i have painstakingly perused the Electoral Act 2010 and i am at a loss to say the least as to how Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court arrived at the justification for his decision of ordering the withdrawal the certificate of return from Governor Ikpeazu and ordering INEC to issue a certificate of return to Dr. Ogah.

it is indeed a travesty of the extant laws in immeasurable proportions that the Federal High Court could arrive at such a decision in the face of the very clear and unambiguous letters of the sections 140 of the Electoral Act ,2010.

The issuance of a certificate of return to Dr. Ogah today is flawed on two grounds-

First, there is no conceivable legal basis for Courts order to issue Dr. Ogah with a certificate of return , secondly , the is no justifiable basis for INEC to have issued the Certificate of return to Ogah when a valid and subsisting Notice of Appeal and an Application for order of stay of execution of the Orders of the Federal High Court has been filed and served both on the federal High Court it self , INEC within 21 days in line with the dictates and prescriptions of section 143 of the Electoral Act ,2010.

In order to appreciate the whole charade, it is needful to set out the provisions of section 140 of the Electoral Act .

140. (1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section, if the Tribunal or the Court as the case may be, determines that a candidate who was returned as elected was not validly elected on any ground, the Tribunal or the Court shall nullify the election.

(2) Where an election tribunal or court nullifies an election on the ground that the person who obtained the highest votes at the election was not qualified to contest the election, the election tribunal or court shall not declare the person with the second highest votes as elected, but shall order a fresh election.

(3) If the Tribunal or the Court determines that a candidate who was returned as elected was not validly elected on the ground that he did not score the majority of valid votes cast at the election, the Election Tribunal or the Court, as the case may be, shall declare as elected the candidate who scored the highest number of valid votes cast at the election and satisfied the requirements of the Constitution and this Act.

141. An election tribunal or court shall not under any circumstance declare any person a winner at an election in which such a person has not fully participated in all the stages of the said election.

A calm and dispassionate consideration of the above provisions of the Electoral Act shows that the combined effect of sections 140(1)(2) and 141 clearly shows that even in an event such as the case at hand where the complaint of the Dr. Ogah is that Ikpeazu was not qualified to contest the election on the grounds that he did not possess genuine tax certificates , the powers of the Court is limited to nullifying the elections and ordering the conduct of a fresh election .

The Court is specifically bared from declaring "Any person who has not taken part in all stages of an election as the winner ''

it is absolutely and beyond the authority of Justice Okon Abang to have ordered the immediate issuance of a certificate of return to Dr, Ogah who clearly did not take part in all stages of the said elections .
The extent of the powers of the Court was to nullify the election and order the conduct of a fresh election.That is the law , no law and i repeat no law permits or donates the powers ,vires or authority to either the Tribunal or Courts to declare any one such as Dr. Ogah who did not take part in all stages of an election as the winner of such an election .

By the provisions of section 141 of the Electoral Act ,2010 the Supreme Court decision of Amaechi V Omehia has been over taken by the state of the Law and a decision which is founded on the said Amaechi V Omehia presently would have been reached per in curiam .

i suppose this is the basis of Governor Ikpeazus appeal to the Court of Appeal .

Secondly ,by the provisions of section 145 of the Electoral Act , 2015 ,any person such as Governor Ikpeazu against whom a decision has been handed down by the Courts or Tribunal under the Electoral Act , has a window period of 21 days within which to file an Appeal challenging the decision of the lower Court or tribunal .

Thus ,section 143. (1) of the Electoral Act provides -

If the Election Tribunal or the Court, as the case may be, determines that a candidate returned as elected was not validly elected, then if notice of appeal against that decision is given within 21 days from the date of the decision, the candidate returned as elected shall, notwithstanding the contrary decision of the Election Tribunal or the Court, remain in office pending the determination of the appeal.

(2) If the Election Tribunal or the Court, as the case maybe, determines that a candidate returned as elected was not validly elected, the candidate returned as elected shall, notwithstanding the contrary decision of the Election Tribunal or the Court, remain in office pending the expiration of the period of 21 days within which an appeal may be brought.

A community reading of both provisions juxtaposed with the fact that Governor Ikpeazu against whom the decision of Justice Abang was rendered , who has not only filed a Notice of Appeal but equally filed a Motion for stay of Execution of the decision of the Lower Court , remains the Governor until the determination of the Appeal which has been lodged .

Therefore , there is no legal basis what so ever what the mockery and drama which is playing out in Abia State when the letters and spirit of the Law is clear the only justification is that it exposes perhaps the desperation of APC to win another State in the South East through a sheer manipulation of the judicial system.