kahal29:


The 60 days is actually in Section 285(7) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended in the 2nd Alteration and not the electoral act.

Constitution, am talking about is in spread.....Section 179(2)

kahal29:


Goofed How?

Whose responsibility was it to have raised the issue of spread...... the supreme court judges or Ihedioha's lawyers?

Was the question of spread brought before them that they didn't rule on it? Of course you know the court is not a father Christmas to give you what you didn't ask for OR are you insinuating that the Supreme Court should have helped Ihedioha's CASE by descending into the arena?

Judgements are delivered based on pleadings and issues joined. This, Justice Kekerekun clearly stated in her judgement.

To prove some of the things Ihedioha is asking for now requires calling of experts witnesses from INEC/others and that cannot happen because it will amount to FULL BLOWN RE LITIGATION.


See Ihedioha's case failed due to lack of diligent prosecution and he cannot correct it now. His lawyers concentrated so much on Uche Nwosu case that they didn't do due diligence to Uzodinma's case.

What is he is asking the Supreme Court to do is not a Review but to re-litigate the matter.

Is like a team asking for a replay match because one of their defenders was sick on the day the main match was played or cancel a match because a particular goal which was accepted was scored from an off side position.

The SC does not declare winners. They leave that assignment for INEC.

In the case of Zamfara, the PDP wasn't a party to the suit.
So what was the prayers of the PDP that wasn't in the suit?

In the case of Abdulkadir Modibbo v Usman, the PDP wasn't a party in the suit...what were the prayers of the PDP?

Were the SC judges "Father Christmases' for giving out mandates that were not given in their prayers?

Did PDP inform the SC judges in Bayelsa to tell them...
" to let INEC determine spread"?

Did PDP tell the CJN or Galinje in Zamfara, to tell "INEC" to determine spread?

Its just like a boxer asking to be crowned a winner that you knocked off your opponent in Round Zero.

Obvious provisions of the constitution were thrown away by the SC judges. I am not optimistic of his returning there but they will definitely look back at that adjustment and tinker it.

fergie001:

The SC does not declare winners. They leave that assignment for INEC.

In the case of Zamfara, the PDP wasn't a party to the suit.
So what was the prayers of the PDP that wasn't in the suit?

In the case of Abdulkadir Modibbo v Usman, the PDP wasn't a party in the suit...what were the prayers of the PDP?

Were the SC judges "Father Christmases' for giving out mandates that were not given in their prayers?

Did PDP inform the SC judges in Bayelsa to tell them...
" to let INEC determine spread"?

Did PDP tell the CJN or Galinje in Zamfara, to tell "INEC" to determine spread?

Its just like a boxer asking to be crowned a winner that you knocked off your opponent in Round Zero.

Obvious provisions of the constitution were thrown away by the SC judges. I am not optimistic of his returning there but they will definitely look back at that adjustment and tinker it.

All the cases you cited above are pre election matters in which case the courts are only allowed to disqualify candidates then pass on to INEC to do the needful. However in this instant case we are dealing with a post election matter we courts are empowered to determine and declare winners. In a pre election matter the court only determines who is qualified to contest the election or not.


Like I always say, Monday is not far again but take it from me that the supreme court judgement delivered on Jan 14 stands. It SHALL NOT be reviewed, tinkered or varied.

kahal29:


All the cases you cited above are pre election matters in which case the courts are only allowed to disqualify candidates then pass on to INEC to do the needful. However in this instant case we are dealing with a post election matter we courts are empowered to determine and declare winners. In a pre election matter the court only determines who is qualified to contest the election of not.


Like I always say, Monday is not far again but take it from me that the supreme court judgement delivered on Jan 14 stands. It SHALL NOT be reviewed, tinkered or varied.

I didn't find this courage in Bayelsa though......hahahaha
Whatever happens in Imo doesn't matter to me. I was only after Bayelsa and am cool with it.

fergie001:

Constitution, am talking about is in spread.....Section 179(2)

To answer your question on spread the court must first have jurisdiction to do so. If it has no jurisdiction then the question remains unanswered.

fergie001:

I didn't find this courage in Bayelsa though......hahahaha
Whatever happens in Imo doesn't matter to me. I was only after Bayelsa and am cool with it.

kahal29:


To answer your question on spread the court must first have jurisdiction to do so. If it has no jurisdiction then the question remains unanswered.

No P....thanks

fergie001:

No P....thanks

Can you pls join the lawyers of emeka and present the write up but make sure you have 10 millions in bank cos you will be fine

kahal29:



Oga I have told you before now that nothing is going to come out of Monday's hearing but you hoping against hope.

You need jurisdiction to answer a constitutional question. Refer to the case of Cross River State government vs FG on the suspension/removal of Onnoghen. Furthermore NIKI TOBI, JSC, submitted, that jurisdiction is the threshold of judicial power and jurisdiction. It is extrinsic to the adjudication and it cannot be waived by one or both parties to the dispute by connivance, acquiescence or collusion. Where the court lacks jurisdiction in any matter, the court is incompetent to adjudicate in the matter as between the parties before it.

The 60 days is a constitutional question of jurisdiction and not just an electoral matter.

Most importantly the supreme court CANNOT RE-LITIGATE

The case of cross river state vs FG was one of locus standing. Cross river was ruled as having no locus standi to bring the matter. I've never heard of where the SC lacks jurisdiction to answer a constitutional question.

The 60 days cover the conclusion of the matter not review. Review is not statute barred. It is never too late to correct a mistake though it might be too late to make one.