UMAHI IS GONE! UMAHI IS GONE!! UMAHI IS GONE!!!
I AM VERY SURE ABOUT THAT...
THE COURT OF APPEAL WILL UPHOLD THE JUDGMENT OF THE LOWER COURT....

Maxymilliano:
DEFECTION to another Party INVALIDATES a Certificate of Return.

Any sane person with a sense of law and order, knows Umahi and his Deputy don't have a case

even in pronouncing the final result. INEC goes like this: that Dave umahi of the PDP having fulfilled the requirements of the law, scored the highest number of votes, is hereby declared winner and is returned elected. His votes were tied to his membership of the PDP having been sponsored by the party. Let me give an allegory.
If a school goes for competition, quiz or debate. And is represented by its pupils and eventually wins. They return home and present the trophy won to the school authorities. If for any reason the students changes school will he go the principal and demand for the trophy? If later the school displays it's trophies to show her prowess in sports. Will they mention the individuals that won it? No they won't all glory belongs to the school as an institution

I strongly believe that Prof. sagay is right because that is the position of law in this case of Umahi Vs PDP....The high court judge based his decision on the judgement of CHIBUIKE AMAECHI VS CELESTINE OMEHIA by the supreme court[that it's political parties that own every vote cast in an election,that the candidates are just agents sponsor by the parties] so in this case it parties that decides what happens to their agents...By so doing Umahi is only holding the mandate for the party as an agent.

Truthisunique3:
This daft sagay that is always looking for attention

How come buhari still rate malami pass you

so what happened. When in Bayelsa State. David Lyon. Won an election on the platform of the APC. The court ruled that APC had no candidate. At the end of the day, David lost his mandate cos it was tied to the party. The court ruled that APC had no candidate and was not in the contest. Despite his popularity he lost it. In the Judgements did they mention his name or that of his party?

I disagree strongly with Prof. Sagay. In the case of Atiku, the Supreme Court made it clear that defection is not a ground for removing a president and governor. The Supreme Court will simply affirm its earlier decision and trash the high court decision.

Sagay you are wrong on two grounds, though I am not a lawyer. On the first ground, it is clearly stated in the constitution the methods by which a sitting Governor can be removed. Any other method cannot stand even if the Supreme Court gave that judgement, the constitution is supreme, not the Supreme Court judges. The Supreme Court judgement stood because the case of Amaechi was an electioneering process and the constitution recognises removing the Governor using election process as the process from which that removal arose from. In the case of Umahi, it is not an electioneering process and so his removal cannot stand using a judgement that’s not based on electioneering process.

The second issue is that the court judgement has to be executed even when an appeal is going on, unless and unless Umahi applies for a stay of execution of the judgement while the appeal is being considered.

Nobody is citadel of knowledge. I hope prof understands that.

PassingShot:

Read again and see his point.

Umahi may lose at the Appeal Court but he has a good chance to win at the Supreme Court based on judicial precedence.

Amaechi vs Omeha was a case of the true candidate of PDP during primary and the court ruled that Amaechi was the true candidate and therefore the votes cast was for the party and should be transferred to him.

How is it related to issue of a sitting governor changing Party?

I've not seen either in the constitution or Electoral Act where a governor, deputy governor, president, vice president, that change party will loose his seat.

We're no kids. We saw Atiku vs PDP in 2007. Atiku defected to AC from PDP then as a sitting Vice President under Obasanjo PDP. PDP wanted him to vacate office but he won at the supreme court.

Baba Sagay is old indeed and that's why he can't remember the case I just cited.

Sryvssss:
Ok

Criminals!!! Looking for whom to devour

baralatie:

But if the judgement is upheld at the appealate court and supreme court.it will stop mischevious vote transfer at the polls and after

True.

chibrolex:
I strongly believe that Prof. sagay is right because that is the position of law in this case of Umahi Vs PDP....The high court judge based his decision on the judgement of CHIBUIKE AMAECHI VS CELESTINE OMEHIA by the supreme court[that it's political parties that own every vote cast in an election,that the candidates are just agents sponsor by the parties] so in this case it parties that decides what happens to their agents...By so doing Umahi is only holding the mandate for the party as an agent.

Hope you know that Amaechi vs Omeha was a pre Election matters.

Therefore, it's not the same with the case of a sitting governor who changed party.

Go and read the judgement of supreme court on Atiku vs PDP in 2007 when Atiku as a serving Vice President under Obasanjo PDP changed party and contested as president under another party, Action Congress.

PDP took him to court to vacate his seat as Vice President but that was not to be.

The Justices of the supreme court listed impeachment, resignation, and death as condition that can make his seat to be vacant and ruled that change of party is not among the ground for removing or making the seat of a serving governor or president vacant.

Let's see if Supreme Court would reverse itself.

Baba Sagay is old and sick. We that are not lawyers are more conversant with precedent of decided cases than the old man.

Confirm before you respond.

Tareq1105:


Hope you know that Amaechi vs Omeha was a pre Election matters.

Therefore, it's not the same with the case of a sitting governor who changed party.

Go and read the judgement of supreme court on Atiku vs PDP in 2007 when Atiku as a serving Vice President under Obasanjo PDP contested as president under Action Congress.

The Justices ruled that change of party is not among the ground for removing a serving governor or president.

I'm not a lawyer but have knowledge of the law and precedent.

Confirm before you respond.

Is the case of umahi about removal of a sitting governor or sitting voiding his position as an elected governor by denouncing his certificate of return

Tareq1105:


Amaechi vs Omeha was a case of the true candidate of PDP during primary and the court ruled that Amaechi was the true candidate and therefore the votes cast was for the party and should be transferred to him.

How is it related to issue of a sitting governor changing Party?

I've not seen either in the constitution or Electoral Act where a governor, deputy governor, president, vice president, that change party will loose his seat.

We're no kids. We saw Atiku vs PDP in 2007. Atiku defected to AC from PDP then as a sitting Vice President under Obasanjo PDP. PDP wanted him to vacate office but he won at the supreme court.

Baba Sagay is old indeed and that's why he can't remember the case I just cited.

Best comment so far. You must be a lawyer to have said this. The case of Amaechi vs Omehia does not arise in this case because that was a pre-election case. Second, the issue before the supreme court then was to determine who was the lawful and rightful candidate of the PDP in the said election and the supreme court said it was Amaechi because in the eyes of the law he was never substituted. However in this case the question is not about who is the candidate in an election but rather what happens to a candidate who participated in an election, won the election, sworn in and later changed party by way of defection of which the constitution is silent.

Thus, the judgement by Justice Inyang can't stand at the appellate court because you cannot build something on nothing and expect it to stand.

Which defection law in our constitution did justice Inyang base his judgement on?

The judge simply embarked on judicial voyage and activism to create a new law which does not exist.

The Supreme court in plethora of cases frowns at such adventure. In the case of Attorney General of the Federation V. Abubakar (2007) 10 NWLR (part 1041) 1. At page 124 of the report, Justice Onnoghen set down the position thus:

It is the constitutional responsibility of the legislature to make or amend the laws including the constitution, where the need arises, while that of the judiciary remains to interpret and apply the laws so made or amended. The courts can therefore not add or subtract from the law as enacted by the legislature under the guise of judicial interpretation of the constitution or statute…”

The judgement erroneously relied on Section 221 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court in Faleke v. INEC.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court decision in Faleke v. INEC does not relate to the consequence of the defection of a governor from one political party to the other. A more apt instance will be the Atiku Abubakar scenario wherein Atiku Abubakar as Vice President, elected under the PDP, defected to the then Action Congress.

The position of the Supreme Court was also stated in Attorney General of the Federation V. Abubakar (2007) 10 NWLR (part 1041) 1 where Justice Onnoghen held thus:

“There is nowhere in the 1999 Constitution where it is stated that the President or Vice President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria shall be removed or is removable from that office if he defects from the political party on whose platform he was elected to that office and joins another political party.”

Ebubu6:
You’re incorrect, Umahi stays

Your reasons please?

baralatie:

Is the case of umahi about removal of a sitting governor or sitting voiding his position as an elected governor by denouncing his certificate of return

I believe you can read.

When Atiku denounced his certificate of returns, as you said, in 2007 when he left PDP to contest as president under another party Action Congress but still in office as Vice President what was the outcome or ruling of the supreme court?

Atiku won bcoz Supreme Court Justices ruled that defection was not a ground for loosing your seat. It only applies to members of the legislature.

kahal29:


Best comment so far. You must be a lawyer to have said this. The case of Amaechi vs Omehia does not arise in this case because that was a pre-election case. Second, the issue before the supreme court then was to determine who was the lawful and rightful candidate of the PDP in the said election and the supreme court said it was Amaechi because in the eyes of the law he was never substituted. However in this case the question is not about who is the candidate in an election but rather what happens to a candidate who participated in an election, won the election, sworn in and later changed party by way of defection of which the constitution is silent.

Thus, the judgement by Justice Inyang can't stand at the appellate court because you cannot build something on nothing and expect it to stand.

Which defection law in our constitution did justice Inyang base his judgement on?

The judge simply embarked on judicial voyage and activism to create a new law which does not exist.

The Supreme court in plethora of cases frowns at such adventure. In the case of Attorney General of the Federation V. Abubakar (2007) 10 NWLR (part 1041) 1. At page 124 of the report, Justice Onnoghen set down the position thus:

It is the constitutional responsibility of the legislature to make or amend the laws including the constitution, where the need arises, while that of the judiciary remains to interpret and apply the laws so made or amended. The courts can therefore not add or subtract from the law as enacted by the legislature under the guise of judicial interpretation of the constitution or statute…”

The judgement erroneously relied on Section 221 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court in Faleke v. INEC.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court decision in Faleke v. INEC does not relate to the consequence of the defection of a governor from one political party to the other. A more apt instance will be the Atiku Abubakar scenario wherein Atiku Abubakar as Vice President, elected under the PDP, defected to the then Action Congress.

The position of the Supreme Court was also stated in Attorney General of the Federation V. Abubakar (2007) 10 NWLR (part 1041) 1 where Justice Onnoghen held thus:

“There is nowhere in the 1999 Constitution where it is stated that the President or Vice President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria shall be removed or is removable from that office if he defects from the political party on whose platform he was elected to that office and joins another political party.”

Be blessed my brother.

AGF vs Atiku (2007) is the best and most applicable case here and I have the confidence that Umahi will win unless if Supreme Court reverse itself.

Truthisunique3:
This daft sagay that is always looking for attention

How come buhari still rate malami pass you

Sagay is intelligent, malami is a bigot. Buhari is also a bigot.

Tareq1105:


I believe you can read.

When Atiku denounced his certificate of returns, as you said, in 2007 when he left PDP to contest as president under another party Action Congress but still in office as Vice President what was the outcome or ruling of the supreme court?

Atiku won bcoz Supreme Court Justices ruled that defection was not a ground for loosing your seat. It only applies to members of the legislature.

In the case of atiku vs Obasanjo denouncement of certificate of return was never the subject of litigation!
The subject of litigation by the justices at Federal appeal court Abuja was the powers of the president to unilaterally remove the vice president from office based on the position that he changed parties .The court justices held that the president does not have such powers!

Umahis case before the court was based on denouncement of his certificate of return .and the judges have given that verdict on denouncement of certificate of return through change of party

Smithkafors:
Umahi's problem is within APC someone wants to scheme him out.

Tinubu want to scheme him out I guess but what he did is stealing vote to another party.

The vote that brought him to power are PDP votes

NOETHNICITY:
Why do nairaland mods allow this forum to be used for scam.

Almost every young guys walking on the street of Nigeria are scammers.

Nairaland is reflecting what's going on in the society.

nairavsdollars:

https://independent.ng/defection-why-umahi-deputy-may-lose-at-appeal-court-sagay/

garfield1, seunmsg

Here is highly celebrated and respected lawyer Itse Sagay. One of the most cerebral and excellent minds in the law profession concurring with the judgement of the Hon. Justice Inyang Ekwo.

This shows the judgement is indeed a wise and prudent one that will uplift our political culture from the selfish manipulation of political crooks

I expect you wholeheartedly defer to the highly respected legal mind, Prof. Itse Sagay SAN

PassingShot:

Read again and see his point.

Umahi may lose at the Appeal Court but he has a good chance to win at the Supreme Court based on judicial precedence.

You are the one with a reading deficit.
He said judging by the supreme court's interpretation of votes being own by parties not candidates as the case of Omehia Vs Amaechi, Umahi is likely to lose out in both!

Kpakam

Brendaniel:
Presidential ambition don turn Presidential commotion...

Governorship and Presidential elections are different matters.

another1:

I said this for long time. The ignorant of a governor is still insulting pdp instead of him to be looking inward where is problem lies.

The PDP took him to court to challenge the legality of taking PDP's mandate in Ebonyi to APC.

The Governor can win the hearts of all Nigerians by resigning from office, drop PDP mandate and freely join the APC.

The late Governor of Kano, Abubakar Rimi was elected on the platform of the PRP in 1979 but he resigned from the party and resigned as Governor before decamping to another party in 1983.

baralatie:

In the case of atiku vs Obasanjo denouncement of certificate of return was never the subject of litigation!
The subject of litigation by the justices at Federal appeal court Abuja was the powers of the president to unilaterally remove the vice president from office based on the position that he changed parties .The court justices held that the president does not have such powers!

Umahis case before the court was based on denouncement of his certificate of return .and the judges have given that verdict on denouncement of certificate of return through change of party

The judgment went beyond that.obj said since atiku defected,he has lost his seat.the court said while obj cannot remove him,he cannot also lose his seat based on defection

drlateef:
Sagay you are wrong on two grounds, though I am not a lawyer. On the first ground, it is clearly stated in the constitution the methods by which a sitting Governor can be removed. Any other method cannot stand even if the Supreme Court gave that judgement, the constitution is supreme, not the Supreme Court judges. The Supreme Court judgement stood because the case of Amaechi was an electioneering process and the constitution recognises removing the Governor using election process as the process from which that removal arose from. In the case of Umahi, it is not an electioneering process and so his removal cannot stand using a judgement that’s not based on electioneering process.

The second issue is that the court judgement has to be executed even when an appeal is going on, unless and unless Umahi applies for a stay of execution of the judgement while the appeal is being considered.

Nobody is citadel of knowledge. I hope prof understands that.

Let me quickly add to your point. He also forgot that the same case has also been decided by the same supreme court, that is the case between Atiku vs Attorney General of the Federation. This was established that Atiku cannot be removed just because he defected.
The case of Rotimi is incomparable to Umahi case. The Amaechi own is a pre-election matter but this is a post-election matter where a certificate of return has been issued.
Old age is really worrying Sagah.
The case of Atiku vs Attorney General is more in line than Amaechi vs INEC.

Umahi's Presidential aspiration would have been as bright as sunlight if he had stayed back in pdp. At worse Vp slot for him. But " I too know don Bury his political popularity. Umahi will bow out in shame. Even his utterances against the judgement and the judge is not helping issues. No doubt he is a performing Governor but he allowed greed swindle him.

Agbegbaorogboye:

garfield1, seunmsg

Here is highly celebrated and respected lawyer Itse Sagay. One of the most cerebral and excellent minds in the law profession concurring with the judgement of the Hon. Justice Inyang Ekwo.

This shows the judgement is indeed a wise and prudent one that will uplift our political culture from the selfish manipulation of political crooks

I expect you wholeheartedly defer to the highly respected legal mind, Prof. Itse Sagay SAN

any law that is alien to our laws is illegal,null and void.for instance,the tribunal sacked ikpeazu for tax fraud but the upper courts said you can't sack a governor based on that.the way to remove a governor are clearly spelt out in the constitution.bode george was acquitted because he was charged with crimes unknown to our laws.what is not in the constitution or subsidiary laws is null and void.you can't put something on nothing.by the way, sagay is a human rights lawyer and not a constitutional or electoral lawyer.it is better you listen to the views of seasoned constitutioal lawyers like ozekhome

Maxymilliano:
DEFECTION to another Party INVALIDATES a Certificate of Return.

Any sane person with a sense of law and order, knows Umahi and his Deputy don't have a case

Cert of Return is issued in the name of the persons elected, under the party.

Not to a party, in the care of the the candidate.

We operate a party system, so every contestant must stand on a party, and not independent candidacy.
In essence, we vote by party system, but we do not vote a party.

The votes belong first to the candidate before the party.

If not, the winner becomes the leader of his electorates, not leader of a constituency.