vicdom:
CC: Fergie001
I was arguing with some neophytes earlier that the section 84 (12) of the new electoral act violated our constitution, positing that any court can easily throw it out.

High Court does not have the powers to do that. It won't stand. Mark it.

vicdom:
CC: Fergie001
I was arguing with some neophytes earlier that the section 84 (12) of the new electoral act violated our constitution, positing that any court can easily throw it out.

Why always Abia State? Federal High Court now, the other was the state High Court that mandated The Federal Government to pay that Mumurist Secessionist 1 billion Naira?

If a court can order that a section of our law be removed from the constitution, does it not mean that someday a judge can order that the whole constitution should be deleted?

Kilometres:


High Court does not have the powers to do that. It won't stand. Mark it.

They have the powers, section 315 (3) of The Constitution of 1999 As Amended gives the power to a High Court to invalidate any existing law in conflict with the constitution.

Themandator:



It is worrying. When people like you begin to posture and position as learned.. Very worrying

Courts have always declared laws illegal when it infringes on the supreme laws of the land


Go to Google and type... Can court declare laws illegal

stop it, u be learner and dat guyman dey teach u . u beta humble and learn.

u dey quote textbook and e dey tell u d koko.

na people like malami , ngige and co get dis court judgement and dem opponents go get dia own judgement by next week too.

no be court dat notorious arthur nzeribe take stop the declaration of 1993 presidential election result yet na Ibb send am.

famology:


What now happens to the order of the fhc Abuja?

Lawan made it clear that the ruling of the FHC Abuja violates the principle of separation of powers.
That was why the Senate went ahead to deliberate on it.
Same applies to this one too.

The Court can only be approached to interpret the law made by National Assembly never to delete or cancel a duly passed and signed law.

Kilometres:


Lawan made it clear that the ruling of the FHC Abuja violates the principle of separation of powers.
That was why the Senate went ahead to deliberate on it.
Same applies to this one too.

The Court can only be approached to interpret the law made by National Assembly never to delete or cancel a duly passed and signed law.

Section 315 (3) of The Constitution of 1999 As Amended gives the power to a High Court to invalidate any existing law in conflict with the constitution.

Kilometres:


Lawan made it clear that the ruling of the FHC Abuja violates the principle of separation of powers.
That was why the Senate went ahead to deliberate on it.
Same applies to this one too.

The Court can only be approached to interpret the law made by National Assembly never to delete or cancel a duly passed and signed law.

inec no go allow any candidate wey emerge in conflict of d electoral law 2023

SocialJustice:
Yes but a political appointee is a civil servant and civil servants must resign before running for office. Ministers must let this sink into their head.

The Court has ruled in the past that a political appointee is not a Civil Servant.

garfield1:


What a counter attack from malami

Hahahaha.....as if we predicted it

Ameachi incoming

cktheluckyman:



Injustice Tanko reports to Buhari and the cabal.Shebi you all were rejoicing Onnoggen was removed and he came on board

That is not how it works...Tanko has one vote

One personal observation:
I notice that our esteemed court and judge are always proactive to adjudicate on matters that are relevant to the core leeches and political vampire of our society. The key attribute they exhibit is swiftness. A case in point is this matter of electoral act 84(12). On the other hand if the matter at hand is heave or are heave on corruption, embezzlement of public funds, kidnapping and terrorism, electricity and fuel , ASUU strike and the list can go on and on. Then we see the judiciary open all her fangs and will spend an average of 10 - years in good motive on such cases. Am just observing. I dont know if people are observing too.

fergie001:

You remember I said it....The judgement is in order but I believe the reasons adduced aren't clear...

The reasons are clear enough

Fear malami, last last tinubu media urchins will understand.

garfield1:
The reasons are clear enough

They aren't....

Is a Minister a Public Servant bounded by the mandatory 30 days rule?

fergie001:

They aren't....

Is a Minister a Public Servant bounded by the mandatory 30 days rule?

The 30 day rule is binding on all government affiliated workers

garfield1:
The 30 day rule is binding on all government affiliated workers

To my understanding and the 1999 CFRN, Ministers aren't public servants.

fergie001:


To my understanding and the 1999 CFRN, Ministers aren't public servants.

They are serving @ the pleasure of the President.

ivolt:

This is not true until the supreme court determines the constitutionality of such law
or absent of appeals.
The law stands.

You are not informed.

A subsisting court order stands until it is overturned by a Superior court.

fergie001:


To my understanding and the 1999 CFRN, Ministers aren't public servants.

They are.if so,one can hold two government posts na.

Nigerialabalaba:
inec no go accept even as e dey so because d electoral act na one let alone wen another high court con give a conflicting judgement. NA is d one dem for lobby. court na dead end.

INEC is not a law court.

buckeyemedia:
They are serving @ the pleasure of the President.

Does that make them public servants?

garfield1:
They are.if so,one can hold two government posts na.

They aren't......

Who is a Public Servant?

Read Below

fergie001:
Justices garfield1 vicdom kahal29 penguin2 indispensable85 ejimatic AAA593 (Bayelsa dept).....food is ready!

garfield1:


What a counter attack from malami

Sir

fergie001:

The Court has ruled in the past that a political appointee is not a Civil Servant.

Na them sabi abeg. Being correct or wrong is of no economic importance to me.

vicdom:
CC: Fergie001
I was arguing with some neophytes earlier that the section 84 (12) of the new electoral act violated our constitution, positing that any court can easily throw it out.

How can a Court throw out a Law of the land? If the Bill from Parliament is assented to by the President, it automatically becomes the Law of the land. If any Court finds that the Law made by Parliament contravenes the Constitution, what should the Court do?
Pronounce as such and the AGF refers it back to Parliament to make necessary amendment if they agree with the Court’s ruling.
It is certainly not the business of a Court to throw out a Law of the land….their role is only to interpret the Law. If the Court is not empowered to make a Law, they cannot throw it out either IMO. Anyway, this one will definitely go all the way to the Supreme Court….meanwhile, it remain the Law of the land!

shinealight:


How can a Court throw out a Law of the land? If the Bill from Parliament is assented to by the President, it automatically becomes the Law of the land. If any Court finds that the Law made by Parliament contravenes the Constitution, what should the Court do?
Pronounce as such and the AGF refers it back to Parliament to make necessary amendment if they agree with the Court’s ruling.
It is certainly not the business of a Court to throw out a Law of the land….their role is only to interpret the Law. If the Court is not empowered to make a Law, they cannot throw it out either IMO. Anyway, this one will definitely go all the way to the Supreme Court….meanwhile, it remain the Law of the land!

A Court of law have the rights to void any Section of an Act, existing law or decree inconsistent with the Constitution.

Section 140(2) of the Electoral Act 2010 was voided for been in conflict with the Constitution. It was a Federal High Court judgement by Justice Gabriel Kolawole that has neither been appealed nor invalidated. It has remained so.

The Appeal Court has also voided the Tax and Levies Act 2004 for been inconsistent with the Constitution.

You are well aware that even the recent VAT Act has also been invalidated by a Federal High Court in Port-Harcourt and is before the Appeal Court as we speak.

So, it is not their responsibility to tell the Executive to send back the bill. Theirs is to tell you not to touch the grundnorm i.e. Constitution.

What the Court cannot touch is the Constitution. Let me take you back 2018, whilst many cases were pending in Court, including the Aketi- Segun Abraham saga, the National Assembly passed the 4th Alteration in June of that year and it was signed by Buhari.

All pre-election cases were affected by the 4th Alteration of the 1999 CFRN. The only way out is to APPEAL.

fergie001:

A Court of law have the rights to void any Section of an Act, existing law or decree inconsistent with the Constitution.

Section 140(2) of the Electoral Act 2010 was voided for been in conflict with the Constitution. It was a Federal High Court judgement by Justice Gabriel Kolawole that has neither been appealed nor invalidated. It has remained so.

The Appeal Court has also voided the Tax and Levies Act 2004 for been inconsistent with the Constitution.

You are well aware that even the recent VAT Act has also been invalidated by a Federal High Court in Port-Harcourt and is before the Appeal Court as we speak.

So, it is not their responsibility to tell the Executive to send back the bill. Theirs is to tell you not to touch the grundnorm i.e. Constitution.

What the Court cannot touch is the Constitution. Let me take you back 2018, whilst many cases were pending in Court, including the Aketi- Segun Abraham saga, the National Assembly passed the 4th Alteration in June of that year and it was signed by Buhari.

All pre-election cases were affected by the 4th Alteration of the 1999 CFRN. The only way out is to APPEAL.

When a lower Court voids an Act through a pronouncement, one expects the AGF to seek clarification from a higher Court and even possibly the Supreme Court before rushing to gazette the version of the Law that favours him personally. Is it likely that the Parliament will just fold their hands in the face of this affront? The Senate President had previously stated that a Court couldn’t stop them from carrying out their constitutional duties. One hopes they’re not inadvertently playing into the hands of the Khaki boys!!

Thank God I didn't resign!