Dansuqi:

It does

Agboriotejoye:

“What their Lordships ought to have done was to ask the lawyers, ‘can you address us with respect to our jurisdiction?’

“Because Section 133 of the Electoral Act stipulates that upon the conclusion of an election and once candidates are declared, any challenge of the conduct of the election, of the qualification of the candidates shall be heard and determined by an Election Petition Tribunal,” Falana stated.

Lostz:
the high court judgement can also be interpreted as the disqualification of APC candidate since the window of substitution is over.

Iamgrey5:
A pre election matter stops when election has taken place sir..

Any other arguments are always reffered to the special court set up for election matters.

Except an appeal is pending during the election.

Iamgrey5:
Was forgery proven in this case?

fergie001:

That is what the SC corrected.

mushystuff:


Following your line of argument, if the judgment of the CA had been in favour of PDP disqualifying APC so that they didn't participate in the election and then the election took place the next day, are you saying APC would have been expected to proceed to an election tribunal on the issue? What would be the grounds of their petition? That they were unlawfully disqualified by the CA? Can a tribunal overrule a CA? Study the grounds for an election petition and tell me what the argument would have been.

How can a cause of action that arose prior to elections suddenly be referred to an election petition tribunal when it has already been litigated upon? That is an abuse of court process and would have suffered being statute barred!

fergie001:

[b]Justice Ekwo, in his judgment, declared that Modibbo was not qualified to contest the APC primaries as well as the 2019 House of Representatives election for the federal constituency.

The court held that Usman was the lawful winner of the Oct. 7, 2018 APC primaries and candidate of the party for the constituency.

The judge further held that Usman had successfully proven beyond reasonable doubt that Modibbo falsified his age severally in order to contest election.


The court also noted that the plaintiff proved that Modibbo submitted the forged certificates for the purpose of contesting the party primaries.

The court also held that Modibbo was a serving National Youth Corps member when he contested the primary election, saying the action breached Section 4 of the NYSC Act 2004.

“A person who is a lawbreaker cannot be a lawmaker, this illegality is one that cannot be wished away,” the judge said.

The judge declared that in view of the disqualification of Modibbo, Usman, who polled the second highest votes in the Oct. 7, 2018 primary election of the APC for Yola South/Yola North/Girei Federal Constituency of Adamawa, was the lawful winner.

Justice Ekwo gave an order directing the APC and INEC to immediately replace Modibbo’s name with that of Usman as the lawful candidate of APC for the federal constituency.[/b]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/dailypost.ng/2019/05/03/court-nullifies-adamawa-apc-rep-elects-election-gives-reasons/amp/

This is the high court judgement. It was a pre-election matter. The FHC replaced Modibbo with another APC candidate.

The Modibbo went to the CoA and took a stay of execution, and later won. But the substitution window was over.

The SC now ruled and said...NO....the party should suffer for their profligacy.

They upheld the FHC judgement ,then added a but and gave it to the 2nd party.....just like in Bayelsa.

Cc: mushystuff lostz dansuqi ChristianNorth

Lostz:
yeah. the supreme Court only interpreted not give a new judgement in this case. falana is not thinking properly. I will do better than most of this lawyer if I did law in school.

Dansuqi:


This showcases wole's brilliance.same ekwo ruled against apc.in adamawa,his judgment was clear and without ambiguity,he gave declaratory and consequential orders to the fullest.compare it to the bayelsa judgment which he stopped short.he knew what he was doing and wole has latched unto it.
Secondly,there was a clear proof of forgery here beyond doubt.you cant compare it to that of the apex court.
Now the supreme court in disqualifying an entire party and declaring the next party in line is doing so illegal.what law supports it? The precedent and tradition has always been to give it still to that same party since the electorate supports them.it is a perverted decision.

fergie001:

Thank God....you are on Nairaland, not on the SC bench.

Ekwo said substitute when the substitution window was closed. So you want to waste the learned Justices time by going back to them after disqualifying Degi.

Look at the case well...give to the second.
SC says NO.....it's the party's Mandate.

The judicial review papers filed by Wole will be thrown into the abyss.

Degi's lawyers remember did not contest the processes of effecting a change on certificates, as presented by Yustaz Usman.

This case is dead. Please start praying for Alaibe. That's the best bet.

scoundrel:

...and do what on that boring channel? The post does not appeal to me. I have chosen to voice my displeasure because this is a chat forum not a knowledge base after all.

Dansuqi:

Hatred for sylva is leading you to contradict yourself

Lostz:
pre election cases already are allowed to run their course in the court.

it is only when the case was instituted after election that it is overtaken by tribunal

Dansuqi:

What does 133 says

donpapa:


She doesn’t appoint herself to preside the panel, the CJN did; And this was based on ranking and seniority! The woman was just one out of 5 judges.

Dansuqi:


This showcases wole's brilliance.same ekwo ruled against apc.in adamawa,his judgment was clear and without ambiguity,he gave declaratory and consequential orders to the fullest.compare it to the bayelsa judgment which he stopped short.he knew what he was doing and wole has latched unto it.
Secondly,there was a clear proof of forgery here beyond doubt.you cant compare it to that of the apex court.
Now the supreme court in disqualifying an entire party and declaring the next party in line is doing so illegal.what law supports it? The precedent and tradition has always been to give it still to that same party since the electorate supports them.it is a perverted decision.

Dansuqi:


This showcases wole's brilliance.same ekwo ruled against apc.in adamawa,his judgment was clear and without ambiguity,he gave declaratory and consequential orders to the fullest.compare it to the bayelsa judgment which he stopped short.he knew what he was doing and wole has latched unto it.
Secondly,there was a clear proof of forgery here beyond doubt.you cant compare it to that of the apex court.
Now the supreme court in disqualifying an entire party and declaring the next party in line is doing so illegal.what law supports it? The precedent and tradition has always been to give it still to that same party since the electorate supports them.it is a perverted decision.

fergie001:

Hahahahahahaha.....it's late then.

He can tell God.

But there was only one judgement before the elections. Which was that?

Dansuqi:

Can she convince the other panel members or not

ChristianNorth:

The SC has the power to set aside precedents. It is their duty to clean up the system.

They are not bound by precedents.

Be guided.

With this masterstroke, parties will learn how to conduct primaries

Lostz:
is it her job to spoon-feed the other members?

each judge is responsible for his/her judgement. they are all being paid to interpret the law

Dansuqi:

Before you annoy me further,what does 133 clearly states

fergie001:

That is what the SC corrected.

Staro:



Oga, stop fooling yourself.
The case went through various appeals from high court to the Supreme Court

How old are you or what's your level of education?

Keep shut if you have nothing to say
It's not a must to comment thereby exposing your ignorance

.

Dansuqi:

It corrected nothing.it clearly reinstated the high court ruling.no addition or subtraction

Dansuqi:

What does 133 says

Lostz:

Section 133 of the Electoral Act stipulates that upon the conclusion of an election and once candidates are declared, any challenge of the conduct of the election, of the qualification of the candidates shall be heard and determined by an Election Petition Tribunal.


by virtue of this section, only the federal high court disqualifying APC should stand because that was the only judgement before election

Lostz:

which precedent and tradition? can you at least mention one case to back up your claim?


the court agreed it is a clear case of forgery; any other option is useless.

falana is not arguing whether it is forgery or not. he is only saying the supreme Court should not take the case because it is a preelection matter; and he is wrong

fergie001:

This is a pre-election issue.

Note, the SC does not have the power to call for a re-run or nullify an election, unless it has originated from a lower court.

Lostz:

Section 133 of the Electoral Act stipulates that upon the conclusion of an election and once candidates are declared, any challenge of the conduct of the election, of the qualification of the candidates shall be heard and determined by an Election Petition Tribunal.


by virtue of this section, only the federal high court disqualifying APC should stand because that was the only judgement before election

Dansuqi:

Can she convince the other panel members or not