denkyw:

I bet you spilled this out of the hate you have for barcanista, you didn't even take a second to read the post. unfortunately for you this is not the real bacarnista, and his points we're so on point.

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.

denkyw:

I bet you spilled this out of the hate you have for barcanista, you didn't even take a second to read the post. unfortunately for you this is not the real bacarnista, and his points we're so on point.

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.

T4taiwo:
Brilliant.
Nigerian lawyers are expert in twisting and misinterpreting the constitution to suit their pay master. Its very glaring even to the blind mind that Saraki err. You don't need to seek any black injunction if ur hands are clean...

ready2learn:
If this is the true Barcanista; .

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.

modath:
, Na here be my real habitat , that our preggy & US thread na just waka pass..

I be full time shareholder.

2n2k:


He didn't say the judge was incompetent. He said the tribunal was incompetent and gave his reasons.

The argument of the lawyer is that the tribunal is incompetent by composition as stated in the constitution which requires the panel to be the chairman and two other members instead of just the chairman and one member that sat. The judge noted his argument on Friday but did not rule on it. He therefore raised the issue again on Monday that the tribunal is incompetently constituted. The judge again noted his argument but ruled that another Law (which the judge quoted) allows the tribunal to form a quorum just with the chairman and one member.

'incompetent' was validly used legal term in the context and was properly understood by both the lawyer and the judge.

soonest:

You get mind o! Politics section is not for the lily-livered people at all.
Me i b visiting prof. Lol

midolian:
And who were the people that constituted the tribunal?

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.

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.

agabusta:


You guys should stop looking at the statement from a sentimental point of view.

He used the term as a technical legal term to mean that the tribunal was not properly composed. He did not direct the 'not competent' statement at the Person of the chairman, but at the tribunal to mean that it was not properly constituted to try a case.

Although, he was wrong on the submission as two justices are sufficient to try a case, but I just need to clarify that we should not be too sentimental on this issue.