The Court of Appeal in Abuja has delivered judgment on the one-year tenure extension for the governors of Kogi, Cross River, Adamawa, Bayelsa, and Sokoto States.


Giving the lead judgement Friday, Justice Mohammed Lawal Garba upheld the earlier judgement of a Federal High Court also in Abuja, which extended the tenure of the five governors, adding that there will be no election in the five states so mentioned.


In February this year, the Federal High Court stopped elections in the five states, declaring that the polls which brought the five governors to office in the first place were void. The ruling by Justice Adamu Bello set new but separate dates in 2012 for the end of the tenures of the five governors.


The affected governors had gone to court to challenge the Independent National Electoral Commission's (INEC) decision to conduct governorship elections in their states this year, insisting that their tenures only began after they won the re-run elections in their various states.


It would be recalled that the last month filed an appeal against the judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja, which stopped the conduct of governorship elections in the affected states.


Justice Bello had held that because the tenure of the affected governors had not yet expired, it would be illegal for INEC to conduct elections in the affected states.


In the appeal, the electoral body asked the court to set aside the judgment of the High Court and hold that the tenure of the governors would come to an end on May 29, 2011.


According to Justice Bello, the five governors tenure will end on the following dates: I

brahim Idris (Kogi) April 5, 2012;

Aliyu Wamakko (Sokoto) May 28, 2012;

Murtala Nyako (Adamawa) April 30, 2012;

Liyel Imoke (Cross River) August 28, 2012;

and Timipre Sylva (Bayelsa) May 29, 2012.

http://234next.com/csp/cms/sites/Next/Home/5690316-146/story.csp

this haas been reported in ThisDay,

http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/no-governorship-election-in-bayelsa-four-other-states-appeal-court-affirms/89687/

This looks like a reward 4 failure, the Court should have looked at the social value before they gave judgment!