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.

shinealight:
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!!

Maxymilliano:
The section can only be removed by an act of parliamentary amendments and not by judicial pronouncement

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.

BluntCrazeMan:
So, who should now Appeal this very judgement??
The National Assembly??
..
And for how long would it be for this judgement, when not appealed should not be appealed again?

buckeyemedia:
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?

buckeyemedia:
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.

buckeyemedia:
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.

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

fergie001:

From what I can see a Chieftain of the AA went to Court with the AGF as sole defendant.

The National Assembly has to appeal. They have to obtain a leave of Court from Owerri and when granted, maintain a separate leave.

The time to appeal is 3 months.

BluntCrazeMan:
Owerri?
I thought the judgement was passed in Umuahia?
Why would they go to Owerri please?
..
Wooww.
See their game..

An AA member went to court, with only AGF as the defendant.
So that it would be difficult for any other party to try seeking an appeal.

Penguin2:

garfield1:


What a counter attack from malami

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