I like Falana for one thing like one of my Profs do tell us those days during our PhD classes. "If you want to be relevant, after obtaining PhD, where something is convincingly correct and the generality of the people in a conference agree that it is correct, take a different stand on the issue and be bold to tell them that it s wrong. With that, they will leave the conference but they will never forget you"

Lostz:
it is nonsense to you but that is the law

Oga,the effect of that law is 140 as i posted

Dansuqi:

Oga,the effect of that law is 140 as i posted

140 talks about nullification of an election; in the case of bayelsa election was not in dispute

fergie001:

Please post the AC ruling here.

Check umeh vs ekwunife 2016

Dansuqi:


This is a big lie.actually it was never taken up or appealed.during the osun guber case,the inec lawyer stated that a full panel of the supreme court upheld that section and i saw no dissent.cast your mind back

But you also said AC ruled on that and I edited to say SC ruled on that nah....post the AC ruling here.

Are you in other words saying,since it wasn't taken up....it is inconsequential?

Are you also saying that the CJN was wrong by not following same provisions of Section 140 on Zamfara?

Dansuqi:

Check umeh vs ekwunife 2016

Abeg post am...

Dansuqi:

Oga,it was Gabriel kolawole not Joseph oyewole

Thank you.....don't ever call him a rogue judge pls?

Lostz:
140 talks about nullification of an election; in the case of bayelsa election was not in dispute

So which law explicitly takes care of disq? You cannot build something on nothing

fergie001:

Thank you.....don't ever call.him a good rogue judge pls?

Ok,since you got his name wrong,your entire foundation and argument is null and void.by the way,he's not at the appeal court

Dansuqi:

It is easier to reverse bayelsa actually.infact the reversal of imo will automatically lead to that of bayslsa

You APC guys are just funny

fergie001:

Abeg post am...

You are good in that so do so

ChristianNorth:

You APC guys are just funny

We were in osun na.bayelsa can't go like that.

Dansuqi:

Check umeh vs ekwunife 2016

Please post.......am still waiting.

Dansuqi:

So which law explicitly takes care of disq? You cannot build something on nothing

Section 187
“(1) In any election to which the foregoing provisions of this part of this Chapter relate, a candidate for the office of Governor of a State shall not be deemed to have been validly nominated for such office unless he nominates another candidate as his associate for his running for the office of Governor, who is to occupy the office of Deputy Governor; and that candidate shall be deemed to have been duly elected to the office of Deputy Governor if the candidate who nominated him is duly elected as Governor in accordance with the said provisions.
(2) The provisions of this Part of this Chapter relating to qualification for election, tenure of office, disqualifications, declaration of assets and liabilities and Oath of Governor shall apply in relation to the office of Deputy Governor as if references to Governor were references to Deputy Governor.


this law ; as always interpreted by supreme Court Justice .
legal precedent also take care of this; Zamfara case

Fasindo:












Mtchew!!!


Falana should focus on how to win El Zakyzaky case that he abandoned nd leave bayelsa election matter, he is not vast in law more than d 5 supreme court justices that delivered the case.

Just because he manage to win Sowore case he now thinks he is more vast than anybody in law

You talk too much.

fergie001:

Please post.......am still waiting.

Continue waiting

Dansuqi:
We were in osun na.bayelsa can't go like that.

what about Cross River?

Lostz:



Section 187
“(1) In any election to which the foregoing provisions of this part of this Chapter relate, a candidate for the office of Governor of a State shall not be deemed to have been validly nominated for such office unless he nominates another candidate as his associate for his running for the office of Governor, who is to occupy the office of Deputy Governor; and that candidate shall be deemed to have been duly elected to the office of Deputy Governor if the candidate who nominated him is duly elected as Governor in accordance with the said provisions.
(2) The provisions of this Part of this Chapter relating to qualification for election, tenure of office, disqualifications, declaration of assets and liabilities and Oath of Governor shall apply in relation to the office of Deputy Governor as if references to Governor were references to Deputy Governor.


this law ; as always interpreted by supreme Court Justice .
legal precedent also take care of this; Zamfara case

Repeatedly, I have told him.

Lostz:



Section 187
“(1) In any election to which the foregoing provisions of this part of this Chapter relate, a candidate for the office of Governor of a State shall not be deemed to have been validly nominated for such office unless he nominates another candidate as his associate for his running for the office of Governor, who is to occupy the office of Deputy Governor; and that candidate shall be deemed to have been duly elected to the office of Deputy Governor if the candidate who nominated him is duly elected as Governor in accordance with the said provisions.
(2) The provisions of this Part of this Chapter relating to qualification for election, tenure of office, disqualifications, declaration of assets and liabilities and Oath of Governor shall apply in relation to the office of Deputy Governor as if references to Governor were references to Deputy Governor.


this law ; as always interpreted by supreme Court Justice .
legal precedent also take care of this; Zamfara case

The supreme court can make mistakes as they have admitted.it is not a sound interpretation.This one is better and more clearer.take it.


Section 140of the PrincipalAct is amended-
Deletion of section
134 of the Prindpal
Act.
(a) in the marginal note, by substituting for the word "Notification"
"Nullification";
Amendment of
section 140 of the
the word Principal Act.
(b) by substituting for subsection (2) a new subsection"(2)"-
"(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, or that the election was marred by substantial irregularities or non-compliance
with the provisions of this Act, the election tribunal or court shall not declare the
person with the second highest votes or any other person as elected, but shall order
for a fresh election"; and
(c) by deleting subsection(4)
Section 144of the PrincipalAct is amended-
(a) by substituting for subsection (t), a new subs

Lostz:
what about Cross River?

Did apc win there

Dansuqi:

Continue waiting

Hahaha.......because you know there is nothing in that judgement.

But you were quick to post Section 140......

fergie001:

Repeatedly, I have told him.

I dun tire.but before i sign out,am sure you know that globally the law esp electoral law places the interest of the masses or majority first before anything.popular mandate,fundamental rights and right to fair hearing are very germane issues in any court.the electorate must always be allowed to choose whoever they want as many times.the intendment of the law is never to crown a loser winner,it defeats the purpose of democracy and election.or the courts can then conduct elections or just declare winners.feel the pulse,follow the trend in the polity.they will be a reversal one way or the other..it is on the interest of justice.the law cannot operars in a vacuum where there are no inhabitants

fergie001:

Hahaha.......because you know there is nothing in that judgement.

But you were quick to post Section 140......

So the appeal court at no point removed ekwunife and declared a rerun? The amnesia is more than mild

Dansuqi:


The supreme court can make mistakes as they have admitted.it is not a sound interpretation.This one is better and more clearer.take it.


Section 140of the PrincipalAct is amended-
Deletion of section
134 of the Prindpal
Act.
(a) in the marginal note, by substituting for the word "Notification"
"Nullification";
Amendment of
section 140 of the
the word Principal Act.
(b) by substituting for subsection (2) a new subsection"(2)"-
"(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, or that the election was marred by substantial irregularities or non-compliance
with the provisions of this Act, the election tribunal or court shall not declare the
person with the second highest votes or any other person as elected, but shall order
for a fresh election"; and
(c) by deleting subsection(4)
Section 144of the PrincipalAct is amended-
(a) by substituting for subsection (t), a new subs

the supreme Court interpret any law as they see it.


this your section 140 talks about when an election is nullified in the tribunal. not when a candidate is disqualified.

1. bayelsa election is not in dispute.
2. no one has even approached tribunal to point out any fault in bayelsa election

Dansuqi:

So the appeal court at no point removed ekwunife and declared a rerun? The amnesia is more than mild

in ekwunife case there was no legally recognized election.
2. PDP did not legally nominate any candidate; according to the court

fergie001:

Repeatedly, I have told him.

you know senatordave love argument. in days like this when you are not busy, you engage him; so he know he is wrong.

Dansuqi:
Did apc win there

is bayelsa your state? try and bring APC to your state

Lostz:
is bayelsa your state? try and bring APC to your state

Fergie? I should have known

fergie001:

It is the Appeal Court that should first have done that before giving their decisions.

Perhaps, the law should also look at "stay of execution" more dispassionately.

But the case was at the appeal court before elections held. There's no way the appeal court could have determined if any party would decide to proceed to the supreme court.

A stay of execution at which level precisely?
If it was at appeal stage, it will still hurt APC since the trial court ruled them out of the election. That would mean even if the supreme court now upheld the decision of the appeal court, it will be a moot case since election has already held before supreme court gave its verdict.

Lostz:

in ekwunife case there was no legally recognized election.
2. PDP did not legally nominate any candidate; according to the court

And in bayelsa apc legally nominated a candidate?

Agboriotejoye:

But the case was at the appeal court before elections held. There's no way the appeal court could have determined if any party would decide to proceed to the supreme court.

A stay of execution at which level precisely?
If it was at appeal stage, it will still hurt APC since the trial court ruled them out of the election. That would mean even if the supreme court now upheld the decision of the appeal court, it will be a moot case since election has already held before supreme court gave its verdict.

Apc appealed before the elections

Dansuqi:

I dun tire.but before i sign out,am sure you know that globally the law esp electoral law places the interest of the masses or majority first before anything.popular mandate,fundamental rights and right to fair hearing are very germane issues in any court.the electorate must always be allowed to choose whoever they want as many times.the intendment of the law is never to crown a loser winner,it defeats the purpose of democracy and election.or the courts can then conduct elections or just declare winners.feel the pulse,follow the trend in the polity.they will be a reversal one way or the other..it is on the interest of justice.the law cannot operars in a vacuum where there are no inhabitants

Story....

Globally, all over the world when political parties refuse to do the fight thing, they are punished for their profligacy. You cannot build something on nothing. This is a lesson that must be taught to political parties so that they will learn how to do the right thing. Obviously, the our political parties (esp the ruling party) didn't learn from Zamfara.
I also remember that this same APC brought same case against Sen. Adeleke of Osun praying the Courts to remove him, it was defeated as he had a valid proof of affidavit.

The SC had stated in an earlier case:
SALEH VS. ABAH (2018) ALL FWLR (PART 933) Page 944

"…Allowing criminality and certificate forgery to continue to percolate into the streams, waters and oceans of our national polity would only mean our waters are and will remain dangerously contaminated. The purification efforts must start now, and be sustained as we seek, as a nation, to now change from our old culture of reckless impunity. The Nigerian Constitution is supreme...."

As long as APC (or any other party) refuse to learn, the SC will continue to sanitise. The Bayelsa case is an apt decision taken by the learned Jurists. The CJN cannot alter his own clear judgement in Zamfara....let alone Bayelsa.

I align completely with the Bayelsa judgement.

Let political parties learn to do the right thing.


Peace Out