Connect with us

Headline

Tribunal Strikes Out LP’s Case Against Tinubu, Reads Atiku’s Petitions

Published

on

Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Peter Obi of the Labour Party (LP), and the Allied Peoples Movement (APM) are challenging President Bola Tinubu’s declaration as the winner of the 2023 presidential election.

The Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal (PEPT) is set to deliver judgement today. Security is already beefed up ahead of the verdict.

Nigerians from all walks of life are waiting eagerly to witness the televised live proceedings from the Tribunal venue at the Court of Appeal in Abuja, the nation’s capital.

Advertisement

Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Peter Obi of the Labour Party (LP), and the Allied Peoples Movement (APM) are challenging President Bola Tinubu’s declaration as the winner of the 2023 presidential election.

Kindly refresh the page for live updates of the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal (PEPT)’s judgement

5:27 pm Justice Ugo begins to highlight faults in Atiku’s petition, saying it is filed with generic allegations.

Advertisement

According to him, the petition did not list polling units where election malpractices happened.

05:04 pm The court starts judgement on Atiku’s petition

One of the five-man panel Justice Moses Ugo is reading the judgement in Atiku’s case against President Bola Tinubu.

Advertisement

READ ALSO: JUST IN: Presidential Tribunal Strikes Out LP’s Petition Against Tinubu’s Victory

05:01 pm: ‘You Can’t Interrupt Court Judgment’, Tribunal Shuts Down APC’s Lawyer

05:52 pm: Tribunal Strikes Out LP’s Petition Against Tinubu’s Win

Advertisement

The Tribunal struck out the Labour Party’s petitions against Tinubu’s win in the presidential election for lack of merit.

04:37 pm: The petitioners have failed to establish their allegations of overvoting and voter suppression, the court ruled.

4:03 pm: The court is highlighting issues of corruption which Obi claimed were recorded in the elections. They include vote suppression, inflation of results, and over-voting.

Advertisement

But Just Tsammani said some paragraphs relating to these claims have been struck out earlier due to their vague and generic nature.

3:41 pm: The PEPT ruled that Obi failed to establish that INEC intentionally refused to quickly upload polling unit results to IReV so as to alter the results in Tinubu’s favour.

“The petitioner made the allegation of non-compliance a substantial part of their case. By the provisions of Section 135(2) of the Electoral Act, they are required to show how such noncompliance substantially affected them. If they fail to show the same, the petition fails,” the court ruled.

Advertisement

3:12 pm: According to the PEPT, INEC regulations and the Electoral Act give room for manual collation of results. It said electronic transmission is optional at best.

READ ALSO: BREAKING: Labour Party Rejects Tribunal’s Judgments, To Announce Next Move

3:08 pm: The court added that the only device that must be used by INEC for elections is the Bimodal Voters Accreditation System (BVAS)

Advertisement

It noted that there’s no regulation showing BVAS must be used to electronically transmit results from polling units.

02: 41 pm: INEC At Liberty To Define Mode Of Transmitting Election Results – Court

APC Excluded As INEC Publishes Names Of Rivers Senatorial Candidates
A file photo of a ballot box.

Advertisement

On the issue of substantial non-compliance with the provisions of the law, especially with regard to non-transmission of result sheets to INEC Result Viewing Portal (IReV), the court holds that there is no law that says INEC must transfer or transmit the results of the election from the polling units electronically.

The law simply empowers INEC to decide the means of collation of results of elections, the court argued.

02: 26 pm: Obi, LP Failed To Prove Tinubu Was Convicted In US, Tribunal Rules

Advertisement

The Presidential Election Petitions Court on Wednesday ruled that the Labour Party (LP) and its presidential candidate, Peter Obi, failed to prove that President Bola Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress (APC) was convicted for money laundering in the United States.

The five-man panel led by Justice Haruna Tsammani ruled that no record of criminal arrest or conviction was established against Tinubu by the petitioners – Obi and the LP.

02:12 pm: Tribunal dismisses LP/Obi’s Petition on 25 per cent needed to win the presidential election.

Advertisement

According to the court, FCT residents have no special privileges as the petitioners claimed.

1:28 pm: The court has rejected the reports of forensic analyses tendered by LP’s three witnesses. According to the court, they are either made during the pendency of the case or by an interested party.

This is as it rejected the European Union report on the polls, arguing that it was not tendered by an official of the body.

Advertisement

12:31 pm: Tribunal Declares APC’s Petition On Obi’s Membership Incompetent

The Court also declared APC’s petition challenging Obi’s membership of the LP as incompetent. Justice Abba says membership in a political party is an internal affair.

The Tribunal also touched on the issue of non-joinder of Atiku Abubakar who came second and wondered how Obi & LP’s petition could be effectively determined without joining the candidate who placed second in the polls

Advertisement

12: 07 p.m. LP’s Widespread Irregularities Claim Generic – Court

While highlighting a claim by the respondents that Obi’s petition only alleged that there were widespread irregularities without giving the particulars and the polling units.

Justice Abba Mohammed holds that In a presidential election held in 176,866 polling units in 774 Local Government Areas, it would be improper not to specify where there were irregularities.

Advertisement

According to him, the petitioners only made generic allegations.

“Pleading must set out material facts and particulars. In the instant petition, there was no effort to prove specific allegations, particulars of complaints,” said the Tribunal.

The law is clear that where someone alleges irregularities in a particular polling unit, such person must prove the particular irregularities in that polling unit before that petition can succeed, the Tribunal added.

Advertisement

The court said the petitioners did not prove the particular polling unit where the election did not take place nor did they specify particulars of polling units where there are alleged complainants of irregularities.

“It was only in one instance that figures were given of alleged suppressed votes and we all know that elections are about figures,” it said.

“LP alleged that INEC reduced their scores and added it to APC votes but failed to supply particulars of what they actually scored before the said reductions, neither did they supply the polling units where it happened….”

Advertisement

 

Headline

Antitrust Trial: US Asks Court To Break Up Google’s Ad Business

Published

on

By

Google faces a fresh federal court test on Monday as US government lawyers ask a judge to order the breakup of the search engine giant’s ad technology business.

The lawsuit is Google’s second such test this year, following a similar government demand to split up its empire that was shot down by a judge earlier this month.

Monday’s case focuses specifically on Google’s ad tech “stack” — the tools that website publishers use to sell ads and that advertisers use to buy them.

Advertisement

In a landmark decision earlier this year, Federal Judge Leonie Brinkema agreed with the US Department of Justice (DOJ) that Google maintained an illegal grip on this market.

READ ALSO:Google Fined $36m In Australia Over Anticompetitive Search Deals

Monday’s trial is set to determine what penalties and changes Google must implement to undo its monopoly.

Advertisement

According to filings, the US government will argue that Google should spin off its ad publisher and exchange operations. The DOJ will also ask that after the divestitures are complete, Google be banned from operating an ad exchange for 10 years.

Google will argue that the divestiture demands go far beyond the court’s findings, are technically unfeasible, and would be harmful to the market and smaller businesses.

We’ve said from the start that DOJ’s case misunderstands how digital advertising works and ignores how the landscape has dramatically evolved, with increasing competition and new entrants,” said Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s Vice President of Regulatory Affairs.

Advertisement

READ ALSO:Google Introduces Initiative To Equip 1,000 Nigerian Developers

In a similar case in Europe, the European Commission, the EU’s antitrust enforcer, earlier this month fined Google 2.95 billion euros ($3.47 billion) over its control of the ad tech market.

Brussels ordered behavioral changes, drawing criticism that it was going easy on Google as it had previously indicated that a divestiture may be necessary.

Advertisement

This remedy phase of the US trial follows a first trial that found Google operated an illegal monopoly. It is expected to last about a week, with the court set to meet again for closing arguments a few weeks later.

The trial begins in the same month that a separate judge rejected a government demand that Google divest its Chrome browser, in an opinion that was largely seen as a victory for the tech giant.

That was part of a different case, also brought by the US Department of Justice, in which the tech giant was found responsible for operating an illegal monopoly, this time in the online search space.

Advertisement

READ ALSO:Iran Hackers Target Harris And Trump Campaigns – Google

Instead of a major breakup of its business, Google was required to share data with rivals as part of its remedies.

The US government had pushed for Chrome’s divestment, arguing the browser serves as a crucial gateway to the internet that brings in a third of all Google web searches.

Advertisement

Shares in Google-parent Alphabet have skyrocketed by more than 20 percent since that decision.

Judge Brinkema has said in pre-trial hearings that she will closely examine the outcome of the search trial when assessing her path forward in her own case.

These cases are part of a broader bipartisan government campaign against the world’s largest technology companies. The US currently has five pending antitrust cases against such companies.

Advertisement

AFP

Continue Reading

Headline

Google Faces Court Battle Over Breakup Of Ad Tech Business

Published

on

By

Google faces a fresh federal court test on Monday as US government lawyers ask a judge to order the breakup of the search engine giant’s ad technology business.

The lawsuit is Google’s second such test this year after the California-based tech juggernaut saw a similar government demand to split up its empire shot down by a judge earlier this month.

Monday’s case focuses specifically on Google’s ad tech “stack” — the tools that website publishers use to sell ads and that advertisers use to buy them.

Advertisement

In a landmark decision earlier this year, Federal Judge Leonie Brinkema agreed with the US Department of Justice (DOJ) that Google maintained an illegal grip on this market.
Monday’s trial is set to determine what penalties and changes Google must implement to undo its monopoly.

According to filings, the US government will argue that Google should spin off its ad publisher and exchange operations. The DOJ will also ask that after the divestitures are complete, Google be banned from operating an ad exchange for 10 years.

READ ALSO:Google Fined $36m In Australia Over Anticompetitive Search Deals

Advertisement

Google will argue that the divestiture demands go far beyond the court’s findings, are technically unfeasible, and would be harmful to the market and smaller businesses.

We’ve said from the start that DOJ’s case misunderstands how digital advertising works and ignores how the landscape has dramatically evolved, with increasing competition and new entrants,” said Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s Vice President of Regulatory Affairs.

In a similar case in Europe, the European Commission, the EU’s antitrust enforcer, earlier this month fined Google 2.95 billion euros ($3.47 billion) over its control of the ad tech market.
Brussels ordered behavioral changes, drawing criticism that it was going easy on Google as it had previously indicated that a divestiture may be necessary.

Advertisement

This remedy phase of the US trial follows a first trial that found Google operated an illegal monopoly. It is expected to last about a week, with the court set to meet again for closing arguments a few weeks later.

READ ALSO:Perplexity AI Makes $34.5bn Surprise Bid For Google’s Chrome Browser

The trial begins in the same month that a separate judge rejected a government demand that Google divest its Chrome browser, in an opinion that was largely seen as a victory for the tech giant.

Advertisement

That was part of a different case, also brought by the US Department of Justice, in which the tech giant was found responsible for operating an illegal monopoly, this time in the online search space.
Instead of a major breakup of its business, Google was required to share data with rivals as part of its remedies.

The US government had pushed for Chrome’s divestment, arguing the browser serves as a crucial gateway to the internet that brings in a third of all Google web searches.
Shares in Google-parent Alphabet have skyrocketed by more than 20 percent since that decision.

Judge Brinkema has said in pre-trial hearings that she will closely examine the outcome of the search trial when assessing her path forward in her own case.

Advertisement

These cases are part of a broader bipartisan government campaign against the world’s largest technology companies. The US currently has five pending antitrust cases against such companies.

Continue Reading

Headline

Peru Anti-government Protesters Clash With Police

Published

on

By

Hundreds of anti-government protesters clashed with police in the Peruvian capital Lima on Saturday, throwing stones and sticks as officers fired tear gas on the demonstrators, AFP journalists reported.

The protest, organized by a youth collective called “Generation Z”, is part of growing social unrest in Peru against organized crime, corruption in public office, and a recent pension reform.

“Today, there is less democracy than before. It’s getting worse… because of fear, because of extortion,” said 54-year-old protester Gladys, who declined to give her last name.

Advertisement

Around 500 people gathered in the city center, under heavy police presence.

READ ALSO:FULL TEXT: US Govt Releases Text Messages Between Charlie Kirk’s Suspect, Roommate

Congress has no credibility, it doesn’t even have the approval of the people… It is wreaking havoc in this country,” said protester Celene Amasifuen.

Advertisement

The clashes broke out as demonstrators tried to approach executive and congressional buildings in Lima.

The radio station Exitosa said that its reporter and a cameraman were hit by pellets, commonly fired by law enforcement.

READ ALSO:‘Over 7,000 Nigerians Sought Asylum In Sweden In 24 Years’

Advertisement

Police said at least three officers were wounded.

Approval ratings for President Dina Boluarte, whose term ends next year, have plummeted amid rising extortion and organized crime cases.

Several opinion polls show the government and conservative-majority Congress are seen by many as corrupt institutions.

Advertisement

This week, the legislature passed a law requiring young adults to join a private pension fund, despite many facing a precarious working environment.

AFP

Continue Reading

Trending

Exit mobile version