ALTERNATEID:



https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.lawyard.ng/flashback-federal-high-court-invalidates-section-140-1-2-of-the-electoral-act-amendment-2010/amp/

Thanks for the enlightenment

Dansuqi:

With the supreme court upholding that section,it is still alive and enforceable

The Supreme Court actually upheld the decision of justice Kolawole of the high court. Section 140 and 141 of the electoral act are no longer enforceable.

evil1:
That is what the electoral act says oo butbghe useless Justices did not see that section.

So funny how an ignoramus denigrate a revered supreme court judge as useless, when is actual fact he is cognitively handicapped and so blinded in both eyes to see beyond his nose.

Mr man that section of the electoral act has been expunged and the issues bothering on the Bayelsa state election is also a pre_election matter because it deals with suitability to vye for the position abi initio.
And for those arguing that the Deputy should have been disqualified in isolation, that doesn't hold because it's a joint ticket.

Instead of looking for a judge to blame direct your grievances to the Apc and Inec for not detecting the anomalies in the certificates of the candidate during their various screening process.

AmazingELixir:


So funny how an ignoramus denigrate a revered supreme court judge as useless, when is actual fact he is cognitively handicapped and so blinded in both eyes to see beyond his nose.

Mr man that section of the electoral act has been expunged and the issues bothering on the Bayelsa state election is also a pre_election matter because it deals with suitability to vye for the position abi initio.
And for those arguing that the Deputy should have been disqualified in isolation, that doesn't hold because it's a joint ticket.

Instead of looking for a judge to blame direct your grievances to the Apc and Inec for not detecting the anomalies in the certificates of the candidate during their various screening process.

Do u know what expunged really means? The new electoral Act is still in controversy and the 2010 Act is still the guiding law on election matters in Nigeria as far as we know.
A court cannot expunge or correct laws enacted by the National Assembly only another Law made by the National Assembly to alter that particular law or repeal it makes it no longer a law.
What the court can only do is to declare that provision inconsistent but the law is the law.
What the provisions of that section 140 says is the emphasis on the word " on any grounds ". Read section 138 of the Electoral law then you will see the grounds for disqualification.
The provision of the Act did not mention preelection or post election, then if so the court has no jurisdiction or powers to either hear the appeal or even declare another candidate the winner.
You can only declare a person who lost the winner of an election where the disqualified candidate who was declared the winner did not score lawful majority of votes cast.
I hope u are now educated on this issue.

God i dey beg o!

sarrki:


I once supported Pmb

Am not an Apc member nor to any party

The rule of law must prevail if we have to grow and develop as a nation

What is ur take on imo judgement?

sarrki:


Aside Bayelsa , Pmb and atiku have you seen my comments on court cases involving political parties?

Lyon was robbed and the judgment wasn’t right

How was lyon robbed?
R u sure u understand what u posted?
What i read was if theperson was disqualified, the court shud order for fresh election.
Fresh election that lyon or apcwill not partake cos thewindow of primaries n submission of candidates had long close.....
The court did a simple arithmetric which have save nigeria n fg funds to go for another bogus election that the outxome will still be the same

evil1:


Do u know what expunged really means? The new electoral Act is still in controversy and the 2010 Act is still the guiding law on election matters in Nigeria as far as we know.
A court cannot expunge or correct laws enacted by the National Assembly only another Law made by the National Assembly to alter that particular law or repeal it makes it no longer a law.
What the court can only do is to declare that provision inconsistent but the law is the law.
What the provisions of that section 140 says is the emphasis on the word " on any grounds ". Read section 138 of the Electoral law then you will see the grounds for disqualification.
The provision of the Act did not mention preelection or post election, then if so the court has no jurisdiction or powers to either hear the appeal or even declare another candidate the winner.
You can only declare a person who lost the winner of an election where the disqualified candidate who was declared the winner did not score lawful majority of votes cast.
I hope u are now educated on this issue.

My friend I don't intend bantering words with you, the bottom line is that the high court judge that gave the null and void ruling on section 140(2), cited sections 239 & 285 of the amended 1999 constitution which is the supreme law, spelling out the principle of separation of power, which the provision on the electoral act 140(2) negates.
The legislature by making this provision usurped judicial powers to its and this runs counter to the constitution and hence of no consequence.

The learned judge aptly captured his ruling as thus,
“ Consequently, it is hereby declared inconsistent with the provisions of the 1999 constitution and, therefore, null and void. The various election tribunals shall not be bound by the provisions of Sections 140 (2) and 141, it is thus accordingly struck-down, same being unconstitutional.”

On the powers of the judge to overrule the contentious provisions of the electoral act, he needn’t do that the constitution has already taken care of it, all he did is interpret the law.

But you celebrated the non-signing of the electoral amendment by Bubu. You thought you were doing PDP!

sarrki:


I once supported Pmb

Am not an Apc member nor to any party

The rule of law must prevail if we have to grow and develop as a nation

According to IBB, every military regime is a fraud because they subverted the wishes of the people. No military govt has legitimacy because they have no mandate from the people. They came through gun barrel so suspending the constitution does not in any way give them legitimacy. Nigeria celebrating coupists is a testament to how much we have failed as a country

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