DMerciful:
These are speculations, not facts. The facts are IREV was shutdown for only presidential election to prevent polling units uploads, results were mutilated, erased and swaped,polling units result shows Obi won, INEC did not follow its own rules, these are facts

Obi didn't Win all that is Propaganda

Peter Obi that couldn't even produce only 2 Governors in all of Nigeria

Tinubu and APC Produced 22 Governors

Rigged!

Christistruth03:



Obi didn't Win all that is Propaganda

Peter Obi that couldn't even produce only 2 Governors in all of Nigeria

Tinubu and APC Produced 22 Governors

DMerciful:
You're not a realist, you're PDAPC! A realist would keep an open mind and question why INEC did not follow her own guidelines

question the place u lost and accept the place u won,I’m not sick bro.

Move ahead when our mandate was stolen?

Let me tell you a secret, whether Tinubu wins or loses in court, he'll be disgraced because his past would be expose for drugs, identity theft, forgery and perfury. Why do you think APC is doing all these shenanigans DSS nonsense, FFK and Ananuga nonsense? They know whats coming! Ngige warned you guys not to celebrate yet but you think its a joke.

Have you windered why Biden has not congratulated Tinubu?

highchief1:
bros I be pdp o.but I was part of the integrity group so I supported and funded Asiwaju.atiku is not a serious person.I no Dey inec sha I no go doubt u again.but my own is that we should move ahead all this litigations I no Dey like am.

The “and” in Section 134(2)(b) of the Constitution meaning
Golden word: Literal interpretation of this Section will produce absurdity, however, the law is that the legislature does not intend an absurd situation.

How?
“… he has not less than one-quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the states in the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory Abuja”.

What does the “and” mean”? Is it conjunctive or not?
Background to discourse. States are mentioned in Section 3(i) of the Constitution and are Federating units on equal footings.
The FCT was given the status of a state in section 299 of the Constitution though not a state as mentioned in Section 3(1) of the Constitution. Does it mean that according the FCT Abuja this status has made it more special than the other states?
Ans: No.

In Buhari vs Obasanjo (2005) 2 NWLR (Pt 910) 241 CA - the court held that two thirds of the thirty six states is twenty four states. On the position of the FCT Abuja, the Supreme Court in Baba Panya Vs President FRN (2018) 15 NWLR (Pt 1643) 423, FCT Abuja is to be treated like a state. Doing so does not make it superior or inferior to any State of the Federation we submit. Bakari vs Ogundipe 2021 5NWLR (Pt 1768) emphasized that the Constitution shall apply to the FCT as if it were a State. “As if” shows that FCT lacks all the indices of a State but shall operate as if it is one.

In interpreting the Constitution, the Constitution becomes a single document to be interpreted with all the sections read together to find out the intentions of the drafters. It is in the light of this that sections 2(2), 3(1) and 299 will be employed in interpreting the contentious provision of Section 134(2) (b) of the Constitution.

Why
The Supreme Court of Nigeria in A.G. Lagos State vs A.G. Federation (2003) 2 NWLR (Pt 833) held that in interpreting the Constitution or even a Statute, a narrow meaning should not be given to it unless it becomes necessary to do so. The Court advocated a wide and liberal interpretation unless there is express provision to the contrary and this must be done in order to carry out or give effect to the intention of the makers of the Constitution.

This is to say that the Constitution must be interpreted as a whole so that internal inconsistencies are avoided. In other words, the Court should give a holistic interpretation to the provision by looking at the entire Constitution to decipher what the drafter intended. This is because words in a Constitution must not be read with stultifying narrowness that will defeat the intentions of the drafters – see A.G. Bendel State vs A.G. Federation & 22 ors (2001) FWLR (Pt 65) 448 at 548-9 SC. Sections of the Constitution cannot be read in isolation of one provision to the other. All parts must be read as a whole more especially as the Supreme Court noted in Chief Ojukwu Vs Chief Obasanjo (2004) All FWLR (pt 222) 1666 at 1691 SC, when the consideration would throw light upon the intention of the drafters and a literal interpretation would result in an absurdity. Courts are enjoined not to fall for a construction of a section of a Statute that would bring about a defeat of the purpose of the Statute. Therefore, where a Statute is capable of two interpretations, the Court will avoid construction that would reduce the legislation to futility- see Savannah Bank Nigeria Limited and anor Vs Ajilo and anor (2001) FWLR (Pt 75) 513 at 551-2, 543-4 & 547 SC. Every clause of a statute is to be construed with reference to the context and other clauses of the Act so far as possible to make a consistent enactment of the whole Statute - see Oyeyemi Vs Commissioner of Local Government, Kwara State & Ors (1992) 8 LRCN 517.

Where a Constitutional provision is capable of two meanings, the Court will opt for the alternative that is consistent with the smooth working of the system which the Constitution has set out to regulate and disruptive alternative would be rejected – A.G. Ondo State Vs. A. G. Ekiti State (2001) FWLR (Pt 79) 1431 at 1486 SC, Abioye & Ors Vs Yakubu & Ors (2001) FWLR (Pt 83) 2212 Sc. Only the sensible meaning is required to be given effect to – D.G. Dept of State Services, Abuja & anor vs Briggs (2007) All FWLR (pt 344) 57 at 73 CA.

The bottom line is that we must avoid narrow interpretation that would do violence to the provisions and thus fail to achieve the goal of the Constitution itself.

What then is the meaning of the word “and” as used in Section 134(2) (b) of the Constitution

In a narrow point of view, the word will be interpreted to be conjunctive i.e a candidate shall obtain a quarter of the votes in two thirds of the States and the FCT and if this is so, the question is:-

What then is a quarter of the votes in the FCT?
A quarter of the votes in the FCT cannot be simply obtained by cumulating all the votes together and finding out what 25% of the votes are. The FCT Abuja consists of 6 Area Councils with each Council making its own declaration to wit:

AREA COUNCIL APC PDP LP
Abaji 10,370 6,888 2,874
Kwali 11,242 9,054 7,302
Bwari 13,156 10,385 67,198
G/Gwalada 15,890 10,981 19,694
Kuje 11,242 10,648 14,252
Amac 29,596 26,407 170,392

Therefore, if under and by virtue of Section 179(2) (b) of the 1999 Constitution as amended, Local Government are used in determining 25% spread, then by virtue of Section 3(b) of the Constitution as well as the first schedule part II (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, it is the Area Councils that make up the FCT that will be used to collate 25% of 2/3 of the FCT. That being the case, APC as a party and Alhaji Bola Ahmed Tinubu as its candidate scored 25% of the total votes cast in Abaji, Kwali, Gwagwalada & Kuje Area Councils whilst the labour party secured its 25% in Bwari, Gwagwalada, Kuje and Amac Area Councils also with higher population & votes cast during the election.
Based on this interpretation, INEC cannot be faulted in its declaration of Alhaji Ahmed Bola Tinubu as president elect having secured 25% of the votes cast in two thirds of the Area Councils in the FCT. Can it be said for the sake of emphasis that this interpretation of “and” as conjunctive is the intention of the drafters of the Constitution?

The answer again is no.
There is no provision in the 1999 Constitution as a whole that gives the impression that the intention of the drafters of the Constitution was to make a super state of the FCT. This is because all that section 299 has done is to fill up its deficiencies and aid it to be reckoned with as a state when it does not qualify to be one. Not being a state in the proper term of a state under the Constitution, the Constitution referred to all the other States and used the word “and” to bring the FCT to their level. It is in respect of this interpretation that Black’s Law Dictionary 9th Edition posited a logical and rational interpretation to a provision of a Statute.

At page 895 of the Black’s Law Dictionary, logical interpretation is defined as “the interpretation that departs from the literal words on the grounds that there may be other more satisfactory evidence of the author’s true intention”.

It is in this respect that the word “and” cannot be interpreted to be conjunctive. In defining the word “and” the Oxford Advance Learners Dictionary at page 47 said “used between repeated words to show that there are the same kind”. Thus States and the FCT differ as FCT cannot be called a State but the provisions of this Constitution shall apply to the FCT Abuja as if it were one of the States of the Federation”. It is in this light therefore that the word “and” simply highlights States properly so called and a State that is treated as one by the Constitution.

What then is the meaning of the words “and the Federal Capital Territory Abuja
The words, based on all that we have been saying above means that the FCT Abuja can be reckoned with in computing the two third of the State and has not created a behemoth and or a special State out of the FCT. Saying otherwise is going into the realms of the absurd. In Amokeodo Vs IGP (2001) FWLR (pt 33) 344 at 358 SC, Courts are enjoined to look at the whole scope of the Statute to see whether the Statute is mandatory or directory. See also Ola vs Mrs Williams (2002) FWLR (pt 121) 1996 at 2007 CA where the Court held that Statutes cannot be read in isolation, all parts must be read as a whole. It is in this light that a recourse to section 179 (4) in respect of States will help to throw light on the true intention of the drafters of the Constitution. The true intention of the drafters of the Constitution (since all the Local Government Areas mentioned are Local Government Areas properly so called and recognized by the Constitution as Local Government Areas from which a candidate is expected to have 25% of the two thirds of the Local Government Area of his State is akin to the provision of section 134 (2)(b) of the Constitution that refers to States in the Federation so as to make a recourse to it in the interpretation of that section very apt.

Thus, where a contestant is unable to garner one quarter of the votes in two- third of the States of the Federation a 25% of the votes in the FCT will fill in the gap and qualify him to be retuned elected. Any other interpretations to wit;

1. 25% of 2/3 of the State’s and FCT will produce absurdity as it will make a behemoth out of the FCT as the failure to get 25% from FCT will deny a person with 30 States (like the APC) or even 25% in all the 36 States of the Federation a return as elected.

2. It is not and can never be the intention of the Constitution to make a State more special than any other State in Nigeria or rank equal with all the States of the Federation put together as a block in the determination of who is returned as elected in an election to the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

3. If as in this present issue, a party wins in 3 Area Council with less population and another candidate wins 3 other Area Councils with higher population than the previous Area Councils, will it be said that even having won 25% in 30 States such a candidate is to be denied the benefit of a return even after winning more than 50% of the Area Councils under the FCT? Will that be fair and just to the candidate? Will that not amount to an absurdity?. 25% are calculated in relation to Local Government Areas under Section 179 (3) (b) of the Constitution. Literal interpretation will promote and advance injustice as well as produce absurdities of monumental proportion. We urge the Court to rely on the case of Awolowo Vs Shagari’s interpretation that will accord with commonsense and justice – see Chief Obafemi Awolowo vs Alh. Shehu Shagari and 2 Ors (1979) All NLR 120 at 135, 140, 157 and 165.

4. 25% of 2/3 of the States and FCT means literally and based on Section 299 of the Constitution 25% of 2/3 of the States and the FCT State as being what an aspirant must win to be returned elected. This is in itself a tautology and an absurdity, yet the law is that tautology must not be ascribed to the legislature - Savannah Bank Nigeria Limited and anor V Ajilo anor (Supra).

Conclusion

In conclusion, where a judge is faced with construction, interpretation and application of a statutory provision to the facts ascertained by him in a case, he must read the Statute to ascertain how its meaning relates to the case in controversy.

If the words used resolve the controversy, the inquiry terminates there, if the language or meaning does not resolve the controversy or the inquiry, then, the judge must adjust and apply an appropriate judicial rule to decide and resolve the case or issue in controversy - Victor Adegoke Adewumi & anor Vs AG. Ekiti State & Ors (2002) 1 SC 47 at 70-1.

The Court should avoid narrow interpretation that would do violence to the said provisions that fail to achieve the goals of the drafters of that section of the Constitution – AG Ondo State Vs A.G Federation & 2 Ors (2002) 6SC (pt1) 1 at 28.



Stephen O. Ayinmode
A private Legal Practitioner based in Kaduna
He can be contacted on 08034528556

tbarrister:
Or maybe the obidients are a loud minorities that can be found on social media, cities and capitals of states while the silent majority only know APC and PDP.

If elections were rigged, I'm sure they'll want to rig the fct too or rig kano, kaduna, katsina, lagos etc


You guys should admit it , you were beaten fair. Only a foolish opposition divides itself into various parties and factions and expect to remove a sitting party

There is no governor in abuja
No Structure of criminality in abuja

There is no one to intimidate anyone in abuja

They can't try to rig election here na die b that.

Rivers, Akwa ibom, Benue was rigged in favour of APC nobody doubt that

ScamHunter:
As in, it was an easy ride rigging state after state. What happened in Abuja? Did they forget and never knew it would hook them on the throat down the line?

They rigged the areas they felt they didn't have a clear advantage like Rivers, Benue, Delta, Edo, Akwa Ibom etc leaving the ones they felt were 'in the bag' like Lagos (they rigged but it was too late to finish), Osun, Kaduna, Plateau, Nasarawa, Kano etc.

tbarrister:
Or maybe the obidients are a loud minorities that can be found on social media, cities and capitals of states while the silent majority only know APC and PDP.

If elections were rigged, I'm sure they'll want to rig the fct too or rig kano, kaduna, katsina, lagos etc


You guys should admit it , you were beaten fair. Only a foolish opposition divides itself into various parties and factions and expect to remove a sitting party

You are the only person that thinks this election was free and fair...

There was no Abuja governor to plan the rigging with that's whyThere was no Abuja governor to plan the rigging with that's why...