garfield1:
Once again,I am the greatest legal and political analyst here

wickyyolo:


Stick to National politics.
PYO will emerge in 2023.

Monogamy:


Pdp are only feeling too big to change their party name, the name Pdp alone is a big turn off to reasonable Nigerians.

Should Apc zone their presidency to North, new party would emerge, comprises of disgruntled Apc and Pdp members.

More like Southern Political party..

fergie001:

They are just looking for somebody from the ANPP or CPC block to take over. Past Chairmen, Odigie-Oyegun & Oshiomhole came from the ACN. Buni was ANPP.
They really want to control this thing.

seunmsg:


Oyegun was from ANPP.

garfield1:

But in a full judgment of the Supreme Court extrated and a copy made available to newsmen by a member of the CECPC, Prof. Tahir Mamman SAN, the apex court held that “the law is and still remain that the provisions that govern sponsorship and nomination of candidates in an election are: Sections 31 and 87 of the Electoral Act, 2010 as amended.


This is low and disappointing from you.so if you see the full judgment,you will pay for damages?

fergie001:

I know you want to rile me up, old habits die hard. It's too early.

The dissenting is below.....Please, if you have the copy, can you post it for us?

engineerboat:


Old habit die hard.

Stop it

engineerboat:


He will never because of same purpose. Long time

fergie001:

Really long time oooo. I thought you were using an alt sef.....How things nah?

garfield1:


Up up apc

engineerboat:


Really long time.

Nop

I was deeply occupied.

fergie001:

Ok....Welcome back.

fergie001:

I even thought you will post the copy here...Instead you are posting what a Professor Tahir said.

Please post the leading judgement let me read. I have the dissenting.

This news is a regurgitation of an old news which is not the copy of the Supreme Court.....

engineerboat:


Post the full judgement


Is that too hard for.

You think osinbajo is making move for fun

OBUKSBAYELSA:
Fer.gie001 and my brother Garfield long time no see but, my take here is that we need a true copy of the Supreme Court judgement to make a valued analysis of the judgement for now my fingers are crossed.

fergie001:

The judgement didn't touch the issue at all....The judgement dwelt on the Non-Joinder.

fergie001:

The judgement didn't touch the issue at all....The judgement dwelt on the Non-Joinder.

kahal29:


Make I welcome you back with some snippets of the judgement

kahal29:
Akomaye JSC has said a few things that will come up later as we move on...

1. When you take an "oath of office", it can be for a temporary role if it is so mentioned.

2. Taking an oath doesn't mean you are holding the office.

3.. The Party need not sign a forwarded letter to INEC presenting her candidates to the body, not doing so brings no repercussions.

4. An invalid signature does not invalidate a document.

garfield1:
Fer.gie001, now that you have seen the judgment,can you apologise and pay for damages?

fergie001:

I will do that after you apologise for Giadom and Diri

I don't like to take it out on Judges but there are areas he was contradictory. Trust me, INEC will be worse hit by this.

garfield1:
Giadom and diri how? That diri own was 50 50 but here was clear. They were never going to remove aketi whether buni signed or not.

all my words were prophetic from when I said the word ACTING will come to play

to inec not having any powers to exclude based on nomination form....plus only a secretary can sign.infact,no signature is needed...this judgment has clearly told inec that they cannot reject any form.

fergie001:

FACT


Do you take an oath of office in Acting Capacity?
This is the first time I am hearing such.


The Court said any or no signature doesn't invalidate the document (that's where I am baffled), but a previous judgement of the SC was clear that the electoral act is a product of the National Assembly, who is vested with the responsibility of making laws which must stand unless it comes in conflict with the Constitution.

Now S.153 of this Act still states that INEC has the right to make Guidelines & Regulations to suit its administration wrt election. Isn't that contradictory?

What makes you think other guidelines will hold any water?

garfield1:
I told you earlier that when it comes to qualifications and disq,the supreme court are predictable.they usually look at 177 and 182 and then the electoral act. any other law will not stand.inec though has powers but this power is heavily limited esp when it concerns disq or qualifications.again,the electoral act said a lot of things about nominations yet refused to talk about signatures. if inec does not have powers to use common card reader,why would they do so based on signatures? The supreme court is predictable,they refused to remove a governor because of fake age,fake nysc etc.they will always find a way to protect governors.
The guidelines that can only hold water are those that are clearly provided by the electoral act.anything outside that is mere formalities