Best entertainment website

Breaking

Search here

Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 18, 2019

December 18, 2019

Akpabio birthday

Your Day ought to be Celebrated sir!



It's obvious that a good number of people celebrate every passing year. But why few celebrate their achievements majority celebrate their failure.
Having empirically gone through your personality sketch i have rightfully concluded that we need more of your kind to be celebrated.


Worthy of mention is your administrative prowess which has practically endeared you to the hearts of many if not all. Leaders are indeed born.

Suffice it rightly therefore to say that your service to humanity, which is devoid of economic cannibalism usually witnessed among some parasitic flukes within the polity has parroted in many ways for you. Good name they say is more precious than money.

Fellow Nigerians, the good people of Akwa Ibom please join me to wish this political stalwart, a leader & benefactor who has succeeded in bringing poverty to its knees in Akwaibom, Sen. Godswill Akpabio a happy birthday and more vision-filled years ahead.
Congratulations & happy birthday His Excellency, Uko Akwa Ibom1

December 18, 2019

EDUCATION MONITORING EXERCISE IN ABAK

EDUCATION MONITORING EXERCISE IN ABAK




As part of the ongoing spot-checks in public Primary and Secondary Schools to ascertain the compliance level of Teachers with the State government's directives, the Senior Special Assistant to the Governor on Education Monitoring - Mrs Idongesit Etiebet, Wednesday, visited Government Technical College and MCintre Secondary Commercial School in Abak Local Government area.

Etiebet who usually lead the team of inspectors for early morning spot-Checks where they take part in morning devotions, switched the pattern, by visiting schools in the afternoon to also check for Teachers who leave schools before closing time.
After due assessments of Movement book, time book and other record books, the Governor's Aide while expressing disappointment over the number of teachers who had gone before closing time, recommended queries and sanctions for Teachers who according to the books, were found guilty of lateness and absenteeism.

Though government schools are writing first terminal examinations, the Governor's Aide seized the opportunity to call on Teachers who are victims of irregularity to change, as the monitoring exercise continues till the last day of schools' closure.
December 18, 2019

Udom Emmanuel embrace akpabio

Gov. Udom Emmanuel of Akwa Ibom state



 finally embraced his boss and mentor, Sen. Godswill Akpabio, the minister of Niger Delta Affairs at a funeral service in Akwa Ibom state after a long period of political tussle & misunderstanding.

Recall that during a thanksgiving service organized to mark Akwa Ibom @ 32 in Uyo, the state capital, Gov. Emmanuel intentionally broke protocol & failed to recognize the presence of his boss at a well-attended state event. An action which many condemned.
Now, could this pleasantries and demonstration of love from the governor to his predecessor come from the heart? Remember "the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked" Jeremiah 17.
Only time shall tell.
December 18, 2019

HOW NSIMA EKERE'S DEPUTY CRASHED APC'S CHANCES

SUPREME COURT: HOW NSIMA EKERE'S DEPUTY CRASHED APC'S CHANCES


By Essien Ndueso, Abuja

As the Supreme Court of Nigeria in Abuja sets out to give a final ruling on the Appeal of the candidate of the Akwa Ibom State APC, Mr. Nsima Ekere this Wednesday, December 18, 2019, fresh facts have emerged on how his deputy Governorship candidate, Amadu Attai's mistakes ruined his chances at the apex court.
Among the Grounds of Mr. Ekere appeal, is the argument that the Justices of the Court of Appeal erred when they sustained the decision of the lower Tribunal rejecting the Appellant's Inspection Report tendered as Exhibit PTH86 by the Deputy Governorship candidate of the APC, Mr. Amadu Attai (PW 47).
During litigation at the Governorship Election Petition Tribunal in Uyo, the Petitioners had pleaded in paragraph 36 of their Petition to inspect and submit data evidence to the Tribunal through a statistician.
The petitioners opted to tender the report of inspection of post election materials through their Deputy Governorship Candidate, Mr. Amadu Attai, who had inspected the materials on behalf of APC.
During cross examination, Mr. Attai was quizzed if he is a statistician and if he prepared the report, where he responded "Yes, I prepared the report as a political scientist and a professional in my field. I signed the said exhibit. I did not introduce myself as a statistician. I am a political scientist. Statistics is part of the course we were taught in political science. I know something called a statistician. I am not a statistician. I am a professional in the field of political science"
The Tribunal also noted that as an interested party in the Petition and a Deputy Governorship Candidate, Attai's position in his analysis would almost certainly not be objective.
The Tribunal dismissed the report as it was not tendered by a statistician as pleaded by the Petitioners in paragraph 36 of their petition.
"The document is inadmissible under Section 83(3) of the Evidence Act, and we so hold. Be that as it may, the document is not prepared by an expert or a statistician as admitted by PW47 a Political Scientist" the Tribunal ruled
On the ruling of the Tribunal on Attai's report, the Appeal Court had noted that "Exhibit PTH86 is the Inspection Report tendered in evidence by PW47 a candidate in the election in question. It is not a Statistician's Report pleaded in paragraph 36 of the Petition hence the Tribunal rightly rejected it as going to no issue. The decision of the Lower Tribunal in my respectful view cannot be faulted. It is trite law that parties are bound by their respective pleadings and matters not pleaded go to no issue."
The Justice Tunde Awotoye led Court of Appeal furthered "I have combed through the pleadings of the Petitioners. I am satisfied that the Lower Tribunal was right to hold that Exhibit PTH86 was not pleaded I resolve this issue against the Appellants in the circumstance.

"Besides the foregoing, the Tribunal specifically found that the exhibit was not pleaded and that what the Appellants pleaded and listed was "a report from a statistician". PW47 who produced and signed the report said that he was a political scientist and not statistician. On this point also the document fails.”

The Appellate Court submitted that the law is trite that evidence led on a matter not pleaded goes to no issue and accordingly was never legally before either the Tribunal or the Court of Appeal.
However, as argued by the first Respondent's counsel, "the crux of the Appellants arguments in respect of this Exhibit is that the Tribunal was bound to consider the document just for the simple reason that it had earlier granted leave to the Appellants to inspect the electoral documents.

The Governor's Counsel however reasoned that the law has never provided that mere granting of leave to inspect documents means that the report of such inspection should be accepted hook, line and sinker by the Tribunal even when it is not admissible. Such precedent, if created, would be dangerous."
The argument went further that the said Exhibit PTH86 titled "The Report of Physical Inspection and Analysis of Electoral Documents Used at the above Election", was made and signed by PW47, the Deputy Governorship candidate of the 2nd Appellant, who is an interested party.

In addition to these, the two courts maintained that Attai, as a potential beneficiary of the outcome of the case, being the deputy Governorship candidate of 2nd Petitioner and running mate of the 1st Petitioner cannot be adjudged as fair minded.
According to the Respondents, the Supreme Court will observe that outside the issue of whether or not Exhibit PTH 86 was pleaded, Exhibit PTH86 was not only made by an interested party in the case, but it was also made on the 4th day of July 2019, months after the filing of the instant Petition at the Tribunal.

At the time of the making of the Exhibit PTH86, the Petition subject matter of this appeal was already pending at the Tribunal and not yet determined.
In the arguments put before the different tiers of the judiciary on the potency of such evidence put forward by an interested party, Section 83(3) of the Evidence Act, 2011 is quoted as implying thus: "Nothing in this section shall render admissible as evidence any statement made by a person interested at a time when the proceedings were pending or anticipated involving a dispute as to any fact which the statement might tend to establish"
According to the 1st Respondent, Exhibit PTH86 was not only made in anticipation of a suit, it was made during the pendency of the suit.

This therefore meant clearly, the purport of Section 83(3) produced above, is to render inadmissible a document prepared by an interested person in order to defeat through its clear wordings the course of justice. In fact, PW47 admitted under cross-examination that not only is the 2nd Appellant interested in the Petition, but that the 1st Appellant and himself were also interested in the Petition.
Cross-examined at the tribunal, PW47 confessed that:
"
Yes APC is interested in the outcome of the Petition
"Yes the 1st Petitioner and myself are also interested in the Petition.
"Yes exhibit PTH86 concern the subject matter before the Tribunal
"Yes Exhibit PTH 86 was signed on 4/7/2019
"Yes as at that date 4/7/2019 this petition was already in Court and not determined
"Yes I signed the said exhibit."
Citing B.B. Apugo & Sons Ltd. v. OHMB (2016) LPELR-40598, Governor Emmanuel quotes the Supreme Court as holding that a person not interested in the outcome of an action was described as; "a person who has no temptation to depart from the truth on one side or the other, a person not swayed by personal interest but completely detached, judicial, impartial, independent." This description was in conflict with the position of PW47, Dr Amadu Attai, who openly admitted during cross examination that he was an interested party. Even without his admission, the fact speaks for itself as he was the Deputy Governorship candidate of the 2nd Appellant and the running mate of the 1st Appellant.
The consequence is that the Tribunal has the power to expunge from its records, inadmissible evidence which was inadvertently admitted in evidence.

However, even despite all these, head or tail, Nsima Ekere would still have a number of regrets for having to be misled into putting forward his deputy candidate as a maker of a material he was not an authority in. Exhibit PTH 86 from all shades of imagination failed to be categorized as an expert report as PW47 presented. Because under cross-examination, the witness stated that he was a Political Scientist and not a Statistician. Such reports obviously could only be made by a Statistician. The supreme court is bound to therefore see that contrary to the Appellants' submissions, the Tribunal was indeed right in expunging the Exhibit from its records when it held thus at page 5260 of the record of appeal:
The action of Chief Attai, as reasoned is at variance with Section 83(3) of the Evidence Act which provides that nothing in this section shall render admissible as evidence any statement by a person interested at a time when proceedings were pending or anticipated involving a dispute as to any fact which the statement might tend to establish.
Exhibit PTH86 was clearly made during the pendency of this petition and by an interested person i.e. Petitioner's Witness 47 who is the deputy gubernatorial candidate of the 2nd petitioner, APC.

This means that the supreme court needs not waste its time on a statistics given by a mere politician who has pecuniary or other material interest in the result of the proceedings, and therefore, would have a temptation to pervert the truth to serve his personal or private ends.
Petitioners' witness 47 qualifies as an interested person in the petition and the report Exhibit PTH86 having been made by him during the pendency of the petition is bound to be seen by the apex court as flawed.

Obong Nsima Ekere and his party APC also submitted that the Tribunal's rejection of Exhibit PTH86 in its judgment after its admission during trial amounts to the Tribunal sitting on appeal on its ruling. But this is swiftly rebuffed by the Governor's lawyers who submit that where a Court or Tribunal admits an inadmissible evidence through oversight or otherwise, such a Court or Tribunal has a duty when it comes to give judgment to treat the inadmissible evidence as if it had never been admitted. Hence, the Tribunal was right when it expunged from its records Exhibit PTH86 despite having admitted it in the course of trial.
At the Supreme Court today, Nsima Ekere and his party will plead that Exhibit PTH86 was properly placed before the Tribunal and that the said document was not advanced in total transgression of Section 83(3) of the Evidence Act 2011.

December 18, 2019

Who Said Senator Godswill Akpabio is not Clever

Who Said Senator Godswill Akpabio is not Clever?

After much calculations and the possibility of Winning the forces behind Ukarakpa and the PDP which has become a Religion in Akwa Ibom State, The former Governor of Akwa Ibom State, His Excellency Senator Godswill Akpabio has Surrendered to Ukarakpa but as Mkpikobikob he is now Searching for who will take the Shame of defeat on his behalf.
Senator Akpabio Understands the Value of the Office inwhich he is currently occupying and wouldn't even wish to resign from it.

 But My worries is how our leaders are becoming imbecilic with their thoughts/Reasoning towards humanities.
Senators Akpabio claimed that his Victory/ Mandates was stolen from him and the court rules that he should Reclaim his acclaimed stolen mandate back through a Re-run Election and he is Afraid to Withstand the Bulldozerous Mights in Senator Chris Ekpenyong?
Is high time our leaders must learn to Accept defeats just for a peaceful Coexistence among us. Power belongs to God and he chooses who he wants to Lead!
I congratulate him for withdrawing from the rerun. The result would have taken whatever honor of capacity that is keeping him at the centre of APC politics. It would have been a smashing and humiliating defeat again. The withdrawal is a wise decision in view of the compelling circumstances. I also congratulate Engr Chris Ekpeyong in advance. Ekpeyong is a testimony of God's time or the proverbial appointed time of restoration of the years eaten by the cankerworms.

So Las Las Senator Akpabio is Scared of a Re-run with Ukarakpa?
Anwan adem Mbre adem!
Senator Christopher Ekpenyong has opted for Anwan and Senator Godswill Akpabio aduok idem ke ikot mbak Ndok!
Hmmmmm Uwa Politicians!
December 18, 2019

Udom Emmanuel versus Nsima ekere

LIVE FROM THE SUPREME COURT, ABUJA



Essien Ndueso, Abuja

A Seven member Supreme Court panel headed by Justice Mary Odili, is set to hear the appeal brought before it by the Akwa Ibom State Governorship candidate, Mr. Nsima Ekere and the All Progressives Congress, APC challenging the ratification of the victory of Governor Udom Emmanuel by the Court of Appeal, Calabar.
The respondents are Governor Emmanuel, Peoples Democratic Party and Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC.

In ground one, Mr. Ekere and APC are arguing that the learned Justices of the Appeal Court, Calabar erred in law and engaged in doing technical justices rather than examining the substance of the appeal of the Appellants.

The Appellants are questioning the decision of the trial Tribunal which expunged the voters register, polling unit results, ward results, local government results, declaration of result sheet, simmary of permanent voters card and other electoral documents aitted as exhibits.
In ground two, Mr. Ekere and APC are saying the Appeal Court erred in law in affirming the judgment of the trial tribunal which rejected exhibits PT1-PT2331, PTA1-2275 on tehcnical ground that the evidence of payment of legal fees were not substantiated and also that there was no certification of CTC on the said Exhibits by the Appellants.


Beyond these is the argument that the said Exhibits were merely dumped on the lower court as they were neither properly tendered nor demonstrated by the makers of the document.
So even if the pleadings of the Appellants were to be granted, and they are ordered to go and pay and properly certify the documents, it would do them no good as the documents had not been given live by the makers, who ought to have been brought to the lower court to be cross examined on the said Exhibits. This means that the Appeal on this ground may tends to be an academic exercise that does no one any good but waste the judicial time.