bulldoza:
Foólish kid

20pounds:



My brother, you are very WRONG. Your submissions in the post portray you as a layman that applies morality and common sense to law. Both are different and can never meet.(Lord Denning).

1. You appeal the jurisdiction of trial Court in a higher Court and not the same Court. Where you do so, hearing of the matter automatically stops till a decision is reached on jurisdiction.

2. Saraki did not institute an action with the CCT as a party. His contention was that the office of the A-G federation was vacant and as such it cannot prosecute him.

#My Opinion; he was wrong on this one. In A-G Kaduna state v Hassan, it was held that where there is no substantive A-G, the solicitor General or any other officer in the office of the A-G cannot enter a nolle prosequi. In A-G fed v ANPP, it was held that the office of the A-G is a corporation sole and can prosecute persons even where there is no substantive A-G in place.

Saraki's Lawyers were not wrong to seek interpretation of the law on these two cases cos they have posed a conundrum to a lot of persons and Lawyers.

3. You argument is devoid of sound logic and point of law. It shouldn't have made frontpage.

Cc seun

SeverusSnape:

T0nyeBarcanista:
Many SANs, including Saraki's lawyers have critically complained about the CCT's disregard for the authority of the Federal High Court.

Let us ignore the fact that they later shot themselves in the feet when they realised their mistake and ran back to institute exactly the same matter at the Court of Appeal.

Apparently, Saraki's lawyers did not realise the following and may need to be schooled further on why their action at the Federal High Court was a nullity:

1. When you are charged to a court....any court at all....and you wish to challenge it's jurisdiction, you do so right in that same court.

2. If the CCT ignores your application and rules that it has jurisdiction, then you appeal its ruling.

3. The constitution has already clarified which court is capable of reviewing the Ruling of the CCT.

4. No where in jurisprudence, is a plaintiff permitted to sue a court as a party to the case, the only provision is to appeal its ruling.

5. The CCT is a specialized court similar to the Election petition Tribunals. Appeals from them go directly to the Court of Appeal. These tribunal panels comprise high court judges of coordinate jurisdiction.

6. An invitation of the high court judge to both parties, asking for them to show reason why they feel the high court should not issue an interlocutory injunction stopping CCT is no way an Interlocutory Injunction already.

7. Saraki's disregard of a substantive court summon in the absence of an Interlocutory Injunction was a direct request for a bench warrant.

While it is very clear that the CCT has given Saraki and his lawyers utmost respect and regard by withholding the bench warrant, believing that as a responsible citizen, he will honour the summons on Tuesday, let no one be in doubt about the CCT's utmost power to arrest, detain and lock behind bars, any accused person who shows open brigandage and disregard for the court's authority, no matter how highly placed.

bulldoza:


Foól

Senseless jobless bastąrd Son of a whòre and a drunkąrd old foól.

20pounds:



My brother, you are very WRONG. Your submissions in the post portray you as a layman that applies morality and common sense to law. Both are different and can never meet.(Lord Denning).

1. You appeal the jurisdiction of trial Court in a higher Court and not the same Court. Where you do so, hearing of the matter automatically stops till a decision is reached on jurisdiction.

2. Saraki did not institute an action with the CCT as a party. His contention was that the office of the A-G federation was vacant and as such it cannot prosecute him.

#My Opinion; he was wrong on this one. In A-G Kaduna state v Hassan, it was held that where there is no substantive A-G, the solicitor General or any other officer in the office of the A-G cannot enter a nolle prosequi. In A-G fed v ANPP, it was held that the office of the A-G is a corporation sole and can prosecute persons even where there is no substantive A-G in place.

Saraki's Lawyers were not wrong to seek interpretation of the law on these two cases cos they have posed a conundrum to a lot of persons and Lawyers.

3. You argument is devoid of sound logic and point of law. It shouldn't have made frontpage.

dustmalik:

It's only in Nigeria you can say that rubbish to a presiding judge and get away with it. Elsewhere, you would be held in contempt, arrested and detained.

midolian:
Ok, tomorrow is not far. I pray he repeats it tomorrow

docadams:


Repeat what?? More like asking him to swallow a grenade.

Jesusloveyou:
d op is not chief wailer

sunnyb0b0:


Point of correction, Saraki is not challenging the jurisdiction of the CCT but the administrative process of his charge. He is very much in order in the eyes of the law.

Demmzy15:
Guy you don come with your mushroom analysis! It's getting boring and baseless, I'll advice you take the back sit.

Pa Shukwudi Saraki's shoeshiner/buttlicker, we're expecting you here. Come and spew venom as usual!

T0nyeBarcanista:
Many SANs, including Saraki's lawyers have critically complained about the CCT's disregard for the authority of the Federal High Court.

Let us ignore the fact that they later shot themselves in the feet when they realised their mistake and ran back to institute exactly the same matter at the Court of Appeal.

Apparently, Saraki's lawyers did not realise the following and may need to be schooled further on why their action at the Federal High Court was a nullity:

1. When you are charged to a court....any court at all....and you wish to challenge it's jurisdiction, you do so right in that same court.

2. If the CCT ignores your application and rules that it has jurisdiction, then you appeal its ruling.

3. The constitution has already clarified which court is capable of reviewing the Ruling of the CCT.

4. No where in jurisprudence, is a plaintiff permitted to sue a court as a party to the case, the only provision is to appeal its ruling.

5. The CCT is a specialized court similar to the Election petition Tribunals. Appeals from them go directly to the Court of Appeal. These tribunal panels comprise high court judges of coordinate jurisdiction.

6. An invitation of the high court judge to both parties, asking for them to show reason why they feel the high court should not issue an
interlocutory injunction stopping CCT is no way an Interlocutory Injunction already.

7. Saraki's disregard of a substantive court summon in the absence of an Interlocutory Injunction was a direct request for a bench warrant.

While it is very clear that the CCT has given Saraki and his lawyers utmost respect and regard by withholding the bench warrant, believing that as
responsible citizen, he will honour the summons on Tuesday, let no one be in doubt about the CCT's utmost power to arrest, detain and lock behind bars, any accused person who shows open brigandage and
disregard for the court's authority, no matter how highly placed.

SeverusSnape:
Another barcanista wannabe.

dunkem21:



My belle o

T0nyeBarcanista:
Many SANs, including Saraki's lawyers have critically complained about the CCT's disregard for the authority of the Federal High Court.

Let us ignore the fact that they later shot themselves in the feet when they realised their mistake and ran back to institute exactly the same matter at the Court of Appeal.

Apparently, Saraki's lawyers did not realise the following and may need to be schooled further on why their action at the Federal High Court was a nullity:

1. When you are charged to a court....any court at all....and you wish to challenge it's jurisdiction, you do so right in that same court.

2. If the CCT ignores your application and rules that it has jurisdiction, then you appeal its ruling.

3. The constitution has already clarified which court is capable of reviewing the Ruling of the CCT.

4. No where in jurisprudence, is a plaintiff permitted to sue a court as a party to the case, the only provision is to appeal its ruling.

5. The CCT is a specialized court similar to the Election petition Tribunals. Appeals from them go directly to the Court of Appeal. These tribunal panels comprise high court judges of coordinate jurisdiction.

6. An invitation of the high court judge to both parties, asking for them to show reason why they feel the high court should not issue an interlocutory injunction stopping CCT is no way an Interlocutory Injunction already.

7. Saraki's disregard of a substantive court summon in the absence of an Interlocutory Injunction was a direct request for a bench warrant.

While it is very clear that the CCT has given Saraki and his lawyers utmost respect and regard by withholding the bench warrant, believing that as a responsible citizen, he will honour the summons on Tuesday, let no one be in doubt about the CCT's utmost power to arrest, detain and lock behind bars, any accused person who shows open brigandage and disregard for the court's authority, no matter how highly placed.

SeverusSnape:


Your aallah is a monstrous fool. Mohammed is pedophilic cretinous cow.

Demmzy15:
Guy you don come with your mushroom analysis! It's getting boring and baseless, I'll advice you take the back sit.

Pa Shukwudi Saraki's shoeshiner/buttlicker, we're expecting you here. Come and spew venom as usual!

Abugab:
The points are valid and salient.
Saraki can't run away from this than to appear before CCT and defend himself.
The CCT should not succumb to the usual delay tactics of his lawyers as the whole process should be done as fast as possible because many more are still out here that needs to face the music.
One fact people tend to forget is that this administration has the VP as one of the best criminal justice lawyer and Prof. Sagay a foremost constitutional lawyer. Any thief brought out will hardly have any escape route because Falana will soon join them to put fire on all their buttocks.

T0nyeBarcanista:

While it is very clear that the CCT has given Saraki and his lawyers utmost respect and regard by withholding the bench warrant, believing that as a responsible citizen, he will honour the summons on Tuesday, let no one be in doubt about the CCT's utmost power to arrest, detain and lock behind bars, any accused person who shows open brigandage and disregard for the court's authority, no matter how highly placed.

Barcanista has "received SENSE"!

What happened?

sauceEEP:
E be like say this version of barcanista get sense pass the former one....

Demmzy15:
Guy you don come with your mushroom analysis! It's getting boring and baseless, I'll advice you take the back sit.

Pa Shukwudi Saraki's shoeshiner/buttlicker, we're expecting you here. Come and spew venom as usual!

midolian:
This guy is so on point.

8.) You don't call a judge that presides over your case "incompetent". I am sure joseph Daudu will regret ever calling a hausa/fulani Judge "incompetent".

The same "incompetent" Justice Danladi Umar will be the one he and his paymaster(Saraki) will face tomorrow.

sunnyb0b0:


Point of correction, Saraki is not challenging the jurisdiction of the CCT but the administrative process of his charge. He is very much in order in the eyes of the law.

In his ground of appeal, Senator Saraki through his counsel, Joseph Daudu, submitted that the tribunal erred in law and also acted without jurisdiction‎ by assuming jurisdiction over the criminal trial of the appellant at the Code of Conduct Tribunal for a charge which is being challenged at the Federal High Court.

http://www.channelstv.com/2015/09/18/saraki-appeals-code-of-conduct-tribunal-ruling/