INEC didn't issue certificates of return to legitimate winners of election in Rivers State with such speed. Infact Certificates of Return weren't issued at all.

ramdris:
What's the new IG waiting for na? He should act by removing his security details since the court has nullified his election... Must dey die in power? I hate our kind of politics jare

BTW: If na other Nairalanders dem go dey shout FTC! Shey una see as me just chill abi?

Why were certificates of return not issued to winners of Rivers election?

kahal29:


You detest Agbakoba because he told you the truth. Here him again :

“A Notice of Appeal is clearly not a Stay and INEC has broken no Law in issuing Certificate of Return to Ogah.

I think history and future point of reference is about to be made.will urge all concerned parties to thread softly in order not to jeopardize d future

kcnwaigbo:

Furthermore, the provisions of Section 143 (1) of the Electoral Act, 2010, as amended, provides thus:

"If the Election Tribunal or the Court, as the case maybe, determines that a candidate returned as elected was not validly elected, then if notice of appeal against that decision is given within 21days 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. "

This section of the electoral is so clear.It does not restrict the application strictly to election tribunals or post election cases.I wonder how this zombies reason.

This where you miss the point..... The above section holds for a post election matter and not for a pre election matter.

Agreed that by virtue of Section 143 of the Electoral Act, where the Election Tribunal or Court, as the case may be, determines that a candidate returned was not validly elected, the invalidly elected candidate shall continue to remain in office pending his appeal and is also entitled to remain in office for a duration of 21 days within which he is to appeal.

This provision does not apply to pre-election cases like the instant case of Abia State. Why? The "Election Tribunal" or "Court" referred to in the preceding paragraph is defined in Section 133 (2) of the Electoral Act to be the Court of Appeal where it sits over Presidential or Governorship election petitions and the election tribunal established by the Constitution or the Electoral Act. This interpretation also applies to Section 141 of the Electoral Act which forbids an Election Tribunal or Court from declaring any person who did not fully participate in all stages of the election as the winner of the election.

Mention should be made that the Federal High Court in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS1/2011 between Labour Party and Attorney General of the Federation, delivered on 21st July, 2011 had annulled Section 141 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended).

http://www.vanguardngr.com/2011/07/court-rejects-sections-of-2010-electoral-act/

https://www.nairaland.com/2720972/clarification-section-140-2-141

Interestingly, the injunctive orders granted by the Abia State High Court in favour of Ikpeazu were made pursuant to Section 143 of the Electoral Act. With due respect to the judge, the orders are not only legally indefensible but amounts to an affront on the position taken by the Supreme Court on the non-applicability of those provisions to pre-election cases. This is another reason why the said injunction cannot command respect.

Both Sections 141 and 143 of the Electoral Act are not applicable to the Federal High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court in pre-election cases. Any doubt on this submission can easily be resolved by reference to the recent landmark decision of the Supreme Court in Jev & Anor v. Iyortom & Ors (2015) LPELR-24420 (SC) where the Apex Court pronounced on the issue in vivid terms.

kahal29:


This where you miss the point..... The above section holds for a post election matter and not for a pre election matter.

Agreed that by virtue of Section 143 of the Electoral Act, where the Election Tribunal or Court, as the case may be, determines that a candidate returned was not validly elected, the invalidly elected candidate shall continue to remain in office pending his appeal and is also entitled to remain in office for a duration of 21 days within which he is to appeal.

This provision does not apply to pre-election cases like the instant case of Abia State. Why? The "Election Tribunal" or "Court" referred to in the preceding paragraph is defined in Section 133 (2) of the Electoral Act to be the Court of Appeal where it sits over Presidential or Governorship election petitions and the election tribunal established by the Constitution or the Electoral Act. This interpretation also applies to Section 141 of the Electoral Act which forbids an Election Tribunal or Court from declaring any person who did not fully participate in all stages of the election as the winner of the election.

Mention should be made that the Federal High Court in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS1/2011 between Labour Party and Attorney General of the Federation, delivered on 21st July, 2011 had annulled Section 141 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended).

http://www.vanguardngr.com/2011/07/court-rejects-sections-of-2010-electoral-act/

https://www.nairaland.com/2720972/clarification-section-140-2-141

Interestingly, the injunctive orders granted by the Abia State High Court in favour of Ikpeazu were made pursuant to Section 143 of the Electoral Act. With due respect to the judge, the orders are not only legally indefensible but amounts to an affront on the position taken by the Supreme Court on the non-applicability of those provisions to pre-election cases. This is another reason why the said injunction cannot command respect.

Both Sections 141 and 143 of the Electoral Act are not applicable to the Federal High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court in pre-election cases. Any doubt on this submission can easily be resolved by reference to the recent landmark decision of the Supreme Court in Jev & Anor v. Iyortom & Ors (2015) LPELR-24420 (SC) where the Apex Court pronounced on the issue in vivid terms.

No need for too much arguments.Tommorow the court of appeal shall lay this matter to rest when it rules on the stay of execution.BTW whether right or wrong the judgement of the osisioma high court is valid until it is vacated by the higher courts.

TonyeBarcanista:

E be like you get comprehension problem my oga

Hahahaha! You're a stupid guy aswear, you insulted and still call him "my oga" crazy people full nairaland walahi!

kcnwaigbo:


No need for too much arguments.Tommorow the court of appeal shall lay this matter to rest when it rules on the stay of execution.BTW whether right or wrong the judgement of the osisioma high court is valid until it is vacated by the higher courts.

Agreed but like I replied you before let me repeat my self again

No court will deprive a judgment creditor the fruits of his Labour.

Meaning that if Ikpeazu thinks he will get a stay on monday as temporary relief then he should think again.

Like T.S Ogundaini. ESQ said

Normally, no court will want to grant a stay of execution as a matter of course and that is why an applicant seeking this discretion of the court in his favour must therefore show special or exceptional circumstances why the court must deprive a successful litigant, the fruits of his success---See the following cases SPDC v. Arlio-Joe (Nig.) Ltd. (2003) 1 NWLR pt 845 pg 19, Dada v. I.T.L (2005) 11 NWLR pt.936 pg 293

Secondly, A successful litigant (Ogah) is entitled to enjoy the benefits and reap the fruits of his judgment and nothing ordinarily should be done to obstruct this right. In the words of Niki Tobi , JCA (as he then was) in Lijadu v. Lijadu (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt. 169) 627 at 644, nothing should be done to make the victorious party leave the court in "victory" without victory.


This case is very bad it doesn't look good at all. If not the Governor would have involved the man who defended him at the tribunal ie Chief Wole Olanikpekun. See, A lot of legal blunders were committed on the Governor's part. Its only the grace of God that can save Ikpeazu now cos Grace can undo what the power of law cannot.

It has happened

http://www.dailytrust.com.ng/news/general/abia-court-refuses-to-vacate-order-on-ikpeazu-s-sack/153780.html?platform=hootsuite#c01X3v6VySht06VY.99

NgeneUkwenu:


Barca, have you seen? The lawyers are just repeating all I said yesterday...This is law and not sentiments..

Ogbonna Long time...you no dey shout 'Ipod' anyhow for NL again. E be like wise boys from East don reset your skull.

Abeg, we miss those your anti-Ipob lamentations. How is festac this sunday?

kcnwaigbo:


No need for too much arguments.Tommorow the court of appeal shall lay this matter to rest when it rules on the stay of execution.BTW whether right or wrong the judgement of the osisioma high court is valid until it is vacated by the higher courts.

Your Tommorow [MONDAY] has come and gone yet the matter is still not laid to rest. Why nah?