TheGoodJoe:
The Judge is still hearing the case. He has not sent Farah's lawyers to law school. So what is the point here.

seanfer:
He filed the case before the conduct of the primary. zamfara and Rivers 2019 is a precedent.

fergie001:

In Summary, we will see how the case goes after the Rivers Primaries but I saw something Farah's lawyers wrote to the Court;

“By the constitution and guidelines of the 1st Defendant (PDP), an aspirant to the position of the gubernatorial office of a state must go through the screening process before he/she will be eligible to participate in the 1st Defendant’s primary election to elect the party’s gubernatorial flag bearer/candidate of the state, (Rivers State herein) for the general election,” the affidavit deposed in support of the motion of interlocutory injunction before the Federal High Court, Abuja, in SUIT NO: FHC/ABJ/CS/654/2022.

Good luck to Farah.

fergie001:

In Summary, we will see how the case goes after the Rivers Primaries but I saw something Farah's lawyers wrote to the Court;

“By the constitution and guidelines of the 1st Defendant (PDP), an aspirant to the position of the gubernatorial office of a state must go through the screening process before he/she will be eligible to participate in the 1st Defendant’s primary election to elect the party’s gubernatorial flag bearer/candidate of the state, (Rivers State herein) for the general election,” the affidavit deposed in support of the motion of interlocutory injunction before the Federal High Court, Abuja, in SUIT NO: FHC/ABJ/CS/654/2022.

Good luck to Farah.

TheGoodJoe:


You are just taking us back. There is no place in the Judge's ruling did he say he lacks the poer to stop the primary election.

He even showed he could.

fergie001:

I know you are restraining yourself from calling me names, but these are things I am getting accustomed to here.

Since I am taking you back, let's leave it as it is. Again, Goodluck to Farah.

TheGoodJoe:

fergie001:

If the one I have given you isn't enough, let the judge make his decisions.... God willing, we will be here.

TheGoodJoe:
You have been doing copy and paste. You are yet to show us how the Judge's ruling meant he lavked power to stop the Primaries.

fergie001:


garfield1 AAA593 vicdom kahal29 penguin2 indispensable85 ejimatic Ojuntana... one of you should help me here.

Read your Electoral Act properly and study the judgement. The people I mentioned can better explain, they are Better lawyers.

TheGoodJoe:




Assignment. Prove your point, you are giving assignment.

TheGoodJoe:




Assignment. Prove your point, you are giving assignment.

fergie001:


Firstly, what did Farah apply for the Court to grant him and why?

Your answer will make me know what next to say.

TheGoodJoe:

garfield1:
Let us see how it will play out.shey fubara is on the run

garfield1:



Let us see how it will play out.shey fubara is on the run

fergie001:

You are endorsing his Principal nah....

TheGoodJoe:


Justice Taiwo Taiwo held that the application was not brought on time and that the court could not be induced with his claims for urgency.

Meanwhile, in his ruling on Wednesday, Justice Taiwo held that processes the plaintiff filed before the court did not disclose any urgency that would warrant the issuance of an ex-parte injunction against the defendants.

Meanwhile, in his ruling on Wednesday, Justice Taiwo held that processes the plaintiff filed before the court did not disclose any urgency that would warrant the issuance of an ex-parte injunction against the defendants.

“Ex-parte injunctions are meant for matters of real urgency”, the court held, stressing that it has the powers to give redress to the plaintiff even after the primary election is conducted.

Justice Taiwo noted that whereas the plaintiff filed his substantive suit on May 12, he waited till May 18 to file the ex-parte motion for interim injunction.
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2022/05/breaking-court-declines-to-halt-rivers-pdp-governorship-primaries/

vicdom:

What was your earlier position?

TGM2015:

Calm down and read to understand. The court only refuse to grant ex-parte application to stop the primaries. The court never rules that he is not an aspirant, hence, does not have the rights to sue PDP. This was our argument, whether he is an aspirant or not, because only aspirants can challenge PDP in court. You claim he is yet to attain the status of an aspirant because he didn't participate in the screening, which will change his status from governorship "hopefuls or contestants" (in your on words) to governorship aspirant.

May be you should read the Vanguard version of reporting, the words in bold may be of help to you.



My position was that he is an aspirant and has the right to sue the party, but whether his case is sufficient enough to affect the primary conduct without him lie with the judge.