OgaSeun:


LOL...

If lAw is that simple to interprete...
We won't be needing lawyers...

And that is why you must not allow your emotions to override you to think those that are interpreting the clause is making it looks as if those in FCT have two heads. The clause in the constitution is not written in Hebrew or Hindus but Common English. Adding emotional attachment defeats the essence of our going to school. The framer must have been overzealous to have put the sentence that way since FCT is a seat of power, which may require that the national assembly tinker with it in the 10th national assembly. At least we all did type of sentences in school and we did exam on it and even home work.
To me, that clause was erroneously put together, it should not have had "and FCT" if the framer had had the premonition that votes from each state are equal.

Yea, you're right. This should be fun for a CSS student who is serious. This reminds me of my days as an undergraduate of Criminology and Security Studies... Criminology is more challenging at the Msc. level and Glory be to God, I'll rock Forensic Science PhD. in a few months from now.

thesicilian:
These are very practical questions. The key is not to let the names distract you.

IfnobeGod20:

And that is why you must not allow your emotions to override you to think those that are interpreting the clause is making it looks as if those in FCT have two heads. The clause in the constitution is not written in Hebrew or Hindus but Common English. Adding emotional attachment defeats the essence of our going to school. The framer must have been overzealous to have put the sentence that way since FCT is a seat of power, which may require that the national assembly tinker with it in the 10th national assembly. At least we all did type of sentences in school and we did exam on it and even home work.
To me, that clause was erroneously put together, it should not have had "and FCT" if the reframer had had the premonition that votes from each state are equal.

Depending on the angle you are looking at it from....
It can be interpreted both ways

You are very correct. But again, if you looked at it intently, you'll noticed it was not intended for anyone to just answer three questions. It is explicitly stated to answer question one AND any other two questions. So if anyone answered any three questions without question one, the person will lose the mark for question one, and also the marks for the other two, because it would be difficult for the lecturer to determine which two questions of the three questions that was answered, without question one, would be marked. In other words, technically, he has failed the exams.
Therefore the above implies that the statement, two-third of 36 states AND Abuja does not in any way mean two-third of 37 states. It means that the 'statement' should be treated as 24 states AND Abuja.
Therefore, from the foregoing, if a presidential candidate does not get the requirement for Abuja, but got for at least 24 states, that candidate can never be declared as the winner of a presidential election.
With my presentation, it behoves my Lord Justices to do the needful and pass a judgement annulling the declaration of Bola Ahmed Tinubu of the APC as a president-elect, AND overruling any concomitant effect resulting from that declaration, as null and void.

Nazgul:
Very straight forward exam questions...if you're a student that's up to date with his/her lecture notes, you'll definitely request for at least 5 extra sheets. Cos I don't see any thing difficult here.

Since we're still on the 25% Abuja issue. If you look at the instructions carefully, According to it, you're expected to answer a total of 3 questions.

They said answer question one AND any other two. Meaning if you answer question one correctly AND fail to answer any other two questions as directed by the lecturer, you'll definitely fail the exams.

Now back to the elections, what this implies is that if a candidate fails to fulfill the 25% votes in Abuja, it means he shouldn't be declared winner cos it's like a student answering only number one question AND leaving the remaining two. This means that the candidate shouldn't be declared winner according to the instructions INEC themselves gave for the election.

You are very correct. But again, if you looked at it intently, you'll noticed it was not intended for anyone to just answer three questions. It is explicitly stated to answer question one AND any other two questions. So if anyone answered any three questions without question one, the person will lose the mark for question one, and also the marks for the other two, because it would be difficult for the lecturer to determine which two questions of the three questions that was answered, without question one, would be marked. In other words, technically, he has failed the exams.
Therefore the above implies that the statement, two-third of 36 states AND Abuja does not in any way mean two-third of 37 states. It means that the 'statement' should be treated as 24 states AND Abuja.
Therefore, from the foregoing, if a presidential candidate does not get the requirement for Abuja, but got for at least 24 states, that candidate can never be declared as the winner of a presidential election.
With my presentation, it behoves my Lord Justices to do the needful and pass a judgement annulling the declaration of Bola Ahmed Tinubu of the APC as a president-elect, AND overruling any concomitant effect resulting from that declaration, as null and void.