BluntCrazeMan:
A lot of people were referring to the judgement of the Abuja Federal High Court, and that of the Appeal Court to continue to hold that PDP was meddling into the internal affairs of the APC...


The most important thing to note here is that “the Judgement of the Supreme Court would be the final interpretation”...


Now, I am not pre-empting the supreme court judgement.
But we all need to know that, when someone is outrightly disobeying the Constitution or the Electoral Act, then, anybody anywhere can take it up in the court and demand that the court would declare that he disobeyed the laws of the land, and then, be properly sanctioned according to the law; (unless of course, the law in question specially stipulated the persons who must take up such cases.. for instance issues arising from primaries, and election tribunals.. Cases of improper documentations, and improper conducts do not have specified persons who must take them up.).

If the person (or persons) clearly violated the CONSTITUTION OF THE PARTY, but they did not violate the Constitution or the Electoral Act in any way,, then the offence can be called an Internal Party Affair..

We should know where the Boundary Lines are drawn in all of these..

BluntCrazeMan:
Now, let's discuss this one too..

Gerfield1, Penguin2, Racoon, Litigator

GeneralPula:
Emeka wants to re-write the law o

fergie001:

In a nutshell, when the EA 2022 was been discussed at the NA, I complained about S29 especially, allowing only aspirants to take on issues like false declaration on oath etc.

I liked the fact that any person can challenge it but they did what they did and clothed only aspirants in many ways to do the challenging in Court.

It's the law, if I disobey the law and you do not have the jurisdiction to sue and the person who does sleeps on his/her case, then there is nothing one can do about it.

It is the lawmakers that should be questioned and not the Courts. The Judiciary simply interprets what the NASS members pass into law.

GeneralPula:
Emeka wants to re-write the law o

BluntCrazeMan:
About the Section-29 of the Electoral Act 2022,, starting from Sub-Section-3 up to Sub-Section-7...
All these Sub-Sections are distinct..
None of them is a continuation of the other..

For instance,, Sub-Section-6 is not a continuation of Sub-Section-5..

Sub-Section-6 made it clear that if the Court determines that any of the information is wrong, then the candidate AND HIS POLITICAL PARTY should be disqualified..

This Sub-Section-6 shows that it must not be someone from within the party who must take the case to court, because, it clearly shows that such a person would definitely be fighting for the downfall of their party, which is not ideal.

fergie001:

Sub-Section 6 is a continuation of 5.

An aspiramt .....

We have seen it before though...
Zamfara scenario

obi4eze:
There will be more confusion and dissention as May 29 draws nearer. And on that day, there will be crises and Tinubu will NOT be sworn-in as President. Watch and see.

BluntCrazeMan:
Then,, what was the need for Sub-Section-3 where the INEC is mandated to publicize the Nomination forms and particulars and credentials and affidavits of the Nominated Candidates within 7 days.

And Sub-Section-4 where ANY PERSON can apply to have the CTCs of these documents...

If only the Aspirants are the ones that are supposed to be the only ones who might question these documents, why then were these documents made easily available and accessible to the general public.??