 19 to 20 of his written address, Paragraph 4.82 to 4.83. He also cited an authority from a case on plastic industry limited vs Titilayo and 14 Nigeria Weekly Law Report of 2019 in paragraph e f.
He quoted the authority on the discrepancy in the names as cited the court ruling saying that in such event, a third name is required to substantiate the claims.
He also stated that there was no time President Buhari made any pleading (s) in the lower court (court of appeal) that that the name Mohamed and Muhammadu as seen in the two different statements of results are the same.
Dr. Uzochukwu again argued that, President Buhari also failed woefully to present to the lower court any of the three certificates he claimed to have acquired as seen in his affidavit.
That nobody has ever sighted a photocopy or original copies of the said certificates he claimed to have obtained from the schools he attended.
And there is no testimonial from the principals or headmaster of the schools he claimed to have attended.
He also submitted that there was no testimonial or certificates from “officer cadet”
On the issue of server:
Dr. Uzochukwu argued that the 1st Respondent denied having a sever. He further submitted that if the 1st respondent appreciated what a sever is, it should never had denied owing one.
He submitted that the 1st Respondent indeed owns and manage a server, citing some law reports to back his arguments.
Finally he argued that the lower court relied on section 52(2) of the electoral act 2010 to contend that electronic election is prohibited.
Saying that the section of the electoral act 2010, relief upon by the appeal court was deleted by the amendments of 2015.
That the new section 52(2) says otherwise concerning electronic voting or elections.
The CJN asked him if he drew the attention of the lower court to this serious infractions and he said it is on record that the PDP and Atiku/Obi did, eloquently.
The CJN called for time and Dr. Uzochukwu was forced to end his arguments.
More updates to follow soon…
You may be interested
Govt links Igboho to Boko Haram sponsor; Kanu to #EndSARS protestsWebby - October 23, 2021
By Eric Ikhilae, Sanni Onogu, Tony Akowe, Nicholas Kalu, Abuja and Bisi Oladele, Ibadan Alleges N273m passed through Igboho’s account…
FG links Igboho to B/Haram fundingWebby - October 23, 2021
‘Linking Yoruba agitator with terrorism financing pedestrian’ We challenge them to name his lawmaker sponsor – Lawyer Govt accuses Kanu of killing…
President Buhari meets Ogoni Leaders, may grant pardon to saro wiwa, othersWebby - October 23, 2021
President Muhammadu Buhari Friday in Abuja urged Ogoni Leaders to sensitize indigenes on value of protecting national assets like pipelines…