chukwudi44:


He would have written it if it was that easy to do so!! I dare the APC to attempt to rig or write the results in the next Rivers re-run polls and see what will happen to them!

MichaelDee:
See them yeye SANs. Anything that is not in suppoort of APC, u sha see dem wailling at it. Keep wailling Sagay and Ogunye.

Descartes:
Eminent lawyer, Prof. Itse Sagay, and a Lagos-based legal practitioner, Mr. Jiti Ogunye, on Thursday, queried the recent judgments of the Supreme Court, which dismissed all the cases challenging the polls of some governors, including those that had earlier been overturned by two lower courts.

A seven-man bench led by the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Mahmud Mohammed, on Wednesday, affirmed the results declared by the Independent National Electoral Commission with respect to the Abia and Akwa Ibom states’ governorship polls.

In separate telephone interviews with our correspondent, Sagay and Ogunye said the Supreme Court judgments were not justifiable.

The Court of Appeal in the case of the Abia poll and the election petitions tribunal with respect to the Akwa Ibom election had taken a position different from that of the apex court.

Earlier, the apex court had affirmed the governorship election in River State, despite contrary findings by the appeal court.

The apex court had also affirmed the governorship polls in Ebonyi, Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Delta and some others.

The Supreme Court is to give full reasons for its decisions on most of the governorship elections later this month.

The apex court’s decision has not been delivered in the appeal with respect to Taraba State election.

Drawing an analogy between the Supreme Court’s decisions and the attitude of an ancient king called Draco in punishing all offences with death, Sagay said on Thursday that the apex court’s streak of judgments was strange.

He said, “It is not something I can just pounce on. But all the judgments have been the same. It’s very interesting. There used to be an ancient monarch, who punished every crime by death. He was called Draco. That is why when somebody does anything extreme he is called Draconian.

“If anybody steals one kobo, you kill him, if he kills someone you kill him, at the end, there is no distinction between offences.

“There should be distinctions. How can all the governorship cases go the same way? How is that possible? That is the question we are all awaiting when they will give the reasons for their judgments.

“I don’t know how to put it, but it’s very strange. We will wait for them to give their reasons and see how that magic occurred that every governorship election was valid and in line with the Electoral Act. It is very unprecedented. We will see when they give their full judgments, that is it for now.”

On his part, Ogunye said he was met with ‘shock and disbelief’ following the apex court’s decisions.

He expressed fear that the Supreme Court’s judgment might ‘unwittingly become an anti-technology, anti-innovation and anti-science precedent’ which he said was “sad for our democracy’.

He said with the trend of the apex court’s judgment it would have been impossible for the likes of Governor Adams Oshiomhole of Edo State, Governor Olusegun Mimiko of Ondo, Governor Rauf Aregbesola of Osun and former Governor Kayode Fayemi of Ekiti, to assume governorship positions.

Those mentioned by Ogunye had become governors by an order of the Court of Appeal at the time when the Supreme Court had yet to have jurisdiction over governorship election appeal cases.

He also said, “Nigerians and the international community were living witnesses to the conduct of the polls in the states where these election petitions emanated and the conclusions were that the elections were terribly mismanaged and marred by violence and malpractices.”


http://www.punchng.com/sagay-ogunye-fault-scourt-judgments-on-gov-polls/

psucc:
Itse may have been looking at the case with a lens different from the one used by the judges. Again that their decisions are unanimous on the case means the judges may have been nonpartisan about the case.

However, 7 men agreeing supersedes that of a one man who is holding brief or has a take at the present govt.

We should not fall down the last wall standing or else anarchy will be child's play.

Bigchief46:
Sagay was my Dean at the University of Benin and as a student was beloved by all of us, but I have to say that his comments on litigation matters have always been a terrible disappointment. It was the same way he tarnished his reputation with his comments on the Abia Guber poll Election Petition Tribunal Judgment in 2007. Sagay's problem is however very clear to understand; he is a distinguished Law teacher no doubt but he is no Barrister. There is a world of difference between theory and practice. Sagay was a law Teacher for the majority of his Professional working life, rising to become a distinguished Professor of Law specializing in Contracts. At a very late stage in his professional life, he decided to try his hands in private Legal Practice but his record in Litigation has been filled with blunder after blunder: there is a reason that the proverb says that you don't learn new tricks in old age. SAGAY IS NO LITIGATOR simple and should stop embarrassing himself by giving myopic opinions on litigation matters. He was awarded a SAN ENTIRELY for his academic accomplishments & not for anything he has ever done in the Court room. Moreover, I do not know of a single Election Petition in which SAGAY has been Lead Counsel. Election Petitions is a highly technical practice Area and many lawyers, including SANs reject such Briefs or recommend others if approached. Most Politicians know those who are experts in this exclusive area of practice & Sagay is certainly not one of them. The first Rule in critique of Judgments is that you must have all the facts of a case so that you know exactly what the Court you are criticizing knows. Moreover in these cases, the Supreme Court has not even given its reasons for the Judgments so people of the standing of SAGAY should have been slow to make such disparaging comments on our APEX Court for now. It would be understandable if this was some green-wig lawyer or rabble-rousing "radical" lawyer making these comments. NOW TO THE ISSUE: I have some suspicions as to why almost all the Governorship cases will end up this way. First, the Supreme Court is consistently known and revered for its CONSISTENCY over the years. With the SC, you know exactly what the law is unlike the Courts of Appeal who keep on putting their foot in their mouth and somersaulting all the time. Most Petitioners in this election circle took the easy way out by relying & putting the fate of their Petitions on Card Readers. The traditional way of prosecuting & proving electoral malpractices is very difficult & so when the issue of Card Readers came up, they shouted "eureka" & focused all their energies on proving malpractices using Card Reader data. Even those who pleaded other forms of malpractices & non-compliance failed to call adequate evidence on them as proving malpractices through Card Reader data appeared simpler & straight forward. But they did not take cognizance of one thing: Card Reader as part of the accreditation process IS NOT YET part of our Electoral Laws. Card Reader is commendable; it will reduce rigging; it will improve transparency in the electoral process BUT IT IS NOT PART OF THE LAW YET: you cannot put something on nothing. The fault for this lacuna should not be put on the doorsteps of the SC but is entirely that of INEC. INEC failed to get accreditation by Card Reader legislated into law before the elections. The duty of any Court, including the SC is to interpret the law: in doing so, a Court should interpret the law AS IT IS and not AS IT OUGHT TO BE. This forum is not adequate to expantiate on this issue but let me finalize by saying this: the mode of accreditation recognized by the Electoral Act is as set out at Section 49 of the Act. Once the data & details of a prospective voter appears in the Voter's Register & match that in his PVC, he should be given a ballot paper and allowed to vote. There is no mention of Card Reader anywhere in the Electoral Act & so INEC Presiding Officers were giving ballot papers to voters to cast their votes, even if the Card Reader failed to authenticate their PVCs once their particulars are in the Register & match that on their PVC. So in essence, what many Courts of Appeal did was to annul the elections in places where the number of votes cast exceeded the number of accredited voters captured by Card Reader but the Supreme Court is saying no: the votes cast should include those accredited with Voter's Register only (popularly called "manual accreditation". Once that happened, most Petitions fail at the Supreme Court because, as I explained earlier, most Petitioners put all their eggs in the single basket of Card Reader. INEC failed to get the National Assembly to further amend the Electoral Act to legislate Card Reader into law as a legal means of accreditation. They only issued a directive that Card Reader should be used; however this is what Section 138(2) of the Electoral Act provides: "An act or omission which may be contrary to an instruction or directive of the Commission or of an officer appointed for the purpose of the election but which is not contrary to the provisions of this Act shall not of itself be a ground for questioning the election". Clearly accreditation without using Card Readers is not contrary to the Electoral Act & is therefore not a ground for nullifying any election. This is all the Supreme Court is saying. I can vouchsafe that the CJN & other Noble Lords of the SC are not happy with the outcomes but what can they do when INEC failed to do the needful? What can they do when Petitioners failed to prove their case to the exacting degree & standards required by law? Remember the Court, including Supreme Court does not make law; they only interpret it. Lastly it is intriguing that no one heard the voice of SAGAY & his ilk when the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division gave THE VERY FIRST JUDGMENT EVER on the issue of Card Reader, holding that it was not part of our electoral laws. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal brought by the PDP & their candidate, Agbaje against the APC & Ambode which was premised on Card Reader. Sagay & others like him praised the sagacity of the CA but because the same interpretation by the CA on Card Reader which favored the APC then now favors the PDP at the Apex Court, our Noble Lords of the SC are being rubbished by ignorant comments.

wirinet:


That is why i hate chest beaters, when shit hits the fan, they cry worse than babies. If Buhari should deploy federal might to rig elections, these chest beaters would start crying genocide, human rights, Hague, putin, Obama, Cameron, UN, etc.

Bigchief46:
Sagay was my Dean at the University of Benin and as a student was beloved by all of us, but I have to say that his comments on litigation matters have always been a terrible disappointment. It was the same way he tarnished his reputation with his comments on the Abia Guber poll Election Petition Tribunal Judgment in 2007. Sagay's problem is however very clear to understand; he is a distinguished Law teacher no doubt but he is no Barrister. There is a world of difference between theory and practice. Sagay was a law Teacher for the majority of his Professional working life, rising to become a distinguished Professor of Law specializing in Contracts. At a very late stage in his professional life, he decided to try his hands in private Legal Practice but his record in Litigation has been filled with blunder after blunder: there is a reason that the proverb says that you don't learn new tricks in old age. SAGAY IS NO LITIGATOR simple and should stop embarrassing himself by giving myopic opinions on litigation matters. He was awarded a SAN ENTIRELY for his academic accomplishments & not for anything he has ever done in the Court room. Moreover, I do not know of a single Election Petition in which SAGAY has been Lead Counsel. Election Petitions is a highly technical practice Area and many lawyers, including SANs reject such Briefs or recommend others if approached. Most Politicians know those who are experts in this exclusive area of practice & Sagay is certainly not one of them. The first Rule in critique of Judgments is that you must have all the facts of a case so that you know exactly what the Court you are criticizing knows. Moreover in these cases, the Supreme Court has not even given its reasons for the Judgments so people of the standing of SAGAY should have been slow to make such disparaging comments on our APEX Court for now. It would be understandable if this was some green-wig lawyer or rabble-rousing "radical" lawyer making these comments. NOW TO THE ISSUE: I have some suspicions as to why almost all the Governorship cases will end up this way. First, the Supreme Court is consistently known and revered for its CONSISTENCY over the years. With the SC, you know exactly what the law is unlike the Courts of Appeal who keep on putting their foot in their mouth and somersaulting all the time. Most Petitioners in this election circle took the easy way out by relying & putting the fate of their Petitions on Card Readers. The traditional way of prosecuting & proving electoral malpractices is very difficult & so when the issue of Card Readers came up, they shouted "eureka" & focused all their energies on proving malpractices using Card Reader data. Even those who pleaded other forms of malpractices & non-compliance failed to call adequate evidence on them as proving malpractices through Card Reader data appeared simpler & straight forward. But they did not take cognizance of one thing: Card Reader as part of the accreditation process IS NOT YET part of our Electoral Laws. Card Reader is commendable; it will reduce rigging; it will improve transparency in the electoral process BUT IT IS NOT PART OF THE LAW YET: you cannot put something on nothing. The fault for this lacuna should not be put on the doorsteps of the SC but is entirely that of INEC. INEC failed to get accreditation by Card Reader legislated into law before the elections. The duty of any Court, including the SC is to interpret the law: in doing so, a Court should interpret the law AS IT IS and not AS IT OUGHT TO BE. This forum is not adequate to expantiate on this issue but let me finalize by saying this: the mode of accreditation recognized by the Electoral Act is as set out at Section 49 of the Act. Once the data & details of a prospective voter appears in the Voter's Register & match that in his PVC, he should be given a ballot paper and allowed to vote. There is no mention of Card Reader anywhere in the Electoral Act & so INEC Presiding Officers were giving ballot papers to voters to cast their votes, even if the Card Reader failed to authenticate their PVCs once their particulars are in the Register & match that on their PVC. So in essence, what many Courts of Appeal did was to annul the elections in places where the number of votes cast exceeded the number of accredited voters captured by Card Reader but the Supreme Court is saying no: the votes cast should include those accredited with Voter's Register only (popularly called "manual accreditation". Once that happened, most Petitions fail at the Supreme Court because, as I explained earlier, most Petitioners put all their eggs in the single basket of Card Reader. INEC failed to get the National Assembly to further amend the Electoral Act to legislate Card Reader into law as a legal means of accreditation. They only issued a directive that Card Reader should be used; however this is what Section 138(2) of the Electoral Act provides: "An act or omission which may be contrary to an instruction or directive of the Commission or of an officer appointed for the purpose of the election but which is not contrary to the provisions of this Act shall not of itself be a ground for questioning the election". Clearly accreditation without using Card Readers is not contrary to the Electoral Act & is therefore not a ground for nullifying any election. This is all the Supreme Court is saying. I can vouchsafe that the CJN & other Noble Lords of the SC are not happy with the outcomes but what can they do when INEC failed to do the needful? What can they do when Petitioners failed to prove their case to the exacting degree & standards required by law? Remember the Court, including Supreme Court does not make law; they only interpret it. Lastly it is intriguing that no one heard the voice of SAGAY & his ilk when the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division gave THE VERY FIRST JUDGMENT EVER on the issue of Card Reader, holding that it was not part of our electoral laws. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal brought by the PDP & their candidate, Agbaje against the APC & Ambode which was premised on Card Reader. Sagay & others like him praised the sagacity of the CA but because the same interpretation by the CA on Card Reader which favored the APC then now favors the PDP at the Apex Court, our Noble Lords of the SC are being rubbished by ignorant comments.

Bigchief46:
Sagay was my Dean at the University of Benin and as a student was beloved by all of us, but I have to say that his comments on litigation matters have always been a terrible disappointment. It was the same way he tarnished his reputation with his comments on the Abia Guber poll Election Petition Tribunal Judgment in 2007. Sagay's problem is however very clear to understand; he is a distinguished Law teacher no doubt but he is no Barrister. There is a world of difference between theory and practice. Sagay was a law Teacher for the majority of his Professional working life, rising to become a distinguished Professor of Law specializing in Contracts. At a very late stage in his professional life, he decided to try his hands in private Legal Practice but his record in Litigation has been filled with blunder after blunder: there is a reason that the proverb says that you don't learn new tricks in old age. SAGAY IS NO LITIGATOR simple and should stop embarrassing himself by giving myopic opinions on litigation matters. He was awarded a SAN ENTIRELY for his academic accomplishments & not for anything he has ever done in the Court room. Moreover, I do not know of a single Election Petition in which SAGAY has been Lead Counsel. Election Petitions is a highly technical practice Area and many lawyers, including SANs reject such Briefs or recommend others if approached. Most Politicians know those who are experts in this exclusive area of practice & Sagay is certainly not one of them. The first Rule in critique of Judgments is that you must have all the facts of a case so that you know exactly what the Court you are criticizing knows. Moreover in these cases, the Supreme Court has not even given its reasons for the Judgments so people of the standing of SAGAY should have been slow to make such disparaging comments on our APEX Court for now. It would be understandable if this was some green-wig lawyer or rabble-rousing "radical" lawyer making these comments. NOW TO THE ISSUE: I have some suspicions as to why almost all the Governorship cases will end up this way. First, the Supreme Court is consistently known and revered for its CONSISTENCY over the years. With the SC, you know exactly what the law is unlike the Courts of Appeal who keep on putting their foot in their mouth and somersaulting all the time. Most Petitioners in this election circle took the easy way out by relying & putting the fate of their Petitions on Card Readers. The traditional way of prosecuting & proving electoral malpractices is very difficult & so when the issue of Card Readers came up, they shouted "eureka" & focused all their energies on proving malpractices using Card Reader data. Even those who pleaded other forms of malpractices & non-compliance failed to call adequate evidence on them as proving malpractices through Card Reader data appeared simpler & straight forward. But they did not take cognizance of one thing: Card Reader as part of the accreditation process IS NOT YET part of our Electoral Laws. Card Reader is commendable; it will reduce rigging; it will improve transparency in the electoral process BUT IT IS NOT PART OF THE LAW YET: you cannot put something on nothing. The fault for this lacuna should not be put on the doorsteps of the SC but is entirely that of INEC. INEC failed to get accreditation by Card Reader legislated into law before the elections. The duty of any Court, including the SC is to interpret the law: in doing so, a Court should interpret the law AS IT IS and not AS IT OUGHT TO BE. This forum is not adequate to expantiate on this issue but let me finalize by saying this: the mode of accreditation recognized by the Electoral Act is as set out at Section 49 of the Act. Once the data & details of a prospective voter appears in the Voter's Register & match that in his PVC, he should be given a ballot paper and allowed to vote. There is no mention of Card Reader anywhere in the Electoral Act & so INEC Presiding Officers were giving ballot papers to voters to cast their votes, even if the Card Reader failed to authenticate their PVCs once their particulars are in the Register & match that on their PVC. So in essence, what many Courts of Appeal did was to annul the elections in places where the number of votes cast exceeded the number of accredited voters captured by Card Reader but the Supreme Court is saying no: the votes cast should include those accredited with Voter's Register only (popularly called "manual accreditation". Once that happened, most Petitions fail at the Supreme Court because, as I explained earlier, most Petitioners put all their eggs in the single basket of Card Reader. INEC failed to get the National Assembly to further amend the Electoral Act to legislate Card Reader into law as a legal means of accreditation. They only issued a directive that Card Reader should be used; however this is what Section 138(2) of the Electoral Act provides: "An act or omission which may be contrary to an instruction or directive of the Commission or of an officer appointed for the purpose of the election but which is not contrary to the provisions of this Act shall not of itself be a ground for questioning the election". Clearly accreditation without using Card Readers is not contrary to the Electoral Act & is therefore not a ground for nullifying any election. This is all the Supreme Court is saying. I can vouchsafe that the CJN & other Noble Lords of the SC are not happy with the outcomes but what can they do when INEC failed to do the needful? What can they do when Petitioners failed to prove their case to the exacting degree & standards required by law? Remember the Court, including Supreme Court does not make law; they only interpret it. Lastly it is intriguing that no one heard the voice of SAGAY & his ilk when the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division gave THE VERY FIRST JUDGMENT EVER on the issue of Card Reader, holding that it was not part of our electoral laws. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal brought by the PDP & their candidate, Agbaje against the APC & Ambode which was premised on Card Reader. Sagay & others like him praised the sagacity of the CA but because the same interpretation by the CA on Card Reader which favored the APC then now favors the PDP at the Apex Court, our Noble Lords of the SC are being rubbished by ignorant comments.

luvinhubby:
So the tiny bigotted sense of Jiti Ogunye & the outdated brain of Itse Sagay are better than the erudite brains of seven supreme court justices, including the CJN ?

Stupidity is when the same supreme court uses the standard to award APC judgement in Lagos against PDP & nobody utters a word but the same rascals cry 'murder' when the supreme court uses the same standard to award PDP victory in Rivers & Akwa Ibom.

APC is a fraud.