senatordave1:
Ejimatic,I'll love you and duwdu to break the tie

The petitioner is not challenging the results of the election and neither did he pray that he should be declared the winner.He is challenging the purported forgery of the deputy governor.Section 137 does not apply here.Any of the contestants in the election can bring up the case as a post election matter even in a federal high court.This case is not status bared neither does it require inclusion of the petitioner's party.The petitioner's inclusion of PDP, both the governor and the deputy,. and INEC in the suit as respondents makes it strong for they are stakeholders.Thus the case has merit in terms of time and suitability of the petitioner.

fergie001:
kahal29, ChristianNorth, ejimatic, agborotiejoye....help us here

The petitioner is not challenging the results of the election and neither did he pray that he should be declared the winner.He is challenging the purported forgery of the deputy governor.Section 137 does not apply here.Any of the contestants in the election can bring up the case as a post election matter even in a federal high court.This case is not status bared neither does it require inclusion of the petitioner's party.The petitioner's inclusion of PDP, both the governor and the deputy,. and INEC in the suit as respondents makes it strong for they are stakeholders.Thus the case has merit in terms of time and suitability of the petitioner.

ejimatic:
. The petitioner is not challenging the results of the election and neither did he pray that he should be declared the winner.He is challenging the purported forgery of the deputy governor.Section 137 does not apply here.Any of the contestants in the election can bring up the case as a post election matter even in a federal high court.This case is not status bared neither does it require inclusion of the petitioner's party.The petitioner's inclusion of PDP, both the governor and the deputy,. and INEC in the suit as respondents makes it strong for they are stakeholders.Thus the case has merit in terms of time and suitability of the petitioner.

Sorry sir,you are confusing me.the petitioner filed this case at the tribunal as an election petition case therefore section 137 must come into force.again,I read something about those who have locus standi in an election case.I still believe that a candidate can sue without his party and vice versa.
Again,I believe that since the reliefs he is asking does not directly affect his party,but to correct an anomaly,he does not need to join his party

ejimatic:
The petitioner is not challenging the results of the election and neither did he pray that he should be declared the winner.He is challenging the purported forgery of the deputy governor.Section 137 does not apply here.Any of the contestants in the election can bring up the case as a post election matter even in a federal high court.This case is not status bared neither does it require inclusion of the petitioner's party.The petitioner's inclusion of PDP, both the governor and the deputy,. and INEC in the suit as respondents makes it strong for they are stakeholders.Thus the case has merit in terms of time and suitability of the petitioner.

I will also like you to say something about the purported deregistration of his party by inec which was later stopped by the courts though his party was not part of that suit

senatordave1:


Sorry sir,you are confusing me.the petitioner filed this case at the tribunal as an election petition case therefore section 137 must come into force.again,I read something about those who have locus standi in an election case.I still believe that a candidate can sue without his party and vice versa.
Again,I believe that since the reliefs he is asking does not directly affect his party,but to correct an anomaly,he does not need to join his party

. You are right ! Your opinions are mine too.However. since he brought his petition to the Election Petition Tribunal the question is. did he participate in the election? Answer is Yes under a party with an evidence of participation. He does not need his party as a joint petitioner because the petition does not benefit his party nor him.So section 137 may not apply here.What applies in a case like this is whether the petitioner took part in the election or not......Marafa vrs APC 2020supra

senatordave1:


Sorry sir,you are confusing me.the petitioner filed this case at the tribunal as an election petition case therefore section 137 must come into force.again,I read something about those who have locus standi in an election case.I still believe that a candidate can sue without his party and vice versa.
Again,I believe that since the reliefs he is asking does not directly affect his party,but to correct an anomaly,he does not need to join his party

You are right ! Your opinions are mine too.However. since he brought his petition to the Election Petition Tribunal the question is. did he participate in the election? Answer is Yes under a party with an evidence of participation. He does not need his party as a joint petitioner because the petition does not benefit his party nor him.So section 137 may not apply here.What applies in a case like this is whether the petitioner took part in the election or not......Marafa vrs APC 2020supra

ejimatic:
You are right ! Your opinions are mine too.However. since he brought his petition to the Election Petition Tribunal the question is. did he participate in the election? Answer is Yes under a party with an evidence of participation. He does not need his party as a joint petitioner because the petition does not benefit his party nor him.So section 137 may not apply here.What applies in a case like this is whether the petitioner took part in the election or not......Marafa vrs APC 2020supra

I now understand.I have read his petition and he never asked to be declared winner.he asked for fresh elections or someone else to be sworn in.again,I recall that the courts have said something about the prayers or reliefs of a petitioner determining his petition.that of marafa is perfect.

senatordave1:


I will also like you to say something about the purported deregistration of his party by inec which was later stopped by the courts though his party was not part of that suit

. INEC was wrong to have taken a step to deregister the petitioner's party .That is why a court of law stopped and set aside the INEC decision.Additionally the petitioner does not need to include his party in his petition because the party has nothing to gain from it.The question is :did the petitioner take part in the election under a party? Since the answer his yes he is qualified to bring up a case of forgery against any contestant on the election.

senatordave1:


I will also like you to say something about the purported deregistration of his party by inec which was later stopped by the courts though his party was not part of that suit

. INEC was wrong to have taken a step to deregister the petitioner's party .That is why a court of law stopped and set aside the INEC decision.Additionally the petitioner does not need to include his party in his petition because the party has nothing to gain from it.The question is :did the petitioner take part in the election under a party? Since the answer his yes he is qualified to bring up a case of forgery against any contestant on the election.Maraca vrs APC 2019 supra

ejimatic:
The petitioner is not challenging the results of the election and neither did he pray that he should be declared the winner.He is challenging the purported forgery of the deputy governor.Section 137 does not apply here.Any of the contestants in the election can bring up the case as a post election matter even in a federal high court.This case is not status bared neither does it require inclusion of the petitioner's party.The petitioner's inclusion of PDP, both the governor and the deputy,. and INEC in the suit as respondents makes it strong for they are stakeholders.Thus the case has merit in terms of time and suitability of the petitioner.

I intend to challenge this on four grounds..one after another..

NUMBER ONE
Why do you think after the tribunal had reserved ruling, his party (de-registered) are filing post-21 days to be a party to the suit?

fergie001:

I intend to challenge this on four grounds..one after another..

NUMBER ONE
Why do you think after the tribunal had reserved ruling, his party (de-registered) are filing post-21 days to be a party to the suit?

. INEC decision to deregister it was set aside.The next step is to r.eregister. ..Additionally his party is not needed in this case Marafa vrs APC 2019

senatordave1:


I now understand.I have read his petition and he never asked to be declared winner.he asked for fresh elections or someone else to be sworn in.again,I recall that the courts have said something about the prayers or reliefs of a petitioner determining his petition.that of marafa is perfect.

. Alright sir!

ejimatic:
. Alright sir!

In reference to what fergie said about deregistration,it cannot be a ground for disqualification because a careful reading of the electoral act and supreme court judgments will reveal a popular phrase "as at the time of the election was not qualified". I don't think any post election disq can prevent the petition as far as he was qualified as at the time of election.rochas vs inec hc can suffice.

Again,the election process does not end with declaration of results but continues till the final determination by the courts.therefore,any deregistration cannot affect any party still active in any election process. Fergie,I hope you are taking note.this case will be decided in its merit

fergie001:
kahal29, ChristianNorth, ejimatic, agborotiejoye....help us here

When did agboriotejoye become a legal analyst

which way bayelsa ?? forgery may end up the albatross of your political class

ejimatic:
. INEC decision to deregister it was set aside.The next step is to r.eregister. ..Additionally his party is not needed in this case Marafa vrs APC 2019

Set aside when?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/tribuneonlineng.com/court-stops-inec-from-de-registering-33-political-parties/amp/

https://m.guardian.ng/news/court-bars-inec-from-deregistering-31-political-parties/

Please read this.....

senatordave1:


When did agboriotejoye become a legal analyst

The name sounds Bayelsan

senatordave1:


In reference to what fergie said about deregistration,it cannot be a ground for disqualification because a careful reading of the electoral act and supreme court judgments will reveal a popular phrase "as at the time of the election was not qualified". I don't think any post election disq can prevent the petition as far as he was qualified as at the time of election.rochas vs inec hc can suffice.

Again,the election process does not end with declaration of results but continues till the final determination by the courts.therefore,any deregistration cannot affect any party still active in any election process. Fergie,I hope you are taking note.this case will be decided in its merit

. correct ! I stand with you here

fergie001:


Set aside when?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/tribuneonlineng.com/court-stops-inec-from-de-registering-33-political-parties/amp/

https://m.guardian.ng/news/court-bars-inec-from-deregistering-31-political-parties/

Please read this.....

. This is judgement that set it aside

fergie001:

The name sounds Bayelsan

It sounds edoid rather

Fergie,your actions are beginning to look provocative

senatordave1:


In reference to what fergie said about deregistration,it cannot be a ground for disqualification because a careful reading of the electoral act and supreme court judgments will reveal a popular phrase "as at the time of the election was not qualified". I don't think any post election disq can prevent the petition as far as he was qualified as at the time of election.rochas vs inec hc can suffice.

Was his party de-registered?
In a SC fraught with technicalities......This will suffice

Again,the election process does not end with declaration of results but continues till the final determination by the courts.therefore,any deregistration cannot affect any party still active in any election process. Fergie,I hope you are taking note.this case will be decided in its merit

When was the results declared?
When will the 21 days commence?

I gathered the tribunal have reserved ruling already.

ejimatic:
. This is judgement that set it aside

For the 33 parties entered....LM wasn't there.

74 were de-registered, and 41 felt they had no need to come in anymore.

senatordave1:
Fergie,your actions are beginning to look provocative

What do you mean by that?

fergie001:

Was his party de-registered?
In a SC fraught with technicalities......This will suffice


When was the results declared?
When will the 21 days commence?

I gathered the tribunal have reserved ruling already.

Mind you,there is a limit to technicalities.I told you earlier that the tribunal has no jurisdiction over deregistration.am ready to bet with you here to prevent this kind of needless argument.it is akin to a party expelling a member a memberwho went to court to challenge the conduct of primaries.will his expulsion kill his suit? Too many points are in favour of LM.


Where you not the one than once declared that the 180 days starts from when a winner is declared and in this case diri,it starts from February?

How can the tribunal reserve judgment when the petitioner is billed to open his case on first of June and the pdp are still doing preliminary objections? You are confusing yourself

fergie001:

What do you mean by that?

The law is in favour of LM.leave it like that for now

fergie001:

For the 33 parties entered....LM wasn't there.

74 were de-registered, and 41 felt they had no need to come in anymore.

. If LM was not there as shown here inclusion of the party in the petition is not necessary. As at the time of the election LM was a party with a candidate.The candidate took part in the election which qualifies him to challenge any anomaly....Additionally LM has the right to reregister like other parties deregistered by INEC

ejimatic:

If LM was not there as shown here inclusion of the party in the petition is not necessary. As at the time of the election LM was a party with a candidate. The candidate took part in the election which qualifies him to challenge any anomaly....

In the case of the 4th alteration, example the Case of Akeredolu v Abraham....whilst the case was ongoing at the SC, the 180 days was introduced and passed by the NA.
That effectively killed the case, irrespective the fact that as at filing and processes at the FHC and CoA, the cases were still inline.

Again, with the SC judgement on the OUK case..that the presiding judge had been promoted, over 70 cases are dead by that decision.

Are you saying that inec's deregistration doesn't affect this case as it matters?

I have established from you that....once you are a candidate in an election, it is NOT COMPULSORY to join your party as a member of the suit. All you need to do is file your processes?

Additionally LM has the right to reregister like other parties deregistered by INEC

That's what they should do...

https://guardian.ng/news/court-begins-hearing-on-suit-against-inecs-deregistration-of-youth-party/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
This is Youth Party..they have instituted their own case in Court

senatordave1:



Mind you,there is a limit to technicalities.I told you earlier that the tribunal has no jurisdiction over deregistration.am ready to bet with you here to prevent this kind of needless argument.it is akin to a party expelling a member a memberwho went to court to challenge the conduct of primaries.will his expulsion kill his suit? Too many points are in favour of LM.


Where you not the one than once declared that the 180 days starts from when a winner is declared and in this case diri,it starts from February?

How can the tribunal reserve judgment when the petitioner is billed to open his case on first of June and the pdp are still doing preliminary objections? You are confusing yourself

When I say I gathered, it is not a statement of fact...

You know you are very temperamental, and I have the right words to use....I will not want you to have a bad week.

Please let's be civil here.

senatordave1:


The law is in favour of LM.leave it like that for now

Better......like it was for Lyon and for Emeka!

Best!

fergie001:

Better......like it was for Lyon and for Emeka!

Best!

Lyon own was 50,emeka 70 30

senatordave1:


Lyon own was 50,emeka 70 30

I don't want to provoke you.....let me face ejimatic.