Henry Dallas, USA/NIGERIA May 09, 2008
After a careful review of your analysis, I came to the conclusion that some things were not quite right with your defendants. Some of them are listed below.
I quite agree with your view that pay-stubs can be presented however, the defendant did not proof his case by enough presentation of actual pay check stubs and not only did he need to present that information. I believe that for a person working as a public servant t or for the state government, he needed to send a certified mail to the state government declaraing his resignation inorder to have prove of that even if he gave an oral submission. Remember, the said person was actively campaining for a high office, at such, he would have explored all the avenues of a possible disqualification via his counsels and address them before heading to the polls.
Again, we all know that anyone could easily write a letter and affix whatever date he she so desired (be it back dating or post dating), and being in Nigeria where, we learned that the immediate past governor, Orji Kalu hurriedly handed over to his successor at an unofficial ceremony the day before the hand-over official day; and I presume to acquire immunity to prevent EFCC prosecuting him, he should have known better to make his resignation public. (beign sensitive of our enviroment)
Finally, What other business has he (T.A Orji) and Akomas, after they claimed resignation from the State's employment still have with official vehicles. What, with what happens in Nigeria. The proof of burden is on your defendants to effectively convince all the tribunals and the public that T.A. Orji and Akomas followed the 2006 election acts and untill then, they stand disqualified .