boombay:
please who is osun??...,i don't know who is osun because i schooled in France

boombay:
please who is osun??...,i don't know who is osun because i schooled in France

wellmax:

This is not true. The Senate and House of Reps have a particular time frame of operation. That is why they have to be inaugurated every four years. Even if elections are held again one month to the expiration of this administration, it means the winners will only serve for one month.

belente:
4 nigeria 2 b among developed countries, it must have

wellmax:

This is not true. The Senate and House of Reps have a particular time frame of operation. That is why they have to be inaugurated every four years. Even if elections are held again one month to the expiration of this administration, it means the winners will only serve for one month.

Obinoscopy:
It means that INEC has two options:

1. Accept the verdict and re-conduct the 2011 legislative elections. This automatically means that the senators/reps that were elected in 2011 have lost their mandate. Also this means whoever wins in the new elections has less than 6 months to stay in office before the next 2015 legislative elections.

2. Appeal the verdict at the Supreme Court. In this case, there are 3 possibilities:
a) The Supreme Court might reaffirm the judgements of the lower courts. In this case, we're back to option 1.
b) The Supreme Court could nullify the judgement. In this case, the status quo is maintained
c) The case might linger in the Supreme Court till 2015 elections. In that case, whatever verdict the Supreme Court gives would just be an academic exercise as it's ruling would be overtaken by events .

A 2011 case still ongoing till 2014...........this shows how slow our judiciary is. I don't think it's healthy for our democracy. We need a judiciary that would give fast judgements without necessarily compromising it's efficiency.

Klem28:
You rather seem not to be correct. He was seemingly talking from the position of the law. It is only in the case of a run off election that the term of the holder of an office could be completed by the new winner. This judgement tends to say that no valid election under the headship of "Akeju" was ever held into those offices in question. Therefore, fresh election is warranted. In any case, the most likely of the option he gave is appealing this judgement at the Supreme Court the judgement which could be delivered late before the February General Election. As a lawyer, I join the voices of the Nigerian people that our Judges should be more diligent and pro active. God bless my state- Osun State

Obinoscopy:
It means that INEC has two options:

1. Accept the verdict and re-conduct the 2011 legislative elections. This automatically means that the senators/reps that were elected in 2011 have lost their mandate. Also this means whoever wins in the new elections has less than 6 months to stay in office before the next 2015 legislative elections.

2. Appeal the verdict at the Supreme Court. In this case, there are 3 possibilities:
a) The Supreme Court might reaffirm the judgements of the lower courts. In this case, we're back to option 1.
b) The Supreme Court could nullify the judgement. In this case, the status quo is maintained
c) The case might linger in the Supreme Court till 2015 elections. In that case, whatever verdict the Supreme Court gives would just be an academic exercise as it's ruling would be overtaken by events .

A 2011 case still ongoing till 2014...........this shows how slow our judiciary is. I don't think it's healthy for our democracy. We need a judiciary that would give fast judgements without necessarily compromising it's efficiency.

Obinoscopy:
It means that INEC has two options:

1. Accept the verdict and re-conduct the 2011 legislative elections. This automatically means that the senators/reps that were elected in 2011 have lost their mandate. Also this means whoever wins in the new elections has less than 6 months to stay in office before the next 2015 legislative elections.

2. Appeal the verdict at the Supreme Court. In this case, there are 3 possibilities:
a) The Supreme Court might reaffirm the judgements of the lower courts. In this case, we're back to option 1.
b) The Supreme Court could nullify the judgement. In this case, the status quo is maintained
c) The case might linger in the Supreme Court till 2015 elections. In that case, whatever verdict the Supreme Court gives would just be an academic exercise as it's ruling would be overtaken by events .

A 2011 case still ongoing till 2014...........this shows how slow our judiciary is. I don't think it's healthy for our democracy. We need a judiciary that would give fast judgements without necessarily compromising it's efficiency.