Buhari and Malami didn't lost anything here.

Rather everyone can now rest. The primary elections are over.

So it will be till 2027.

The senators lost not Buhari.

Its something of Do me I Do you

Finished

Hehehe

Nice one

Hhhhhhhh okay but I hope they will allow me wear my native attire from Monday next week since supreme court has ruled on that

Great.

This life sha.

Just imagine if the Political appointees refused to resign before contesting the primaries.

Just imagine if one of the Political appointees won the primaries......

That means automatic disqualification!

SC always hiding under technicalities to subvert justice.
What does Bubu and the legislature having a political arrangement to delete the section have to do with him approaching the courts for constitutional interpretation.
Corruption just full everywhere

Let the drama rest now

fergie001:

Read what you wrote again or you don't understand the case?
Buhari sent a letter to the NASS to delete 84(12), they declined. Now, the same Buhari wants to challenge it. The SC did not determine on its merits but said Buhari cannot challenge what he signed.


https://tribuneonlineng.com/appeal-court-upholds-nullification-of-section-8412-of-electoral-act/
(This is the Appeal Court Judgement)
The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja has upheld the judgment of the Federal High Court Umuahia which nullified Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act which required public office holders seeking elective office to resign before primaries or they cannot participate.

In the lead judgment delivered by the Court agreed that the provisions of Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act are in conflict with the provisions of the Constitution.

The Appeal Court upheld the judgment of Justice Evelyn Anyadike that Sections 66(1)(f), 107(1)(f), 137(1)(f) and 182(1)(f) of the 1999 Constitution already stipulated that appointees of government seeking to contest elections were only to resign at least 30 days to the date of the election and that any other law that mandated such appointees to resign or leave the office at any time before that was unconstitutional, invalid, illegal null and void to the extent of its inconsistency to the clear provisions of the Constitution.

Is this not the "legal opinion" part of that judgement?

fergie001:

Read what you wrote again or you don't understand the case?
Buhari sent a letter to the NASS to delete 84(12), they declined. Now, the same Buhari wants to challenge it. The SC did not determine on its merits but said Buhari cannot challenge what he signed.


https://tribuneonlineng.com/appeal-court-upholds-nullification-of-section-8412-of-electoral-act/
(This is the Appeal Court Judgement)
The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja has upheld the judgment of the Federal High Court Umuahia which nullified Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act which required public office holders seeking elective office to resign before primaries or they cannot participate.

In the lead judgment delivered by the Court agreed that the provisions of Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act are in conflict with the provisions of the Constitution.

The Appeal Court upheld the judgment of Justice Evelyn Anyadike that Sections 66(1)(f), 107(1)(f), 137(1)(f) and 182(1)(f) of the 1999 Constitution already stipulated that appointees of government seeking to contest elections were only to resign at least 30 days to the date of the election and that any other law that mandated such appointees to resign or leave the office at any time before that was unconstitutional, invalid, illegal null and void to the extent of its inconsistency to the clear provisions of the Constitution.

Baba na the same thing. Whether the case was decided on technical ground or merit is irrelevant. What is important to a client is that the lawyer should win the case at the end of the day. I insist garfield1 is a better lawyer

seunmsg:


Baba na the same thing. Whether the case was decided on technical ground or merit is irrelevant. What is important to a client is that the lawyer should win the case at the end of the case. I insist garfield is a better lawyer

Ok

I was here last weeks to seek assistance from you guy concerning my wife's inability to put to bed by herself in which the doctor said she as to go through Cs and was looking for 50%of the money before the operation can be done. Though no help came forth from nairaland but from a good samarithan I met at the hospital at the time. She had a save delivery and both mother and child her fine but I still need your help guys things as been hard for me taking care of mother and child since I lost my job few months ago. Please my good people help me and my family

Ojuntana:
SC always hiding under technicalities to subvert justice.
What does Bubu and the legislature having a political arrangement to delete the section have to do with him approaching the courts for constitutional interpretation.
Corruption just full everywhere

For you to approach any court for anything you must have standing…That is the very first thing all courts checked off before looking into your case.

And to have standing, you must be ‘injured’, the Court is simply saying that having fully participated in making the law, Buhari can not turn around and claim injury from the same law he participated in birthing.

Therefore, he does not have standing. Malami is also part of the Executive branch of government who Buhari overseas and represents while birthing this new law, he does not having standing either.

Ojuntana:
Is this not the "legal opinion" part of that judgement?

"Legal Opinion"?
The three issues formulated by the Appeal Court Judges are in the screenshot below:

The Appeal was allowed in the first one, i.e. FHC should not have entertained the suit because:
-Edede lacked locus standi
- Interested parties were not joined.
-Case was not properly instituted.

The second two failed, the Appeal Court agreed with the FHC that Electoral Act 84(12) should not stand in the face of the 1999 CFRN. However, the instant and determinant appeal was the first one.

None were opinions but it is a practice in the Court these days, that lower Courts should give judgements on all issues raised and leave the rest to those above them.

The SC today simply said Mr. President you cannot direct another arm of Government to carry out their own Constitutional responsibility, especially one you participated in when you signed. They did not decide on the merits whether 84(12) is contrary to S42 of the CFRN or not.

dyera:
Good.

Meanwhile

Northern Muslims does not see Yoruba Muslims as true Muslim, that's why they need Tinubu to pick a northern Muslim vice otherwise they will not vote for him,

Insinuating
Ct.

seunmsg:


Fergie001, you got it all wrong again. The Supreme Court has thrown away the stupid lawsuit of Malami that you supported. I was thinking of hiring you as my lawyer before but with the look of things, I think garfield is a better choice

Lol!!!!!

Malami Quota-system lawyer big olodo

iiifedimma:
Please support our honourable Peter obi for the president's of federal Republic of Nigeria, we are tired of those thief's now,

Without a tribalism and nepotism any sane Nigerian know it's only someone like Peter obi that can now rescue Nigeria from total collapsing, but seriously some ethnic bigot people will just still prefer to hav their own man at the affairs of the country either he is capable or not than to go for what could have been the best solution to all nigerian's current problems, Peter obi2023 is certain

Peter Obi himself is a thief and a drug baron. It’s nauseating the way IPOB are promoting this money launderer. He will never win. He is a scam.

We need to cross check our leaders qualifications for we should allow them to tanish our image right outside the country. We know that Education is uselsee in current Nigeria. God heal this nation

JosephXavier:
Nigeria has produced the worst attorney general who is also a SAN But doesn't understand the law

The worst Chief justice from Sharia court that doesn't know anything about the Nigerian Constitution

A president that thinks that comes roaming the street of major cities and nation's capital is constitutional

What APC and Buhari cannot destroy does not exist

you should be thankful to buhari for allowing free and fair judgement. Other presidents would have use their power to get judgement to their side.

seunmsg:


Baba na the same thing. Whether the case was decided on technical ground or merit is irrelevant. What is important to a client is that the lawyer should win the case at the end of the day. I insist garfield1 is a better lawyer

Am not a lawyer oh

fergie001:

Read what you wrote again or you don't understand the case?
Buhari sent a letter to the NASS to delete 84(12), they declined. Now, the same Buhari wants to challenge it. The SC did not determine on its merits but said Buhari cannot challenge what he signed.


https://tribuneonlineng.com/appeal-court-upholds-nullification-of-section-8412-of-electoral-act/
(This is the Appeal Court Judgement)
The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja has upheld the judgment of the Federal High Court Umuahia which nullified Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act which required public office holders seeking elective office to resign before primaries or they cannot participate.

In the lead judgment delivered by the Court agreed that the provisions of Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act are in conflict with the provisions of the Constitution.

The Appeal Court upheld the judgment of Justice Evelyn Anyadike that Sections 66(1)(f), 107(1)(f), 137(1)(f) and 182(1)(f) of the 1999 Constitution already stipulated that appointees of government seeking to contest elections were only to resign at least 30 days to the date of the election and that any other law that mandated such appointees to resign or leave the office at any time before that was unconstitutional, invalid, illegal null and void to the extent of its inconsistency to the clear provisions of the Constitution.

It technically means that section 84 (12) is deleted.but I think the supreme court is wrong here to an extend.while buhari should not attack what he signed,he can if he was misled.again,buhari did not direct them to amend it.he was only appealing to them.there is no where the principle of separation of powers was abused

youngimporter:
I wonder what gave that Abia judge the inspiration to give that judgment

That judgment stands

Cherrybae:
Buhari and Malami didn't lost anything here.

Rather everyone can now rest. The primary elections are over.

So it will be till 2027.

The senators lost not Buhari.

Its something of Do me I Do you

Very true

Ojuntana:
SC always hiding under technicalities to subvert justice.
What does Bubu and the legislature having a political arrangement to delete the section have to do with him approaching the courts for constitutional interpretation.
Corruption just full everywhere

True but they hid under the wrong technicalities.they even compounded the issues

fergie001:
"Legal Opinion"?
The three issues formulated by the Appeal Court Judges are in the screenshot below:

The Appeal was allowed in the first one, i.e. FHC should not have entertained the suit because:
-Edede lacked locus standi
- Interested parties were not joined.
-Case was not properly instituted.

The second two failed, the Appeal Court agreed with the FHC that Electoral Act 84(12) should not stand in the face of the 1999 CFRN. However, the instant and determinant appeal was the first one.

None were opinions but it is a practice in the Court these days, that lower Courts should give judgements on all issues raised and leave the rest to those above them.

The SC today simply said Mr. President you cannot direct another arm of Government to carry out their own Constitutional responsibility, especially one you participated in when you signed. They did not decide on the merits whether 84(12) is contrary to S42 of the CFRN or not.

I am no longer understanding. The prevalent interpretation given at that time by most lawyers even on TV was that the judgement nullifying that section was an opinion of the court and thus not a binding judgment. This your own angle is strange to what was in the public domain then.

Secondly, is the SC right to claim the letter sent by Buhari to NASS constitutes a directive? The President has an official line of communication with the NASS through which he makes his requests and I remember the letter was read on both floors of NASS and subjected to a motion. So, I don't understand why SC will claim the President was "directing" NASS. When he lays the budget and other Executive bills before them, is he also "directing" them? Besides, I personally interpret the need for the President to sign laws as a sign he is part of the legislature in function. So I don't see how him signing the law stops him from making a request to amend the law. Is SC saying the only option available to the president is to withhold assent where he's uncomfortable with a certain aspect of a bill? I think that's going too far!!