barcanista: you made a lot ot us remain on this thread. I foresee someone preparing to take the President to court too arguing that he's ineligible to contest.
Another brewing case is that of Taraba State Acting Governor Umar. He has been acting since 2012(if guess so) with the substanstive still sick.he's most likely clinching the ticket, the question is,
1. Will 2015 be his FIRST term? According to the law he is still a Dep. Governor
2. Some will argue that he has been performing the function since 2012.
3. Will the ruling on Haruna have effect? Some may argue that the joint ticket of Dambaba Suntai and Umar come into play. In this case Jonathan's tenure will be counted from Feb 2010 when he swore as acting rather than May 6, 2010 when he was made substanstive.
4. Can he perform in the same office for 13years?

Pls your opinion

The case of Suntai and Umar is a bit straightforward, I think. Suntai is still the governor while Garba Umar is Acting (section 190 of the 1999 constitution as amended allows it).

Suntai had wanted to take power back by transmitting a written declaration that he's fully fit to resume duties but refrained from it because, in truth, he wasn't fully fit. If he had tried to forcefully take back power from Umar then it means he's looking for trouble and section 189 subsections (1), ((2), (3), and (4) would be invoked.

Thus Suntai had to settle for a gentleman agreement with Umar to allow Umar continue as the Acting Governor while he remains the Substantive Governor (whatever that means).

Umar wasn't elected as Governor, he was elected as Deputy. The time counting isn't his but that of Suntai. Umar's time will start counting the very moment he wins the next gubernatorial elections and takes an oath of office.

saintneo:

You are the one being ignorant.

My reference simply points at bye-election, while you were arguing an accepted part of the constitution. Before you start rolling out your drums of insults, kindly go through the thread again. I detest it when people try to sound intelligent by insulting others when corrected.

Did u even read that "accepted part of the constitution",Mr.Intelligent?.Why then your confusion,Wise One?

Modhream and Saintneo, please let's focus on the main topic of discuss

@@Barcanista, I just saw the Supreme Court's verdict on the case of Brigadier-General Mohamed Buba Marwa Vs Admiral Murtala Nyako and others on tenure elongation delivered on 27th January, 2012. I will quote excerpts below:

“From the language used in section 180 of the 1999 constitution, it is very clear that the constitution intended that a governor of a state shall have a tenure of four years from the date he took Oaths of Allegiance and of Office and nothing more, though he may spend less where he dies, resigns or is even impeached. In all, a governor has a maximum tenure of eight ( years under the 1999 constitution”.

Justice Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen, who delivered the lead judgment, went further to state as follows:-

“I have also found and held that from the totality of the relevant provisions of the constitution including section 180(1) & (3) and Section 182 (1) (b), a person first elected as governor of a State shall vacate his office at the expiration of a period of four years commencing from the date he took the Oath of Allegiance and of Office though he could be re-elected for another term of four years giving him a maximum two tenures of eight years. It is very clear from the relevant provisions that no person elected under the 1999 constitution can remain in that office for a day longer than as provided otherwise the intention of the framers of the constitution would be defeated”.

Sorry, I had to bolden and enlarge some keywords here to buttress my observations. You can see that the keywords there are "elected as governor" and "oath of office". The 4/8 years maximum tenure starts counting once the two keywords occurs.

Now, as regards Boni Haruna's, I'm still searching for the exact Supreme Court's verdict. The Supreme Courts verdict, just like the constitution, need to be interpreted carefully lest we make mistakes. The fact that Boni Haruna won doesn't mean he was deemed "elected as governor". I think he won based on the fact that he's the deputy-elect and thus should naturally take up the duties of a governor-elect once there appears to be a vacuum.

This is my opinion.........I may be wrong.

@ Obinoscopy
The decision in Boni Haruna’s case is consistent with the provision of Section 187 of the constitution which is similar to section 142 dealing with the establishment of the office of the Vice President which stipulates as follows: -

“…a candidate for the office of Governor of a state shall not be deemed to have been validly nominated for such office unless he nominates another candidate as his associate for his running for the office of Governor, who is to occupy the office of Deputy Governor; and that candidate shall be deemed to have been duly elected to the office of Deputy Governor if the candidate who nominated him is duly elected as Governor…”

This scenario also applies in the case of President Jonathan, who was sworn-in as the substantive President (not acting) for one year twenty-two days in their first term in office after the demise of President Yar’adua. He formed his own cabinet and run his own and not Ya’adua’s Government thereby completing their joint mandate first, as Vice President and then he finished as President with Mohammed Namadi Sambo as his Vice President. It was at this point that the umbilical cord which joined Jonathan and Yar’adua was cut thereby separating the administration of the former from that of the latter. It therefore means that it does not matter how many months or years a President or Governor spent in completing a term of office or how much time he lost in his fixed term of four (4) years provided that the period he served is within the four-year term certain as specified by the constitution. This is because the Supreme Court with a note of finality said: -

“It is settled law that the time fixed by the constitution for the doing of anything cannot be extended. It is immutable, fixed like the rock of Gibraltar. It cannot be extended, elongated, expanded or stretched beyond what it states”
If the pronouncements of the Supreme Court are any guide, it is clear that President Jonathan is in his second and final term as President of Nigeria and is therefore not eligible to contest the presidential election in 2015.
This ruling also applies to whoever wins Adamawa byelection. It may be one of the reasons that is delaying the President's declaration. Honestly, I see Vacancy in Aso Rock

Obinoscopy: Modhream and Saintneo, please let's focus on the main topic of discuss

@@Barcanista, I just saw the Supreme Court's verdict on the case of Brigadier-General Mohamed Buba Marwa Vs Admiral Murtala Nyako and others on tenure elongation delivered on 27th January, 2012. I will quote excerpts below:

“From the language used in section 180 of the 1999 constitution, it is very clear that the constitution intended that a governor of a state shall have a tenure of four years from the date he took Oaths of Allegiance and of Office and nothing more, though he may spend less where he dies, resigns or is even impeached. In all, a governor has a maximum tenure of eight ( years under the 1999 constitution”.

Justice Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen, who delivered the lead judgment, went further to state as follows:-

“I have also found and held that from the totality of the relevant provisions of the constitution including section 180(1) & (3) and Section 182 (1) (b), a person first elected as governor of a State shall vacate his office at the expiration of a period of four years commencing from the date he took the Oath of Allegiance and of Office though he could be re-elected for another term of four years giving him a maximum two tenures of eight years. It is very clear from the relevant provisions that no person elected under the 1999 constitution can remain in that office for a day longer than as provided otherwise the intention of the framers of the constitution would be defeated”.

Sorry, I had to bolden and enlarge some keywords here to buttress my observations. You can see that the keywords there are "elected as governor" and "oath of office". The 4/8 years maximum tenure starts counting once the two keywords occurs.

Now, as regards Boni Haruna's, I'm still searching for the exact Supreme Court's verdict. The Supreme Courts verdict, just like the constitution, need to be interpreted carefully lest we make mistakes. The fact that Boni Haruna won doesn't mean he was deemed "elected as governor". I think he won based on the fact that he's the deputy-elect and thus should naturally take up the duties of a governor-elect once there appears to be a vacuum.

This is my opinion.........I may be wrong.

According to the Supreme Court's interpretation, it is assumed that the President and Vice are elected for a fixed term, should there be eventuality at any stage after the election, the Vice carry on with the term(As in the case of Haruna Boni pre-swearing in, and ofcourse Jonathan-when death took Umaru). The constitution/supreme court ruling assumes that the Vice was elected President but CAN only function should anything happen to the President(that is why they are joint). Should nothing happen before the end of the Term, the Vice is entitled to run for the President along with his own Vice and start a Fresh term(If elected). But should eventualities happen to the Principal and ofcourse the Vice will take over, it is assumed that the Vice is continuing "the tenure that he was duly elected(Going by Boni Haruna's case). Remember you can't occupy such office except you are duly elected. Also remember that there's no provision for election into the Office of Vice on the ballot separate from the Presidential.

barcanista: @ Obinoscopy
The decision in Boni Haruna’s case is consistent with the provision of Section 187 of the constitution which is similar to section 142 dealing with the establishment of the office of the Vice President which stipulates as follows: -

“…a candidate for the office of Governor of a state shall not be deemed to have been validly nominated for such office unless he nominates another candidate as his associate for his running for the office of Governor, who is to occupy the office of Deputy Governor; and that candidate shall be deemed to have been duly elected to the office of Deputy Governor if the candidate who nominated him is duly elected as Governor…”

This scenario also applies in the case of President Jonathan, who was sworn-in as the substantive President (not acting) for one year twenty-two days in their first term in office after the demise of President Yar’adua. He formed his own cabinet and run his own and not Ya’adua’s Government thereby completing their joint mandate first, as Vice President and then he finished as President with Mohammed Namadi Sambo as his Vice President. It was at this point that the umbilical cord which joined Jonathan and Yar’adua was cut thereby separating the administration of the former from that of the latter. It therefore means that it does not matter how many months or years a President or Governor spent in completing a term of office or how much time he lost in his fixed term of four (4) years provided that the period he served is within the four-year term certain as specified by the constitution. This is because the Supreme Court with a note of finality said: -

“It is settled law that the time fixed by the constitution for the doing of anything cannot be extended. It is immutable, fixed like the rock of Gibraltar. It cannot be extended, elongated, expanded or stretched beyond what it states”
If the pronouncements of the Supreme Court are any guide, it is clear that President Jonathan is in his second and final term as President of Nigeria and is therefore not eligible to contest the presidential election in 2015.
This ruling also applies to whoever wins Adamawa byelection. It may be one of the reasons that is delaying the President's declaration. Honestly, I see Vacancy in Aso Rock

I want you to look at section 142 (1) once more. Note the part which says:

"...that candidate shall be deemed to have been elected to the office of Vice-President..."

This means Jonathan was elected as Vice-President, not President, in 2007. The only time Jonathan was elected as President was in May 29, 2011.

Yes, Jonathan had taken an Oath of Office twice thus far but he has only been elected as President once. Thus this means that Jonathan has only taken one Oath of Office preceding an election.

Now, drawing inference from Justice Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen, who was the lead Supreme Court Judge in the Brigadier-General Mohamed Buba Marwa Vs Admiral Murtala Nyako case (see my previous post for excerpts), Jonathan's tenure started counting as at May 29, 2011.

And just as the Supreme Court stated that "the time fixed by the constitution for the doing of anything cannot be extended. It is immutable, fixed like the rock of Gibraltar. It cannot be extended, elongated, expanded or stretched beyond what it states”. This means that Jonathan cannot go beyond 2019 (except of course there's a need to extend it in multiples of 6 months max as stated by the constitution section 135, subsection 3) since his time started counting in 2011 the very moment he took an Oath if Office preceding a Presidential election of which he won.

barcanista: According to the Supreme Court's interpretation, it is assumed that the President and Vice are elected for a fixed term, should there be eventuality at any stage after the election, the Vice carry on with the term(As in the case of Haruna Boni pre-swearing in, and ofcourse Jonathan-when death took Umaru).

I want excerpts of the Supreme Court's interpretation. Can you give me the excerpts or the links/source where I can get it?

The constitution/supreme court ruling assumes that the Vice was elected President but CAN only function should anything happen to the President(that is why they are joint).

I agree with everything you said here except the bolded unless of course if this statement is EXACTLY the words of the Supreme Court. I need the excerpts of the Supreme Court's judgement in Boni Haruns's case .

Should nothing happen before the end of the Term, the Vice is entitled to run for the President along with his own Vice and start a Fresh term(If elected).

I agree

But should eventualities happen to the Principal and ofcourse the Vice will take over, it is assumed that the Vice is continuing "the tenure that he was duly elected(Going by Boni Haruna's case).

Yes the Vice is continuing the tenure of the elected (who, in this case, is the deceased/impeached Principal and not the Vice). It's only when the Vice contests an election and wins and takes oath of office that HIS TENURE starts.

Remember you can't occupy such office except you are duly elected.

I beg to disagree. We've seen Vices, Deputies, Speakers occupy such office. It's even possible in principle for someone who never contested for anything to become a Governor. Let's use this hypothetical example: Let's assume that Jonathan was impeached in 2010 immediately after when he succeeded Yar Adua. Who takes over? Sambo abi? Was Sambo elected into the presidency? No! He was appointed. So you see, your statement is false.

Also remember that there's no provision for election into the Office of Vice on the ballot separate from the Presidential.

The constitution, which is the highest law of the land, has already told us that one can be elected as Vice-President (section 142, subsection 1) so I'm less concerned about what's written on a ballot paper.

@Obinoscopy please analyse carefully the ruling on Boni Haruna's case. The supreme court heldd that Boni Haruna was an Associate to Atiku and was validly elected Governor because his Associate for elevation is constitutionally ineligible to occupy the office of Governor being the Vice President. Let us loot at Section 142(1) carefully..
“…a candidate for the office of Governor of a state shall not be deemed to have been validly nominated for such office unless he nominates another candidate as his associate for his running for the office of Governor, who is to occupy the office of Deputy Governor; and that candidate shall be deemed to have been duly elected to the office of Deputy Governor if the candidate who nominated him is duly elected as Governor…”


…a candidate for the office of Governor of a state shall not be deemed to have been validly nominated for such office unless he nominates another candidate as his associate for his running for the office of Governor, who is to occupy the office of Deputy Governor;

The constitution used one word "Associate". It means the Governor shall not be deemed nominated unless he comes with a partner. The Constitution assumes both of them as a joint and not individual. The office of the Deputy Governor is tied to the string of the Governor. They are inseparable from another


and that candidate shall be deemed to have been duly elected to the office of Deputy Governor if the candidate who nominated him is duly elected as Governor…”

What this mean is that the office of the Dep. Gov is not distinct from that of the Governor when it comes to election. In other words, Whoever votes a Governor is voting along his Deputy and they both starts a fresh term of 4 years. Whatever happens to the Governor, the Deputy naturally takes over to complete their tenure. According to the Supreme Courts Ruling, Boni Haruna was elected Governor along with Atiku in 1998 poll. In same vein, Jonathan was elected President along with Yar adua in 2007 for a fresh term. Jonathan did what Haruna did in 1999 to continue where his boss stops. According to the ruling, Jonathan as substantive President was deemed elected for a 2nd Term in 2011.

Obinoscopy: Modhream and Saintneo, please let's focus on the main topic of discuss

@@Barcanista, I just saw the Supreme Court's verdict on the case of Brigadier-General Mohamed Buba Marwa Vs Admiral Murtala Nyako and others on tenure elongation delivered on 27th January, 2012. I will quote excerpts below:

“From the language used in section 180 of the 1999 constitution, it is very clear that the constitution intended that a governor of a state shall have a tenure of four years from the date he took Oaths of Allegiance and of Office and nothing more, though he may spend less where he dies, resigns or is even impeached. In all, a governor has a maximum tenure of eight ( years under the 1999 constitution”.

Justice Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen, who delivered the lead judgment, went further to state as follows:-

“I have also found and held that from the totality of the relevant provisions of the constitution including section 180(1) & (3) and Section 182 (1) (b), a person first elected as governor of a State shall vacate his office at the expiration of a period of four years commencing from the date he took the Oath of Allegiance and of Office though he could be re-elected for another term of four years giving him a maximum two tenures of eight years. It is very clear from the relevant provisions that no person elected under the 1999 constitution can remain in that office for a day longer than as provided otherwise the intention of the framers of the constitution would be defeated”.

Sorry, I had to bolden and enlarge some keywords here to buttress my observations. You can see that the keywords there are "elected as governor" and "oath of office". The 4/8 years maximum tenure starts counting once the two keywords occurs.

Now, as regards Boni Haruna's, I'm still searching for the exact Supreme Court's verdict. The Supreme Courts verdict, just like the constitution, need to be interpreted carefully lest we make mistakes. The fact that Boni Haruna won doesn't mean he was deemed "elected as governor". I think he won based on the fact that he's the deputy-elect and thus should naturally take up the duties of a governor-elect once there appears to be a vacuum.

This is my opinion.........I may be wrong.

I believe @barcanista's seeming confusion stems from the fact he's reading the wrong sections of the Constitution.In Boni Haruna's case,the section that applied is section 181(1) & (2),mirrored in section 136(1) & (2) for the Presidency.Atiku was elected Governor,but never took the Oath of Office and Allegiance before abandoning the joint mandate to run for the Vice Presidency thereby activating section 181,which goes thus:
181. (1) If a person duly elected as
Governor dies before taking and
subscribing the Oath of Allegiance
and oath of office, or is unable for
any reason whatsoever to be sworn
in, the person elected with him as
Deputy governor shall be sworn in
as Governor and he shall nominate
a new Deputy-Governor who shall
be appointed by the Governor with
the approval of a simple majority of
the House of Assembly of the State.
(2) Where the persons duly
elected as Governor and Deputy
Governor of a State die or are
for any reason unable to assume
office before the inauguration of
the house of Assembly, the
Independent National Electoral
Commission shall immediately
conduct an election for a
Governor and Deputy Governor
of the State."
This scenario is totally different from when the elected has actually taken the Oaths,before abandoning/be removed from office.Haruna took up their joint mandate which Atiku abandoned n it was reckoned to him as if he was the one elected.This is different from Jonathan's since Yar'Adua never abandoned his mandate,he only died.And that after taking the Oath of Office n Allegiance.

Obinoscopy: I want excerpts of the Supreme Court's interpretation. Can you give me the excerpts or the links/source where I can get it?

I agree with everything you said here except the bolded unless of course if this statement is EXACTLY the words of the Supreme Court. I need the excerpts of the Supreme Court's judgement in Boni Haruns's case .

I agree

Yes the Vice is continuing the tenure of the elected (who, in this case, is the deceased/impeached Principal and not the Vice). It's only when the Vice contests an election and wins and takes oath of office that HIS TENURE starts.

I beg to disagree. We've seen Vices, Deputies, Speakers occupy such office. It's even possible in principle for someone who never contested for anything to become a Governor. Let's use this hypothetical example: Let's assume that Jonathan was impeached in 2010 immediately after when he succeeded Yar Adua. Who takes over? Sambo abi? Was Sambo elected into the presidency? No! He was appointed. So you see, your statement is false.

The constitution, which is the highest law of the land, has already told us that one can be elected as Vice-President (section 142, subsection 1) so I'm less concerned about what's written on a ballot paper.

pls see these commentaries

http://sunnewsonline.com/new/?p=16479

http://newsdor.bushhousenigeria.com/2013/01/what-law-tends-to-say-on-president_6732.html?m=1

barcarnista: @Obinoscopy please analyse carefully the ruling on Boni Haruna's case. The supreme court heldd that Boni Haruna was an Associate to Atiku and was validly elected Governor because his Associate for elevation is constitutionally ineligible to occupy the office of Governor being the Vice President.

Where's the ruling? I need to see it to make my deductions. I'm still searching for it.

And for your information, Jonathan's reelection bid had been contest in court a long time ago. The most recent info I have is that the case had been struck out. However the plaintiff might still seek an appeal and it might linger till it gets to the Supreme Court.

barcanista: @Obinoscopy please analyse carefully the ruling on Boni Haruna's case. The supreme court heldd that Boni Haruna was an Associate to Atiku and was validly elected Governor because his Associate for elevation is constitutionally ineligible to occupy the office of Governor being the Vice President. Let us loot at Section 142(1) carefully..
“…a candidate for the office of Governor of a state shall not be deemed to have been validly nominated for such office unless he nominates another candidate as his associate for his running for the office of Governor, who is to occupy the office of Deputy Governor; and that candidate shall be deemed to have been duly elected to the office of Deputy Governor if the candidate who nominated him is duly elected as Governor…”


…a candidate for the office of Governor of a state shall not be deemed to have been validly nominated for such office unless he nominates another candidate as his associate for his running for the office of Governor, who is to occupy the office of Deputy Governor;

The constitution used one word "Associate". It means the Governor shall not be deemed nominated unless he comes with a partner. The Constitution assumes both of them as a joint and not individual. The office of the Deputy Governor is tied to the string of the Governor. They are inseparable from another


and that candidate shall be deemed to have been duly elected to the office of Deputy Governor if the candidate who nominated him is duly elected as Governor…”

What this mean is that the office of the Dep. Gov is not distinct from that of the Governor when it comes to election. In other words, Whoever votes a Governor is voting along his Deputy and they both starts a fresh term of 4 years. Whatever happens to the Governor, the Deputy naturally takes over to complete their tenure. According to the Supreme Courts Ruling, Boni Haruna was elected Governor along with Atiku in 1998 poll. In same vein, Jonathan was elected President along with Yar adua in 2007 for a fresh term. Jonathan did what Haruna did in 1999 to continue where his boss stops. According to the ruling, Jonathan as substantive President was deemed elected for a 2nd Term in 2011.

Yes,Jonathan was elected as Associate of Yar'Adua,but their fates diverged once they subcribed to the Oaths respectively.Yar'Adua took the Oath of Office as President while Jonathan took his as Vice President.Remember the SC's ruling on Atiku defecting while still VP?.Their fates were no longer necessarily tied from the point when they took their Oaths.Their offices became distinct with their own functions n powers.Jonathan didn't stand election again when he took the Oath of Office of the President the first time.He only completed a term for which Yar'Adua has taken the oath for.His own election n reckoning started 2011,when he stood election n then took the Oath as President in his own right.
Again,the bolded section talks about validity of nomination,not election n swearing in in themselves.

barcanista: pls see these commentaries

http://sunnewsonline.com/new/?p=16479

http://newsdor.bushhousenigeria.com/2013/01/what-law-tends-to-say-on-president_6732.html?m=1

What's in the links u provided are the author's explanation of the Supreme Court's ruling on Boni Haruna's case. I need the exact ruling itself. Let me make the deductions myself.

modhream:
Yes,Jonathan was elected as Associate of Yar'Adua,but their fates diverged once they subcribed to the Oaths respectively.Yar'Adua took the Oath of Office as President while Jonathan took his as Vice President.Remember the SC's ruling on Atiku defecting while still VP?.Their fates were no longer necessarily tied from the point when they took their Oaths.Their offices became distinct with their own functions n powers.Jonathan didn't stand election again when he took the Oath of Office of the President the first time.He only completed a term for which Yar'Adua has taken the oath for.His own election n reckoning started 2011,when he stood election n then took the Oath as President in his own right.

the section 181(1) that you made premise on was an amendment to the constitution. It was made to accomodate the SC ruling in 1999 just like the "Doctrine of Necessity" that has been enshrined in the consitution. That is why they always say 1999 constitution(as Amended).
Secondly, the case between Atiku and Obj boils down to Party affiliation. The SC held that whereas Parties nominates candidates, the string become null and void after the candidate assumend office and the constitution further states a condition to which an elected official can change party- as at 2006, there was factionalisation in PDP which Atiku capitalised on. That case is different

Obinoscopy: Where's the ruling? I need to see it to make my deductions. I'm still searching for it.

And for your information, Jonathan's reelection bid had been contest in court a long time ago. The most recent info I have is that the case had been struck out. However the plaintiff might still seek an appeal and it might linger till it gets to the Supreme Court.

Excerpt from the Court ruling in Kaduna
[b]The plaintiffs had also sought for an order to restrain the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), joined as defendant, from fielding Jonathan as its presidential candidate in 2015.

In her ruling Justice Evlyn Enya-Dike, said the plaintiffs had failed to convince the court in all the prayers they sought, and struck out the case.

She said that Jonathan was yet to obtain or declared formally his intention to contest, adding that the suit was ``at best hypothetical, preemptive, speculative and mere conjunctures’’.

Enya-Dike also said that Section 308 of the Constitution insulated the President from civil and criminal actions until he vacates office, adding that the plaintiffs also lacked locus-standi to institute the case.

``The plaintiffs,’’ she said, ``had failed to show that they would suffer any special damage more than any member of the public if the president contests in 2015.’’

The judge, however, did not make any declaration on whether the suit was an abuse of court process.

See more http://m.dailytimes.com.ng/article/2015-court-strikes-out-eligibility-suit-against-president-jonathan[/b]

Note the judge said "Jonathan was yet to declare" among others. This was basically why the case was struck. However, should Jonathan declare, there will be litigations against him.

barcanista: the section 181(1) that you made premise on was an amendment to the constitution. It was made to accomodate the SC ruling in 1999 just like the "Doctrine of Necessity" that has been enshrined in the consitution. That is why they always say 1999 constitution(as Amended).
Secondly, the case between Atiku and Obj boils down to Party affiliation. The SC held that whereas Parties nominates candidates, the string become null and void after the candidate assumend office and the constitution further states a condition to which an elected official can change party- as at 2006, there was factionalisation in PDP which Atiku capitalised on. That case is different

Sancta Dei Genetrix!
Where did u get that stite from?.Section 181 has always been like that n has not yet been amended by anybody.It was what the SC based it ruling on when the ANPP took Haruna n INEC to court in 1999,asking for new elections since the person elected Governor,Atiku,had then assumed the office of the Vice President.
Where/how do u come up with these?.U assume it,therefore it is so?.
Fyi,I have the first edition of the CFRN 1999 n the current edition containing the amendments.Section 181 is in both.
Heck,the first time the Constitution was amended was during Jonathan's tenure,not far at from memory,n section 181 never came within sighting of the National Assembly.

Obinoscopy: What's in the links u provided are the author's explanation of the Supreme Court's ruling on Boni Haruna's case. I need the exact ruling itself. Let me make the deductions myself.

I will try to get the main link of the ruling.

barcanista: Excerpt from the Court ruling in Kaduna
[b]The plaintiffs had also sought for an order to restrain the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), joined as defendant, from fielding Jonathan as its presidential candidate in 2015.

In her ruling Justice Evlyn Enya-Dike, said the plaintiffs had failed to convince the court in all the prayers they sought, and struck out the case.

She said that Jonathan was yet to obtain or declared formally his intention to contest, adding that the suit was ``at best hypothetical, preemptive, speculative and mere conjunctures’’.

Enya-Dike also said that Section 308 of the Constitution insulated the President from civil and criminal actions until he vacates office, adding that the plaintiffs also lacked locus-standi to institute the case.

``The plaintiffs,’’ she said, ``had failed to show that they would suffer any special damage more than any member of the public if the president contests in 2015.’’

The judge, however, did not make any declaration on whether the suit was an abuse of court process.

See more http://m.dailytimes.com.ng/article/2015-court-strikes-out-eligibility-suit-against-president-jonathan[/b]

Note the judge said "Jonathan was yet to declare" among others. This was basically why the case was struck. However, should Jonathan declare, there will be litigations against him.

Ok, thanks for the excerpt. Still waiting for that of Boni Haruna

Obinoscopy: Where's the ruling? I need to see it to make my deductions. I'm still searching for it.

And for your information, Jonathan's reelection bid had been contest in court a long time ago. The most recent info I have is that the case had been struck out. However the plaintiff might still seek an appeal and it might linger till it gets to the Supreme Court.

hm! By DAT time he would probably have been reelected.
This judiciary

barcanista: the section 181(1) that you made premise on was an amendment to the constitution. It was made to accomodate the SC ruling in 1999 just like the "Doctrine of Necessity" that has been enshrined in the consitution. That is why they always say 1999 constitution(as Amended).
Secondly, the case between Atiku and Obj boils down to Party affiliation. The SC held that whereas Parties nominates candidates, the string become null and void after the candidate assumend office and the constitution further states a condition to which an elected official can change party- as at 2006, there was factionalisation in PDP which Atiku capitalised on. That case is different

I'm guessing you've seen the light now.

After all the arguments.....

https://www.nairaland.com/1897566/2015-only-god-decide-fate


..... Finitri only God can decide my fate

saintneo: After all the arguments.....

https://www.nairaland.com/1897566/2015-only-god-decide-fate


..... Finitri only God can decide my fate

Fintiri has every right to contest in the 2015 elections. But he cannot go beyond 2019.

Obinoscopy: Fintiri has every right to contest in the 2015 elections. But he cannot go beyond 2019.

Hope we will be available to see what happens.

saintneo:

Hope we will be available to see what happens.

We will be here,Thomas.God willing

more drama https://www.nairaland.com/1938567/court-stops-adamawa-bye-election