IGNORANCE OF THE LAW DOES NOT EXCUSE- HE WHO ALLEGES "DURESS" HAS THE BURDEN TO PROVE IT! ~Prof Nnam di Obiaraeri Wrote
V ...Acting under a sense of duty and to enlighten an otherwise legally ignorant audience, we make bold to explain that under the law, "duress" is a vitiating element to an already completed act or action. The rebuttable presumption of the law is that everyone is bound by his document or act. The Returning Officer is bound by the Senatorial election result he declared. The legal defence of "duress" is asserted to negative the bindingness of an already completed act or action. Therefore, he who asserts duress must prove it with cogent, credible and verifiable evidence. The burden of proof of duress therefore rests squarely on the said Returning Officer. It is indubitable that the said Returning Officer certainly does not understand what amounts to "duress" in law as there was clearly no scintilla of evidence of "duress" in the circumstance before and leading to the declaration of the result. From our adjectival or evidentiary law pos...