Okerenla:
I love your legal intervention. Very perspectival. How I wish Thread could make it to frontpage so other profound comments could be shared to enrish the discourse.

I reietrate my appreciation for your brilliant input. God bless you.

garfield1:
A candidate of another party can also sue.

fergie001:


Not with the new Electoral Act.

ejimatic:
. What did Adeleke fill in in the form 2022? Is it yes or no? Any issue relating to the 2018 election is status barred.

fergie001:


Not with the new Electoral Act.

garfield1:


How? There was no amendment concerning that

fergie001:


[s]Section 31(5) of the Electoral Act 2010
A person who has reasonable grounds to believe that any information given by a candidate in the affidavit or any document submitted by that candidate is false may file a suit at the High Court of a State or Federal High Court against such person seeking a declaration that the information contained in the affidavit is false. [/s]

None...

Section 29(5) of the Electoral Act 2022 as amended

Any aspirant who participated in the primaries of his political party who has reasonable grounds to believe that any information given by his political party's candidate in the affidavit or any document submitted by that candidate in relation to his constitutional requirements to contest the election is false may file a suit at the Federal High Court against that candidate seeking a declaration that the information contained in the affidavit is false.

fergie001:


[s]Section 31(5) of the Electoral Act 2010
A person who has reasonable grounds to believe that any information given by a candidate in the affidavit or any document submitted by that candidate is false may file a suit at the High Court of a State or Federal High Court against such person seeking a declaration that the information contained in the affidavit is false. [/s]

None...

Section 29(5) of the Electoral Act 2022 as amended

Any aspirant who participated in the primaries of his political party who has reasonable grounds to believe that any information given by his political party's candidate in the affidavit or any document submitted by that candidate in relation to his constitutional requirements to contest the election is false may file a suit at the Federal High Court against that candidate seeking a declaration that the information contained in the affidavit is false.

Okerenla:



Fact-Check: *Did Ademola Adeleke lie under oath* ?

The factional governornship candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party in Osun State for the July 16, 2022 election has been alleged to have committed perjury by swearing under oath. The allegation borders on his response to the questionnaire in the INEC form he submitted in 2018 when he was running for the same position.

In the INEC Form submitted by Ademola Adeleke in 2018, he was asked if he had acquired Citizenship of another Country? Ademola said NO.

_Please find attached the INEC Form under review_ .

Here is the question under Part B number 9 of the INEC Form: *Have you voluntary acquired citizenship of other country?*

His answer in the INEC form is *NO* .

*Investigation*

Meanwhile, investigation conducted indicates the ex-senator is a known citizen of the United States of America. He acquired the US citizenship *voluntarily* through Naturalisation.

Naturalisation is one of the voluntary ways of obtaining a citizenship of a country contrary to Involuntary method through Jus Sanguine ( becoming a citizen on the basis of Blood relationship) and Jus Soli ( becoming a citizen as a result of Place of birth).

*What does Nigeria law say about Perjury?*

According to the criminal code act, any person who, in any judicial proceeding, or for the purpose of instituting any judicial proceeding, knowingly gives false testimony touching any matter which is material to any question...intended to be raised in that proceeding, is guilty of an offence which is called PERJURY. Any person who commits perjury is liable to imprisonment for up to fourteen years, depending on the state where the offence is committed.

*Conclusion*

If a perjury case is instituted against Senator Ademola Adeleke in court and he is found guilty, he will not only be ineligible to become Osun Governor but will also be sent to jail, for up to 14 years, for the criminal offence.

Idiko1:



When did electoral proceeding become judicial proceeding?

garfield1:


It is also an election matter according to section 182.it stated that someone who HSS acquired citizenship in another country is ineligible for office

Idiko1:


Not every answer given under questionnaire is regarded as a deposition.

Okerenla:
I love your legal intervention. Very perspectival. How I wish the Thread could make it to frontpage so other profound comments could be shared to enrich the discourse.

I reiterate my appreciation for your brilliant input. God bless you.

garfield1:
No sir,there is a big misunderstanding from you.section 29(5) is not limiting but expanding the locus of those who can challenge qualification of a candidate to include aspirants in primaries.

In the 2010 electoral act,it said any person can challenge meaning even those who didn't contest can sue but the supreme court said only candidates or parties that took part in elections can challenge.

Now in section 133-134 of the new act,it clearly stated that only candidates in an election and parties have locus. It also mentioned qualification as a ground for petition so nothing has changed.come to think of it,why would an aspirant challenge a fake ssce and a candidate who is more cloths with that right cannot?

Again,in the former act it said,such matters can only be filed at the high courts and not tribunals which means it is a pre election matter but the courts stated that qualifications is both a pre and post election matter.

Cajal:
He is not even PDP flag bearer
Dotun Babayemi will floor him in court @ supreme

fergie001:
A cause of action connotes a combination of facts which, if proved or substantiated, entitles a party (plaintiff) to an enforceable right/remedy against a wrongdoer (defendant).


Section 29(5) is not expanding the locus because even in Section 31(5) of the Electoral Act 2010, it says any person, but here it is any aspirant who participated in the primaries that can sue.

It is even Section 29(5) that is restrictive and limiting. The Electoral Act 2022 as amended has literally killed the 2010 Electoral Act.

---

You are misapprehending the Supreme Court. Pre-election cases can come in two forms: Section 31(5) and Section 87(10) of the Electoral Act 2010.

When it involves documents falsification, false information to INEC, forgery etc..it hides under Section 31(5) and can be taken at the Federal High Court or State High Courts as per the old Electoral Act.

Here, any person can sue;

Ex: APC v Obaseki, Diri v Degi, Elebeke v Ibezim.....

The SC in many decided judgements have insisted this should be at the Federal High Court or FCT High Court because INEC is an interested party and its HQ is domiciled within the FCT.


For the purpose of emphasis, let me reproduce Section 87(10) of the Electoral Act 2010;

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Act or rules of a political party, an aspirant who complains that any of the provisions of this Act and the guidelines of a political party has not been complied with in the selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election, may apply to the Federal High Court or the High Court of a State, for redress.

This section usually happens when a political party does not conduct its Primaries following her Constitution or provisions of the Act).

It is here the SC says only an aspirant who participated in the primaries of that political party can seek relief; It is also here the SC ruled that it must be in State High Courts within that territory (because in Congresses/Primaries, INEC 's role is ancillary) or the Federal High Court.

Ex: George Moghalu v APC & Ors, Marafa v Zamfara APC, Alaibe v PDP

---

In this present act, Section 29(5) erased Section 31(5), with cases that involves documents, affidavit, falsification, forgery, etc.

In this present Act, Section 84(14) has erased Section 87(10) of the 2010 Electoral Act.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Act or rules of a political party, an aspirant who complains that any of the provisions of this Act and the guidelines of a political party has not been complied with in the selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election, may apply to the Federal High Court or the High Court of a State, for redress.

It is the person who is petitioning that will determine from his claims what he intends to remedy.

For this case of Adeleke, it can only come under Section 29(5), and the only person who can sue at this stage (excepting the Police) is nobody, because he was the sole candidate.


Candidates and parties have locus in post-election cases which is vested in the tribunal.



The issue of pre and post-election is an issue we have over-flogged in the past.

The plank of Atiku v Buhari delivered by Mohammed Garba JCA (as he then was) in September 2019 that pre-election and post-election cases can come up at the tribunal has been overtaken by events.

Our Courts many times have defined a pre-election matter as a matter that occurred before the election proper.

.....disqualification of candidate on grounds of false information in his form CF001 is pre-election matter by dint of Section 285(14) (c) of the Constitution” (Adekunle Abdulkabir AKINLADE & APM v INEC, Dapo Abiodun & APC. 2020 SC).

Dapo Abiodun had a questionable Certificate and then Akinlade brought it up at the Tribunal, the SC dismissed it for been statute-barred.

fergie001:
A cause of action connotes a combination of facts which, if proved or substantiated, entitles a party (plaintiff) to an enforceable right/remedy against a wrongdoer (defendant).


Section 29(5) is not expanding the locus because even in Section 31(5) of the Electoral Act 2010, it says any person, but here it is any aspirant who participated in the primaries that can sue.

It is even Section 29(5) that is restrictive and limiting. The Electoral Act 2022 as amended has literally killed the 2010 Electoral Act.

---

You are misapprehending the Supreme Court. Pre-election cases can come in two forms: Section 31(5) and Section 87(10) of the Electoral Act 2010.

When it involves documents falsification, false information to INEC, forgery etc..it hides under Section 31(5) and can be taken at the Federal High Court or State High Courts as per the old Electoral Act.

Here, any person can sue;

Ex: APC v Obaseki, Diri v Degi, Elebeke v Ibezim.....

The SC in many decided judgements have insisted this should be at the Federal High Court or FCT High Court because INEC is an interested party and its HQ is domiciled within the FCT.


For the purpose of emphasis, let me reproduce Section 87(10) of the Electoral Act 2010;

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Act or rules of a political party, an aspirant who complains that any of the provisions of this Act and the guidelines of a political party has not been complied with in the selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election, may apply to the Federal High Court or the High Court of a State, for redress.

This section usually happens when a political party does not conduct its Primaries following her Constitution or provisions of the Act).

It is here the SC says only an aspirant who participated in the primaries of that political party can seek relief; It is also here the SC ruled that it must be in State High Courts within that territory (because in Congresses/Primaries, INEC 's role is ancillary) or the Federal High Court.

Ex: George Moghalu v APC & Ors, Marafa v Zamfara APC, Alaibe v PDP

---

In this present act, Section 29(5) erased Section 31(5), with cases that involves documents, affidavit, falsification, forgery, etc.

In this present Act, Section 84(14) has erased Section 87(10) of the 2010 Electoral Act.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Act or rules of a political party, an aspirant who complains that any of the provisions of this Act and the guidelines of a political party has not been complied with in the selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election, may apply to the Federal High Court or the High Court of a State, for redress.

It is the person who is petitioning that will determine from his claims what he intends to remedy.

For this case of Adeleke, it can only come under Section 29(5), and the only person who can sue at this stage (excepting the Police) is nobody, because he was the sole candidate.


Candidates and parties have locus in post-election cases which is vested in the tribunal.



The issue of pre and post-election is an issue we have over-flogged in the past.

The plank of Atiku v Buhari delivered by Mohammed Garba JCA (as he then was) in September 2019 that pre-election and post-election cases can come up at the tribunal has been overtaken by events.

Our Courts many times have defined a pre-election matter as a matter that occurred before the election proper.

.....disqualification of candidate on grounds of false information in his form CF001 is pre-election matter by dint of Section 285(14) (c) of the Constitution” (Adekunle Abdulkabir AKINLADE & APM v INEC, Dapo Abiodun & APC. 2020 SC).

Dapo Abiodun had a questionable Certificate and then Akinlade brought it up at the Tribunal, the SC dismissed it for been statute-barred.

garfield1:
My misunderstanding was based on the fact that I didn't realize that pre election cases are now the preview of aspirants in a primary.a community and combined reading of the electoral act will show that issues of qualifications cannot be raised by candidates and parties before elections.

It can only be raised after the elections in the election tribunals.

The Atiku vs Buhari matter has not been overtaken by any case.rather,it is the locus classicus of all qualification cases....

If the NASS wanted to limit the locus,they would have amended section 133-134 and removed qualification as a ground. Their intendment is very clear. They simply limited the scope or narrowed the locus to aspirants rather than anybody. Please spot the difference

fergie001:

Correct


Wrong.

It becomes statute-barred when they raise it after elections.

The Atiku v Buhari at the Appeal Court has been struck down because the Supreme Court threw out a similar case in Akinlade v APC.

Hear the Supreme Court in 2020:

"By virtue of section 31(1) (2), (4), (5) and (6) of the Electoral Act the issue of alleged false statement in a candidate’s affidavit containing his particulars and personal information, Form CF001, is a pre-election issue. In the instant case, the appellants made an issue, in their petition, of the 2nd respondent’s affidavit, Form CF001, allegedly containing false statement of his qualification to contest the election to the office of the Governor of Ogun State. The tribunal and the Court of Appeal were right to have held that by virtue of section 31(1) (2), (4), (5) and (6) of the Electoral Act read together with 285(9) and (14) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) it was a pre-election issue to be disposed of under section 31 of the Electoral Act (as amended), and was therefore statute- barred." (Ejembi Eko JSC)



How can a case that has been overturned by a Superior Court be a locus classicus.

Madukolu v Nkemdilim is more enriching.

The Supreme Court in APC v Lere per Rhodes-Vivour JSC (as he then was) in 2020 defined the umbrella where pre-election matters will fall:

(1) nomination of candidates,
(2) double nomination of a candidate,
(3) disqualification of a candidate,
(4) wrongful substitution of a successful candidate’s name by the Electoral Body,
(5) wrongful omission of a successful candidate’s name on the register,
(6) complaints about the conduct of primaries,
(7) false declaration on oath about particulars of a candidate.

Issues that fall under (1)-(7) above are pre-election matters. The 4th Alteration has handled them.

---

One of the settled position concerning interpretation of the Constitution and statutes is that where the provisions of the Constitution or statute sought to be interpreted have been examined, interpreted and pronounced upon by the apex Court in the land all subordinate Courts must follow and adhere to the interpretation placed on such provisions of the Constitution or of a statute. Issue of Construction or interpretation of such statute will not arise.

---

Issues of pre-election can only be raised by aspirants in that political party's primaries and it has to be no more than 14 days from the cause of action.

The APC legislators pushed for this change because of the Bayelsa & Lyon situation.



It still amounts to nothing because the Constitution supercedes the Electoral Act.

The Supreme Court leads, others follow....

fergie001:

Correct


Wrong.

It becomes statute-barred when they raise it after elections.

The Atiku v Buhari at the Appeal Court has been struck down because the Supreme Court threw out a similar case in Akinlade v APC.

Hear the Supreme Court in 2020:

"By virtue of section 31(1) (2), (4), (5) and (6) of the Electoral Act the issue of alleged false statement in a candidate’s affidavit containing his particulars and personal information, Form CF001, is a pre-election issue. In the instant case, the appellants made an issue, in their petition, of the 2nd respondent’s affidavit, Form CF001, allegedly containing false statement of his qualification to contest the election to the office of the Governor of Ogun State. The tribunal and the Court of Appeal were right to have held that by virtue of section 31(1) (2), (4), (5) and (6) of the Electoral Act read together with 285(9) and (14) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) it was a pre-election issue to be disposed of under section 31 of the Electoral Act (as amended), and was therefore statute- barred." (Ejembi Eko JSC)



How can a case that has been overturned by a Superior Court be a locus classicus.

Madukolu v Nkemdilim is more enriching.

The Supreme Court in APC v Lere per Rhodes-Vivour JSC (as he then was) in 2020 defined the umbrella where pre-election matters will fall:

(1) nomination of candidates,
(2) double nomination of a candidate,
(3) disqualification of a candidate,
(4) wrongful substitution of a successful candidate’s name by the Electoral Body,
(5) wrongful omission of a successful candidate’s name on the register,
(6) complaints about the conduct of primaries,
(7) false declaration on oath about particulars of a candidate.

Issues that fall under (1)-(7) above are pre-election matters. The 4th Alteration has handled them.

---

One of the settled position concerning interpretation of the Constitution and statutes is that where the provisions of the Constitution or statute sought to be interpreted have been examined, interpreted and pronounced upon by the apex Court in the land all subordinate Courts must follow and adhere to the interpretation placed on such provisions of the Constitution or of a statute. Issue of Construction or interpretation of such statute will not arise.

---

Issues of pre-election can only be raised by aspirants in that political party's primaries and it has to be no more than 14 days from the cause of action.

The APC legislators pushed for this change because of the Bayelsa & Lyon situation.



It still amounts to nothing because the Constitution supercedes the Electoral Act.

The Supreme Court leads, others follow....