fergie001:

When the SC speaks, other Courts bow.

This one will also fail. It is a Constitutional issue and only a panel of 7, irrespective of how the SC technically killed it, can overthrow same.

Nothing will come out of this judgement.

2 of the minority judgment judges have retired. Agim is still around

Agboriotejoye:
The SC is highly political and politicised. garfield1 claimed (though I doubt it's veracity) that SC said the governor will only lose his seat since he was the one who committed the infraction. It seems the SC is saying the party is a victim of the governor's disobedience to the law and not an accomplice. In other words, they make it seem like the governor simply hijacked the party chairmanship while the party looked on helplessly. I hope it's not true though because it's obvious the party is a constitutional creation just as the governor is. Same SC has also ruled before that the only removal method provided for in the Constitution is via impeachment or resignation or natural causes. So how will they now go back to remove a governor when they clearly stated they don't have power to do so?
Fergie001 and penguin2. My thoughts

Our jurisprudence is messed up, man.

You see that ruling of justice Nwite, it is so express that no court should ordinarily overrule it but this is Nigeria. I won’t be surprised if APC buys favourable judgment. After all, that’s what Ariwoola was put there for.

Because, two constitutional provisions were breached by APC’s action of appointing Buni as Caretaker Chairman of the party: first is the provision of the constitution of the Federal Republic which bars a governor from holding another executive or paid position while in office, second is the APC constitution which bars an elected person from being the party official.

So, both APC and Buni should be punished for that action if we were to argue from Garfield1 perspective.

garfield1:


I didnt claim,I posted excerpts from the apex court judgment.fergie001 also has a copy.there is no politics there...it is clear.section 183 expressly bans a governor from holding another paid or executive position while in office.while the minority judgment said the punishment should be for the parties alone,majority are saying the governor must be punished afterall the section refereed to governors specifically and I agree with them because governors are never forced to take up the position.it was their own choice to accept it.apc didnt force buni,he accepted it willingly.
Anyway in that judgment,the court also justified that caretaker chairmanship is not an executive or paid employment

Going by this line of argument, then both Buni and APC should be punished.

Or are you oblivious of the fact that there’s a provision in APC constitution that bars an elected official from holding any position in the party’s NWC?

And even if we were to argue from the perspective of section 183 alone and says only the governor should be punished, how then do you justify the governor being punished for contravening constitutional provision but his actions throughout that period of contravention are allowed to stand?

Can you build on nothing?

Penguin2:


Our jurisprudence is messed up, man.

You see that ruling of justice Nwite, it is so express that no court should ordinarily overrule it but this is Nigeria. I won’t be surprised if APC buys favourable judgment. After all, that’s what Ariwoola was put there for.

Because, two constitutional provisions were breached by APC’s action of appointing Buni as Caretaker Chairman of the party: first is the provision of the constitution of the Federal Republic which bars a governor from holding another executive or paid position while in office, second is the APC constitution which bars an elected person from being the party official.

So, both APC and Buni should be punished for that action if we were to argue from Garfield1 perspective.

Very correct! Let's see what happens when the case gets to SC. It's obvious this Nwite's judgment is the correct one. It will stand the test of time. All this talk of caretaker is temporary is just jargon to dribble towards the goalpost. It's just like that of imo where the judges said the Constitution intended for the police to be the unbiased keeper of electoral results when the Constitution never said that, and it is clearly stated that the organising, conducting and keeping of electoral records lie with INEC. It's pure judicial adventurism. But this bold judgment should shake them. The interpretation act already explained that any occupation of an office whether in temporary form or otherwise is as if the holder is holding the office substantively and has right to exercise all the powers of the office. This new claim will automatically mean an acting head of an agency is not an executive because he isn't paid for being an acting head.
Crap!!

Penguin2:


Going by this line of argument, then both Buni and APC should be punished.

Or are you oblivious of the fact that there’s a provision in APC constitution that bars an elected official from holding any position in the party’s NWC?

And even if we were to argue from the perspective of section 183 alone and says only the governor should be punished, how then do you justify the governor being punished for contravening constitutional provision but his actions throughout that period of contravention are allowed to stand?

Can you build on nothing?

Amen!!

Agboriotejoye:

Very correct! Let's see what happens when the case gets to SC. It's obvious this Nwite's judgment is the correct one. It will stand the test of time. All this talk of caretaker is temporary is just jargon to dribble towards the goalpost. It's just like that of imo where the judges said the Constitution intended for the police to be the unbiased keeper of electoral results when the Constitution never said that, and it is clearly stated that the organising, conducting and keeping of electoral records lie with INEC. It's pure judicial adventurism. But this bold judgment should shake them. The interpretation act already explained that any occupation of an office whether in temporary form or otherwise is as if the holder is holding the office substantively and has right to exercise all the powers of the office. This new claim will automatically mean an acting head of an agency is not an executive because he isn't paid for being an acting head.
Crap!!

Big crap!

If APC lawyers’ argument in court is that Buni was a mere ‘caretaker’ chairman and not ‘executive’, they would have to tell the court what APC’s executive chairman does differently from all that Buni did while in office.

I’m sure SC will not let themselves be deceived by mere play on words. After all, a substantive APC chairman still doesn’t have the ‘executive’ affixed to his name.

Cc mynd44 cc OAM4j cc Seun cc lalasticlala cc fynestboi cc justwise FP

Penguin2:


Big crap!

If APC lawyers’ argument in court is that Buni was a mere ‘caretaker’ chairman and not ‘executive’, they would have to tell the court what APC’s executive chairman does differently from all that Buni did while in office.

I’m sure SC will not let themselves be deceived by mere play on words. After all, a substantive APC chairman still doesn’t have the ‘executive’ affixed to his name.

Supreme Court of justice will sustained the judgement of federal high court. The law is clear on that.

9jahotblog:
Supreme Court of justice will sustained the judgement of federal high court. The law is clear on that.

Yes. But Atiku will still not win the election.

Thank you

Penguin2:


Yes. But Atiku will still not win the election.

Thank you

Atiku/Okowa will win the February 25th, 2023 presidential election. Atiku/Okowa has come to win. Tinubu ma lule piii Lekan siii niiii.

9jahotblog:
Atiku/Okowa will win the February 25th, 2023 presidential election. Atiku/Okowa has come to win. Tinubu ma lule piii Lekan siii niiii.

They’ve lost the entire south with Wike pulling out with his men.

They’ve lost the north central with MiddleBelt Christians trying to save their lives by running away from Muslims.

Where will they get their votes?

Penguin2:


Going by this line of argument, then both Buni and APC should be punished.

Or are you oblivious of the fact that there’s a provision in APC constitution that bars an elected official from holding any position in the party’s NWC?

And even if we were to argue from the perspective of section 183 alone and says only the governor should be punished, how then do you justify the governor being punished for contravening constitutional provision but his actions throughout that period of contravention are allowed to stand?

Can you build on nothing?

Yes buni and apc can be punished but there has to be locus standi.since it touches on apc constitution and internal matter,pdp has no locus.only members of apc has the locus and from what I deduced,the case was filed outside 14 days....
According to the new electoral act and supreme court judgments,issues of nominations and sponsorships can only be instituted by aspirants in a particular party not outsiders.dont forget that matters that happened before primaries in a party are clearly non justicable.see ogba vs odii supra,babayemi vs adeleke supra...again,signing or non signing of nomination forms are not a ground for disqualification...so you see,you cannot build something on nothing....for such suits to succeed,it must be instituted by an apc member immediately buni was appointed and it must not be tied to election matters

Penguin2:


They’ve lost the entire south with Wike pulling out with his men.

They’ve lost the north central with MiddleBelt Christians trying to save their lives by running away from Muslims.

Where will they get their votes?

You saw my thread yesterday? Out of 2 million Christians that voted pdp,over 1 million won't vote him.stop replying that guy,he is unreasonable

Penguin2:


Big crap!

If APC lawyers’ argument in court is that Buni was a mere ‘caretaker’ chairman and not ‘executive’, they would have to tell the court what APC’s executive chairman does differently from all that Buni did while in office.

I’m sure SC will not let themselves be deceived by mere play on words. After all, a substantive APC chairman still doesn’t have the ‘executive’ affixed to his name.

All these were settled in jegede vs aketi...try and read the full judgment.I've summarised it above

Penguin2:


Our jurisprudence is messed up, man.

You see that ruling of justice Nwite, it is so express that no court should ordinarily overrule it but this is Nigeria. I won’t be surprised if APC buys favourable judgment. After all, that’s what Ariwoola was put there for.

Because, two constitutional provisions were breached by APC’s action of appointing Buni as Caretaker Chairman of the party: first is the provision of the constitution of the Federal Republic which bars a governor from holding another executive or paid position while in office, second is the APC constitution which bars an elected person from being the party official.

So, both APC and Buni should be punished for that action if we were to argue from Garfield1 perspective.

Buy favourable judgment? If a judgment doesn't go the way you want,does it mean it was bought? When pdp won rivers and aks at the 2015 court cases,I reasoned like you till I read and reread the judgment.while apc had good reasons to have the elections upturned on paper,they didnt do enough.the judgments were sound.
Justice nwite judgment may look morally good but too many obstacles are on the way.it cannot stand esp as the apex court has ruled on this before...

Agboriotejoye:

Very correct! Let's see what happens when the case gets to SC. It's obvious this Nwite's judgment is the correct one. It will stand the test of time. All this talk of caretaker is temporary is just jargon to dribble towards the goalpost. It's just like that of imo where the judges said the Constitution intended for the police to be the unbiased keeper of electoral results when the Constitution never said that, and it is clearly stated that the organising, conducting and keeping of electoral records lie with INEC. It's pure judicial adventurism. But this bold judgment should shake them. The interpretation act already explained that any occupation of an office whether in temporary form or otherwise is as if the holder is holding the office substantively and has right to exercise all the powers of the office. This new claim will automatically mean an acting head of an agency is not an executive because he isn't paid for being an acting head.
Crap!!

Can you or pdp prove that buni position was executive or paid?

garfield1:


Can you or pdp prove that buni position was executive or paid?

Let me respond to your Jegede vs Aketi here. That shot you pasted was not the lead judgment. It was a quote from the Tribunal judgment. The lead judgment was all about Buni not being joined in the suit and since he is the one who did the infraction, determining the effect of his infraction will require him to be joined in the suit.
The minority judgment took care of that by saying that since it was APC that took that decision to appoint a sitting governor as its chair in violation of its own constitution, then it must bear the brunt of its decision by which it then went ahead to nullify the decisions of Buni.

You deceived I and Penguin2 and made us rail at innocent JSCs. That's very bad of you. fergie001 should take note too. Garfield is deceiving the public.

Agboriotejoye:


Let me respond to your Jegede vs Aketi here. That shot you pasted was not the lead judgment. It was a quote from the Tribunal judgment. The lead judgment was all about Buni not being joined in the suit and since he is the one who did the infraction, determining the effect of his infraction will require him to be joined in the suit.
The minority judgment took care of that by saying that since it was APC that took that decision to appoint a sitting governor as its chair in violation of its own constitution, then it must bear the brunt of its decision by which it then went ahead to nullify the decisions of Buni.

You deceived I and Penguin2 and made us rail at innocent JSCs. That's very bad of you. fergie001 should take note too. Garfield is deceiving the public.

If you had scrolled up from where you got that copy,you would have seen where he said buni would be punished.and if you scrolled down,you will see where he said it is an internal matter...





In any case,what is your interest? What is biting you,why so worked up? You can see justice agim signature in that post

garfield1:





If you had scrolled up from where you got that copy,you would have seen where he said buni would be punished.and if you scrolled down,you will see where he said it is an internal matter...

In any case,what is your interest? What is biting you,why so worked up? You can see justice agim signature in that post

What he said is an internal matter is the APC violating its own constitution not the part of Buni holding dual executive offices. He said Buni would cease to hold office, and also to determine the extent of the infraction will require him defending himself. Have you read the screenshots? Is the grammar complicated for you?

My interest is that I'm afraid for APC. APC might end up not participating at all in 2023 elections if the very fair judgment of the very erudite justice Nwite is upheld.

Agboriotejoye:

What he said is an internal matter is the APC violating its own constitution not the part of Buni holding dual executive offices. He said Buni would cease to hold office, and also to determine the extent of the infraction will require him defending himself. Have you read the screenshots? Is the grammar complicated for you?

My interest is that I'm afraid for APC. APC might end up not participating at all in 2023 elections if the very fair judgment of the very erudite justice Nwite is upheld.

The other office he is said to hold is a party office which clearly makes it an internal matter of a party and punishment is for him alone.the judge has further stated that signing of nomination form is not a criteria for disq and sponsorship and nomination are internal party matters and only apc aspirants have the locus to challenge according to the new electoral act...
Assuming the apex court surprisingly upholds this,it wlill be limited to Osun and not beyond.in any case, the case is dead...concern yourself with your pdp

garfield1:


The other office he is said to hold is a party office which clearly makes it an internal matter of a party and punishment is for him alone.the judge has further stated that signing of nomination form is not a criteria for disq and sponsorship and nomination are internal party matters and only apc aspirants have the locus to challenge according to the new electoral act...
Assuming the apex court surprisingly upholds this,it wlill be limited to Osun and not beyond.in any case, the case is dead...concern yourself with your pdp

It is not for you to decide if it is an internal matter of the party. The party cannot disobey the constitution and hide under "it is an internal matter". Anyway, the SC never described the infraction as an internal matter. The SC in its majority judgment declined to determine if his taking that office in contravention of the constitution invalidates all actions he took in the exercise of the office. The good Justice Nwite has settled that now.
It is not dead. Justice Nwite has resurrected the matter. The SC will ensure it lives on....
PDP is doing well. It is the APC that might cease to exist after being barred from the 2023 elections we should be concerned with

Agboriotejoye:

It is not for you to decide if it is an internal matter of the party. The party cannot disobey the constitution and hide under "it is an internal matter". Anyway, the SC never described the infraction as an internal matter. The SC in its majority judgment declined to determine if his taking that office in contravention of the constitution invalidates all actions he took in the exercise of the office. The good Justice Nwite has settled that now.
It is not dead. Justice Nwite has resurrected the matter. The SC will ensure it lives on....
PDP is doing well. It is the APC that might cease to exist after being barred from the 2023 elections we should be concerned with

Nwite has not settled anything.he has set himself up for disgrace at the apex court...justice agim clearly stated that who holds any office or performs any duty or violates apc constitution are non justiciable.the supreme court even in recent decisions has stated that anything that happened before primaries or how a party runs its affairs before primaries are all non justiciable...see sheriff vs pdp,ogba vs odii,babayemi vs adeleke,orbih vs obaseki supra...the case is going nowhere.it will end up like the sacking of umahi and ayade for defecting from pdp.tell adeleke to prepare his defence on overvoting...

garfield1:



Nwite has not settled anything.he has set himself up for disgrace at the apex court...justice agim clearly stated that who holds any office or performs any duty or violates apc constitution are non justiciable.the supreme court even in recent decisions has stated that anything that happened before primaries or how a party runs its affairs before primaries are all non justiciable...see sheriff vs pdp,ogba vs odii,babayemi vs adeleke,orbih vs obaseki supra...the case is going nowhere.it will end up like the sacking of umahi and ayade for defecting from pdp.tell adeleke to prepare his defence on overvoting...

Don't add to what the Honorable Justice said. He never said who holds office is non justiciable.
Nobody is asking how the APC runs its affairs. What is of interest is the position of the law as regards a governor serving as chair of a party. While the majority decision declined because Buni was not joined, the minority that delved into it clearly and correctly showed that it was an illegality, an abnormality and a fart on the constitutional nose.
Nwite had smartly applied the ruling and is set to be upheld by the Apex court.
That move will sound the death knell on the APC

Agboriotejoye:


Don't add to what the Honorable Justice said. He never said who holds office is non justiciable.
Nobody is asking how the APC runs its affairs. What is of interest is the position of the law as regards a governor serving as chair of a party. While the majority decision declined because Buni was not joined, the minority that delved into it clearly and correctly showed that it was an illegality, an abnormality and a fart on the constitutional nose.
Nwite had smartly applied the ruling and is set to be upheld by the Apex court.
That move will sound the death knell on the APC

Before aketi vs jegede, you clearly gloated that apc will be affected.the majority judgment sent into shameless wailing in which you never recovered.when a high court removed umahi,you made noise...

Section 29(5) of the electoral act clearly limits pre election matters to aspirants in a primary which kills the judgment.now,what is the cause of action in which pdp are challenging? Anything before primaries is not a cause of action.the majority judgment already knocked out signature and submission as a ground for petition.holding of office happened long outside the 14 days timeline.all pre election and post election matters are filed within 14 days.anything outside is dead.was buni sued by pdp 14 days after his appointment? No...
Section 183 cannot be filed within the spectrum of an election matter.election matters are matters from primaries till elections.anything outside will fail.the right platform is via a civil suit.pdp in august last year took buni to court and the matter failed.I'll reproduce the last paragraph where he clearly viewed holding of chair office by buni as non justiciable

garfield1:


Yes buni and apc can be punished but there has to be locus standi.since it touches on apc constitution and internal matter,pdp has no locus.only members of apc has the locus and from what I deduced,the case was filed outside 14 days....
According to the new electoral act and supreme court judgments,issues of nominations and sponsorships can only be instituted by aspirants in a particular party not outsiders.dont forget that matters that happened before primaries in a party are clearly non justicable.see ogba vs odii supra,babayemi vs adeleke supra...again,signing or non signing of nomination forms are not a ground for disqualification...so you see,you cannot build something on nothing....for such suits to succeed,it must be instituted by an apc member immediately buni was appointed and it must not be tied to election matters

The 2022 Electoral Act empowers anyone or party who sees any misgiving about a party candidate to seek redress.

Or are you unaware of that?

Penguin2:


The 2022 Electoral Act empowers anyone or party who sees any misgiving about a party candidate to seek redress.

Or are you unaware of that?

Not true sir.it is the 2010 electoral act that empowers anyone.section 29(5) empowers only aspirants.forget about this matter,it is not your forte

garfield1:


Before aketi vs jegede, you clearly gloated that apc will be affected.the majority judgment sent into shameless wailing in which you never recovered.when a high court removed umahi,you made noise...

Section 29(5) of the electoral act clearly limits pre election matters to aspirants in a primary which kills the judgment.now,what is the cause of action in which pdp are challenging? Anything before primaries is not a cause of action.the majority judgment already knocked out signature and submission as a ground for petition.holding of office happened long outside the 14 days timeline.all pre election and post election matters are filed within 14 days.anything outside is dead.was buni sued by pdp 14 days after his appointment? No...
Section 183 cannot be filed within the spectrum of an election matter.election matters are matters from primaries till elections.anything outside will fail.the right platform is via a civil suit.pdp in august last year took buni to court and the matter failed.I'll reproduce the last paragraph where he clearly viewed holding of chair office by buni as non justiciable

Gloated how? If I remember correctly, it was umahi who wailed when judgment was given against him not me.
All these your stories were addressed in Agim's judgment. What the judgment said is not justiciable is there process of choosing a party chair. It never said Buni being party chair is non justiciable. Stop mixing things up. Since you agree it's a civil suit and not an electoral matter, why are you now faulting Nwite's judgment which was filed as a civil litigation to determine if a state gov can also function as a party chair? You see your confusion now?
Agim's judgment was that who occupies the office of chair is not the business of anyone that's not a member of the party and he is correct. But you purposely skipped where he said the case of Buni being a gov and holding another office is not limited to the party alone. I already showed you that in the judgment I posted, page 33. Go and read it again. His argument is that any judgment given might be injurious to Buni and as such will be unfair since he is not joined.
What the minority judgment did was to punish the party alone. What the majority judgment seems to imply is that both the party and Buni are culprits and should answer separately for the travesty.

Agboriotejoye:


Gloated how? If I remember correctly, it was umahi who wailed when judgment was given against him not me.
All these your stories were addressed in Agim's judgment. What the judgment said is not justiciable is there process of choosing a party chair. It never said Buni being party chair is non justiciable. Stop mixing things up. Since you agree it's a civil suit and not an electoral matter, why are you now faulting Nwite's judgment which was filed as a civil litigation to determine if a state gov can also function as a party chair? You see your confusion now?

Is it not this same nwite that ruled in favour of akpabio recently? Oga,pdp filed it on April 7 as a pre election suit to disqualify oyetola not as a civil suit.the title is sponsorship and nomination.it was better if it was filed by an apc member or when elections are not around the corner.it is bound to fail and it has failed

garfield1:


Is it not this same nwite that ruled in favour of akpabio recently? Oga,pdp filed it on April 7 as a pre election suit to disqualify oyetola not as a civil suit.the title is sponsorship and nomination.it was better if it was filed by an apc member or when elections are not around the corner.it is bound to fail and it has failed

And what's wrong with that? Is filing it as a preelection suit not in tandem with the SC which states that the question of chairmanship of APC is out of jurisdiction of the tribunal?
The upright justice has given the right judgment. It will be upheld by the CA and SC.
APC has started its journey to extinction

Agboriotejoye:

And what's wrong with that? Is filing it as a preelection suit not in tandem with the SC which states that the question of chairmanship of APC is out of jurisdiction of the tribunal?
The upright justice has given the right judgment. It will be upheld by the CA and SC.
APC has started its journey to extinction

It cannot be brought as an election matter certainly not by a non apc member.section 29 has clearly defined who has locus to file cases on pre election. I will be here to tag you as usual.even fergie is not with you

garfield1:


It cannot be brought as an election matter certainly not by a non apc member.section 29 has clearly defined who has locus to file cases on pre election. I will be here to tag you as usual.even fergie is not with you

What are you saying exactly? The case is proprietary of Buni holding dual executive position. I don't know why you keep hitting on the question if locus when even Agim answered the question. Did you read the full judgment or you just read the part that suits you?
We'll see. Don't forget to tag me. The only clause the appeal can hide under is that Buni has immunity. Other than that, no other way out for APC

garfield1:


Not true sir.it is the 2010 electoral act that empowers anyone.section 29(5) empowers only aspirants.forget about this matter,it is not your forte

Lol

Let’s see how it goes.