MelesZenawi:


Go and reverse it from ogbomosho

sarrki:
The Bayelsa state supreme court judgment is one that has forced me into reading the electoral act and its provisions once again.

In my quest,the circled section caught my attention,but was shocked to be informed that section had been expunged from our laws.

I am not a Lawyer by profession of which I had admitted before now. So my Learned elders and Law Gurus,please help me learn on the following as it concerns our laws:

(1) If the National assembly makes a law and is assented to by the president,does it not become part of the constitution?

(2) Does the courts have powers to expunge an act of the National assembly from the constitution?

(3) If the Courts have powers to expunge acts of the National assembly,why then is it advised that if there are issues with certain laws or constitution,the National should act to correct same and not the courts?

(4) When an amendment is made to our laws or acts,for how long does it bind?

Please help me to learn!

sarrki:




Interesting

It’s all a learning class

The constitution supersedes the court ruling

Coz the the lawmakers makes law

sarrki:


I will refer you to number (2) on my post

(2) Does the courts have powers to expunge an act of the National assembly from the constitution?

sarrki:



We all have different interpretations on laws

We wait for the review

The for and the against

gratiaeo:
Sarrki have not been fully delivered from the spirit of of zombie. he thought being a Buhari supporter makes him more knowledgeable than supreme court justice

MelesZenawi:



Tribunal ..Oga...

Tribunal..

Do you really know what pre election matter and post election matters means.

You post is riddled with ignorance.

I am out.

guass:

You have not learned. Please wake up . THIS IS NIGERIA!
Today I use 'tilted glass' not because I am a security personnel or I have medical proof for it, but because I understand the environment I leave, that in case I am asked for my PARTICULARS by the police I know what to do and they will cheer off.
Justice Mary Odili is the wife of the formal PDP governor of Rivers. The likes of Justice Mary Odili are supposed to be in the lower court
where their verdict if discovered to be an obvious miscarriage of justice such a verdict could easily be appealed.
She has PDP blood flowing in her veins. Since peaceful protest is allowed by the constitution. APC faithfuls should use that weapon (PROTEST) wherever she is seen. Let her know that apart from Bayelsans, Nigerians are seriously angry for that verdict.
She has taken us 50 years backward.

ALTERNATEID:


The particular section you circled in red was declared null and void by a high court judge some years ago. The Supreme Court later upheld the decision of the high court because it was not appealed. So, that section is just there on paper, it cannot be enforced.

kelvinginzie:


Did the rule of law prevail in osun, Kano and now imo states.
You guys celebrated injustice.
The hypocrisy is stinking

MelesZenawi:



Tribunal ..Oga...

Tribunal..

Do you really know what pre election matter and post election matters means.

You post is riddled with ignorance.

I am out.

ALTERNATEID:


The particular section you circled in red was declared null and void by a high court judge some years ago. The Supreme Court later upheld the decision of the high court because it was not appealed. So, that section is just there on paper, it cannot be enforced.

OlujobaSamuel:
If any section of any part of a law or act is at variance with the constitution, it can to such extent be voided by the court.
ACN took PDP, FG And NASS to court over that section and it was voided by the court, the FG then never filed an appeal so that judgement still remains valid, therefore a court can declare an electoral contest winner.
The only saving grace I think the APC has is that supreme court once ruled on a similar case of disqualification of a deputy and same judgement was also review and ultimately set asidw

ChristianNorth:

1. Electoral law is not part of our constitution. A constitution is the body of law that states how a state will be constituted and governed. Every other laws draw their legitimacy from the constitution. The first thing a military government does is to suspend the constitution or a part of it in order to have legitimacy. Other laws are not suspended.

2. Only the Supreme Court does through legal instrument called judicial precedent and when they do, it becomes binding and law on its own unless a new law is passed by the legislatures.

3. It is just to formalize it and nothing more.

4. At the time it is signed.

Bayelsa judgment is apt if you are not sentimental. The judgement sacking Lyon was a pre-election matter meaning APC shouldn't have been on the ballot.

Being on the ballot then disqualified is different from being disqualified before the ballot. The Supreme Court only upheld a pre-election judgment of the High Court

ChristianNorth:

1. Electoral law is not part of our constitution. A constitution is the body of law that states how a state will be constituted and governed. Every other laws draw their legitimacy from the constitution. The first thing a military government does is to suspend the constitution or a part of it in order to have legitimacy. Other laws are not suspended.

2. Only the Supreme Court does through legal instrument called judicial precedent and when they do, it becomes binding and law on its own unless a new law is passed by the legislatures.

3. It is just to formalize it and nothing more.

4. At the time it is signed.

Bayelsa judgment is apt if you are not sentimental. The judgement sacking Lyon was a pre-election matter meaning APC shouldn't have been on the ballot.

Being on the ballot then disqualified is different from being disqualified before the ballot. The Supreme Court only upheld a pre-election judgment of the High Court

fyneguy:


lol Pre-election matter is just semantics! The issue of qualification is obviously a pre-election matter, which the Act addressed. It says if the candidate is not QUALIFIED to contest, then... At what point is qualification issue supposed to be addressed? lol

sarrki:


I will refer you to number (2) on my post

(2) Does the courts have powers to expunge an act of the National assembly from the constitution?

kiyosaki1:


Don't mind the guy , he is just trying to massage his ego . He is still to come to terms that Bayelsa is gone for good .

ChristianNorth:

1. Electoral law is not part of our constitution. A constitution is the body of law that states how a state will be constituted and governed. Every other laws draw their legitimacy from the constitution. The first thing a military government does is to suspend the constitution or a part of it in order to have legitimacy. Other laws are not suspended.

2. Only the Supreme Court does through legal instrument called judicial precedent and when they do, it becomes binding and law on its own unless a new law is passed by the legislatures.

3. It is just to formalize it and nothing more.

4. At the time it is signed.

Bayelsa judgment is apt if you are not sentimental. The judgement sacking Lyon was a pre-election matter meaning APC shouldn't have been on the ballot.

Being on the ballot then disqualified is different from being disqualified before the ballot. The Supreme Court only upheld a pre-election judgment of the High Court

alen4smith:
does that then mean that the judgement of Adamu muazu of Bauchi state whose deputy had similar issue with qualification was wrong?because that was also a pre election matter.

Dansuqi:


It is the same thing,do not confuse yourself with contradictions or semantics.the section clearly said a tribunal or court which refers clearly to civil courts and involves both election and pre election matters.disqualification under any guise before or after the polls clearly falls under it.therefore lyon's case falls under it.
Unlike imo,the 60 days allotted for the supreme court to discharge and finish with pre election matters is still running
Again,

fyneguy:


lol Pre-election matter is just semantics! The issue of qualification is obviously a pre-election matter, which the Act addressed. It says if the candidate is not QUALIFIED to contest, then... At what point is qualification issue supposed to be addressed? lol

ChristianNorth:

That was ages ago.

We have a new electoral law now and precedents

sarrki:
The Bayelsa state supreme court judgment is one that has forced me into reading the electoral act and its provisions once again.

In my quest,the circled section caught my attention,but was shocked to be informed that section had been expunged from our laws.

I am not a Lawyer by profession of which I had admitted before now. So my Learned elders and Law Gurus,please help me learn on the following as it concerns our laws:

(1) If the National assembly makes a law and is assented to by the president,does it not become part of the constitution?

(2) Does the courts have powers to expunge an act of the National assembly from the constitution?

(3) If the Courts have powers to expunge acts of the National assembly,why then is it advised that if there are issues with certain laws or constitution,the National should act to correct same and not the courts?

(4) When an amendment is made to our laws or acts,for how long does it bind?

Please help me to learn!

ChristianNorth:

1. Electoral law is not part of our constitution. A constitution is the body of law that states how a state will be constituted and governed. Every other laws draw their legitimacy from the constitution. The first thing a military government does is to suspend the constitution or a part of it in order to have legitimacy. Other laws are not suspended.

2. Only the Supreme Court does through legal instrument called judicial precedent and when they do, it becomes binding and law on its own unless a new law is passed by the legislatures.

3. It is just to formalize it and nothing more.

4. At the time it is signed.

Bayelsa judgment is apt if you are not sentimental. The judgement sacking Lyon was a pre-election matter meaning APC shouldn't have been on the ballot.

Being on the ballot then disqualified is different from being disqualified before the ballot. The Supreme Court only upheld a pre-election judgment of the High Court

sarrki:
The Bayelsa state supreme court judgment is one that has forced me into reading the electoral act and its provisions once again.

In my quest,the circled section caught my attention,but was shocked to be informed that section had been expunged from our laws.

I am not a Lawyer by profession of which I had admitted before now. So my Learned elders and Law Gurus,please help me learn on the following as it concerns our laws:

(1) If the National assembly makes a law and is assented to by the president,does it not become part of the constitution?

(2) Does the courts have powers to expunge an act of the National assembly from the constitution?

(3) If the Courts have powers to expunge acts of the National assembly,why then is it advised that if there are issues with certain laws or constitution,the National should act to correct same and not the courts?

(4) When an amendment is made to our laws or acts,for how long does it bind?

Please help me to learn!

Dansuqi:

The supreme court never ruled against it.infact,a full panel of the supreme course upheld it

ALTERNATEID:


You need to read my post again, very slowly this time around and try to comprehend my point.

ChristianNorth:

Keep deceiving yourself. The Supreme Court only affirmed the pre-election judgment of the High Court.