This is fraud.

Aiel123:

Have you seen the ctc of the judgement?
What is your take?

The CTC is not out yet that's why I haven't commented on it.

1. The SC position on this kind of cases is clear in:
Rt. Hon. Prince Terhemen Tarzoor V. Ortom Samuel Ioraer & Ors
Alhassan & Anor. v. Ishaku & Ors

In both judgements, the SC was emphatic that the tribunal has no vires to examine how Party Primaries are conducted.

Unfortunately last year, the Appeal Court sacked Musa Agah who won the Bassa/Jos bye-election for the Plateau PDP not having a valid State EXCO in a suit filed by Alkali from PRP.

Ironically, Agah won again this year and Alkali has gone to the tribunal with the same pleadings. This case will end at the Appeal Court but until we see what they both argued, we can't tell.

IfnobeGod20:

Mr. Man, you're comparing the incomparable. The constitution is superior to any other Act or guidelines. The requirements to contest or disqualify a candidate either at the state or federal levels have been captured by it and there is nowhere it stated that non-availability of candidate name in the party membership register will be a criteria to disqualify candidate. Nothing can be manufacture outside the constitution and there is nowhere in the constitution or electoral Act where it stipulates that people would not be absorb or sponsor after political party have submitted their membership register to INEC 30 days to party's primary. Mr. Brother that judgement cannot stand head to head against judiciary scrutiny. It's dead on arrival.

Meanwhile, there is a penalty for not uploading the results at the polling units as prescribed in section 60 of Nigeria Electoral Act 2022 (Counting of Votes and Forms)

Read the section and the penalty afterwards for disobeying the section.

(1) The Presiding officer shall, after counting the votes at the polling unit, enter the votes scored by each candidate in a form to be prescribed by the Commission as the case may be.

(2) The form shall be signed and stamped by the presiding officer and counter signed by the candidates or their polling agents where available at the polling unit.


(3) The presiding officer shall give to the polling agents and the police officer where available a copy each of the completed forms after it has been duly signed as provided under subsection (2).

(4) The presiding officer shall count and announce the result at the polling unit.

(5) The presiding officer shall transfer the results including total number of accredited voters and the results of the ballot in a manner as prescribed by the Commission.
'footnote'
Pls what are they transferring?
Did the commission prescribed any method to transfer the said accredited voters and results of the ballot?

(6) A presiding officer who wilfully contravenes any provision of this section commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not more than N5 00,000 or imprisonment for a term of at least six months.

'Footnote'
This is the penalty accrued for not following the law and guideline provided by the commission.

Now I want you to show me and the rest of the world a penalty that follow non-availability of candidate name on the party membership register after the register has been submitted 30 days to party's primary. We need to grow up and stop assumption of what is not written in the Act. The Act was so silent after requesting party register to be submitted.
Again, even if it is written that people cannot be absorbed into the party after register submitted. That would have go against the constitution because it is not captured in it and will also be against Freedom of Association allowed constitutionally.

In that subsection (6), if a wrongdoing attract penalty, the product of the wrong doing is called what, if truly you're a learned person as you portrayed.

When I saw your lengthy post, I thought you had something reasonable to say.

I asked you to show me where it was expressly stated in the constitution or electoral act that the penalty for not uploading results from polling units to IREV is cancellation of the results and you’re here spewing gibberish. You can come back when you have the answer or stop wasting my time posting irrelevant nonsense.

fergie001:
The CTC is not out yet that's why I haven't commented on it.

1. The SC position on this kind of cases is clear in:
Rt. Hon. Prince Terhemen Tarzoor V. Ortom Samuel Ioraer & Ors
Alhassan & Anor. v. Ishaku & Ors

In both judgements, the SC was emphatic that the tribunal has no vires to examine how Party Primaries are conducted.

Unfortunately last year, the Appeal Court sacked Musa Agah who won the Bassa/Jos bye-election for the Plateau PDP not having a valid State EXCO in a suit filed by Alkali from PRP.

Ironically, Agah won again this year and Alkali has gone to the tribunal with the same pleadings. This case will end at the Appeal Court but until we see what they both argued, we can't tell.

The 2 cases you referred to were decided by the Supreme Court before the enactment of the 2022 electoral act I think. The Supreme Court has really not ruled on the interpretation and implication of section 77 of the 2022 electoral act.

What do you think is the intention of the legislature when they made that provision? Is it just for decoration? Why is there a need for political parties to submit their membership register to INEC at least 30 days before primary election when someone can still join the party on the day of primary and vote or be voted for at the primary?

seunmsg:


The 2 cases you referred to were not decided by the Supreme Court before the enactment of the 2022 electoral act I think. The Supreme Court has not really not ruled on the interpretation and implication of section 77 of the 2022 electoral act.

What do you think is the intention of the legislature when they made that provision? It just for decoration. Why is there a need for political parties to submit their membership register to INEC at least 30 days before primary election when someone can still join the party on the day of primary and vote or be voted for at the primary? Even me I don't know.

😝😝😝😝😝 Kadoso Mutairu aka seunmsg!

fergie001:

Amadi has spent only 2 years at the Appeal Court and you want them to push him? He didn't even come from a regular Court, he came from the National Industrial Court... Again, he is not young, he is 60yo and even older than Onyemenam/Ogbuinya.

Agim spent 9 years at the Appeal Court, he had age compared to Agube who has now retired. Agim has been Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in Swaziland and also Chief Justice of the Gambia Supreme Court so his own doesn't come as a surprise.

That's why I said Onyemenam is best bet because of her age unless the highly cerebral Ogbuinya (who is 58yo) is picked ahead of her. Again, Augie will be leaving September this year which means one woman maybe favoured to go up. With Umahi's influence, one of them must go up for sure.

Orji-Abadua is from Imo, just like Nwosu-Iheme (the first female Judge to bag a PhD). They are both 64 but like Ebonyi, Imo have gotten their fair share.

Ogakwu went up with Ugo, Oyewole (who will definitely go to the SC) & co same day. This 2014 set doesn't have a SC Judge yet and I know Tinubu will definitely fish from there. Ogakwu (59yo) is from Enugu like Nweze.

For SS, it's straight fight between Biobele (58), Ugo (58) & Adumein (59).
Yes, but he is retired now.

With nweze for Enugu still there,ogbuinya gets it.i think oyewole will go and replace ariwoola who retires next year.filling in for osun/oyo.ekun covers Lagos/Ogun while ogunwumiju is for ondo/ekiti.with crs and aks covered ,it will fall on rivers bayelsa and Ugo being on pept is an advantage or oho for delta edo.for NC,Joseph ikyegh should get it.

seunmsg:


When I saw your lengthy post, I thought you had something reasonable to say.

I asked you to show me where it was expressly stated in the constitution or electoral act that the penalty for not uploading results from polling units to IREV is cancellation of the results and you’re here spewing gibberish. You can come back when you have the answer or stop wasting my time posting irrelevant nonsense.

As you're trying to be smart by half looking for where it was boldly written IREVs before you can use your intelligence to decipher simple sentences in a section of the electoral Act. What you're looking for is irking to looking for where they wrote BVAS in the electoral Act while the Act says Card Reader and any other electronic device that may be deployed by the commission.
If the Act says the results at the polling units shall be transmitted by the polling officers as may be prescribed by the commission. The question is, what does the commission prescribed by their guidelines?
Section 60 (5) says as may be prescribed by the commission and the follow up section gave a penalty for contravention.
Here below is the sections and stop feign ignorant of the law.
"(5) The presiding officer shall transfer the results including total number of accredited voters and the results of the ballot in a manner as prescribed by the Commission.
'footnote'
Pls what are they transferring?
Did the commission prescribed any method to transfer the said accredited voters and results of the ballot?

(6) A presiding officer who wilfully contravenes any provision of this section commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not more than N5 00,000 or imprisonment for a term of at least six months"

You can continue commenting and be liking your comment yourself while you're commenting jargon.

fergie001:
The CTC is not out yet that's why I haven't commented on it.

1. The SC position on this kind of cases is clear in:
Rt. Hon. Prince Terhemen Tarzoor V. Ortom Samuel Ioraer & Ors
Alhassan & Anor. v. Ishaku & Ors

In both judgements, the SC was emphatic that the tribunal has no vires to examine how Party Primaries are conducted.

Unfortunately last year, the Appeal Court sacked Musa Agah who won the Bassa/Jos bye-election for the Plateau PDP not having a valid State EXCO in a suit filed by Alkali from PRP.

Ironically, Agah won again this year and Alkali has gone to the tribunal with the same pleadings. This case will end at the Appeal Court but until we see what they both argued, we can't tell.

Ok
Mention me when you get the ctc pls
This law stuff is funny sometimes.
The same court will tell you that you can't build on nothing and still tell you noone can interfer with how parties run their primaries (internal affairs)

IfnobeGod20:

As you're trying to be smart by half looking for where it was boldly written IREVs before you can use your intelligence to decipher simple sentences in a section of the electoral Act. What you're looking for is irking to looking for where they wrote BVAS in the electoral Act while the Act says Card Reader and any other electronic device that may be deployed by the commission.
If the Act says the results at the polling units shall be transmitted by the polling officers as may be prescribed by the commission. The question is, what does the commission prescribed by their guidelines?
Section 60 (5) says as may be prescribed by the commission and the follow up section gave a penalty for contravention.
Here below is the sections and stop feign ignorant of the law.
"(5) The presiding officer shall transfer the results including total number of accredited voters and the results of the ballot in a manner as prescribed by the Commission.
'footnote'
Pls what are they transferring?
Did the commission prescribed any method to transfer the said accredited voters and results of the ballot?

(6) A presiding officer who wilfully contravenes any provision of this section commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not more than N5 00,000 or imprisonment for a term of at least six months"

You can continue commenting and be liking your comment yourself while you're commenting jargon.

I have seen the penalty imposed by the act for polling officers who willfully violate any provision of the act. Now, Show me where the act provides that the penalty for not uploading results directly from polling units to IREV is cancellation of election and stop wasting my time with lengthy gibberish.

seunmsg:

The 2 cases you referred to were decided by the Supreme Court before the enactment of the 2022 electoral act I think. The Supreme Court has really not ruled on the interpretation and implication of section 77 of the 2022 electoral act.

What do you think is the intention of the legislature when they made that provision? Is it just for decoration? Why is there a need for political parties to submit their membership register to INEC at least 30 days before primary election when someone can still join the party on the day of primary and vote or be voted for at the primary?

The Constitution will always trump the Electoral Act.

The Supreme Court affirmed many Candidates who joined their parties even a day to Primaries.

Bulkachuwa, Yahaya, Akanimo Udofia... name them.

It has nothing to do with 30 days..... It is jurisdictional. locus-dependent.

Once you do not have jurisdiction, you can't sue. The SC has not changed its position irrespective of S77.

See Section 84(14) of the Electoral Act 2022:

Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act or rules of a political party, an aspirant who complains that any of the provisions of this Act and the guidelines of a political party have not been complied with in the selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election, may apply to the Federal High Court for redress.

---

The SC in NDIC v. Okem (2004) which was also re-echoed in Peter Obi v INEC (2007)
Notwithstanding used in a section of the statute is meant to: exclude any impending effect of any other provision of the statute or other subordinate legislation so that the said section may fulfill itself.

---

The tribunal ordinarily is stripped off jurisdiction to handle same, following the interpretation.

Again, just this year alone based on the Electoral Act 2022, 3 Appeal Court judgements have reacted to S77 & nomination:

The Electoral Act is not infallible, the Courts shot down certain sections of the Electoral Act 2010.

(08/02/2023) in APM v Peter Obi:
The panel headed by the PCA was emphatic that:
1. It is an internal affairs of a Political Party.
2. It is a pre-election matter by virtue of S285.

This year again... Abueh v INEC (05/01/2023)
Appeal Court:
"A political party is not allowed by extant Electoral Act, 2022 and the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to sue another political party in a bid to challenge the nomination of the latter party’s candidates elected from primary election conducted by the latter political party and seeking to prevent the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from acting on the list of candidates submitted to it by the political party sued.”

Appeal Court in PDP v INEC (Makurdi): (23/01/2023):
“In the light of all I have stated above, it seems clear to me and I so firmly hold that by whatever canons of interpretation employed on the provisions and wordings of Section 285(14) (c) of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 as amended it can neither accommodate nor confer any locus standi on one political party to challenge the internal affairs or planning, preparations and holding of the primary election of another political party.

“Simply put, the Appellants/Cross-Respondents, being PDP and its candidates for the House of Representatives in the 2023 General Elections lack the locus standi to challenge by way of instituting their Suit before the lower Court to challenge the planning, preparations, and holding or even non-holding of primary elections by the 2ndRespondent, APC.”

Appeal Court : PDP v INEC (Nov 2022)
“The appellant is a member of PDP, not APC, and even if he is a member of the APC, he would have no locus to challenge the nomination of the 1st Respondent as he is not one of the Aspirants who participated in the primary election. In my view, he is a meddlesome interloper who has assumed the position of the hired mourner and is crying more than the bereaved”.

Just this year in PDP v Shettima:
In its judgment, the apex court held that section 284(14)(c) of the constitution does not extend to a party poking into the affairs of another party no matter how pained and disgruntled it may be.

“The position of the law has always been that no political party can challenge the nomination of a candidate of another political party.”

In Summary:
All of these judgements say the same thing:
- It is pre-election
- It is internal affairs of a Political Party


This is the reason I have said let's wait for the CTC so that we can rightly explore the judgement in toto.

garfield1:
With nweze for Enugu still there,ogbuinya gets it.i think oyewole will go and replace ariwoola who retires next year.filling in for osun/oyo.ekun covers Lagos/Ogun while ogunwumiju is for ondo/ekiti.with crs and aks covered ,it will fall on rivers bayelsa and Ugo being on pept is an advantage or oho for delta edo.for NC,Joseph ikyegh should get it.

You and this Oho sef......

That's why I mentioned Biobele (his twin brother is VC UNIPORT), Ugo and Adumein.

Adumein got into the Appeal Court before the other two.


https://www.nairaland.com/7776443/tribunal-sacks-lps-ngozi-okolie/7#124642554 (You can help throw more light here (Aiel123)!

This is a serious crack for LP following the activities LP will loose more seats base on their factional Chairmanship saga. LP Otilo🤷‍♀️

fergie001:

The Constitution will always trump the Electoral Act.

The Supreme Court affirmed many Candidates who joined their parties even a day to Primaries.

Bulkachuwa, Yahaya, Akanimo Udofia... name them.

It has nothing to do with 30 days..... It is jurisdictional. locus-dependent.

Once you do not have jurisdiction, you can't sue. The SC has not changed its position irrespective of S77.

See Section 84(14) of the Electoral Act 2022:

Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act or rules of a political party, an aspirant who complains that any of the provisions of this Act and the guidelines of a political party have not been complied with in the selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election, may apply to the Federal High Court for redress.

---

The SC in NDIC v. Okem (2004) which was also re-echoed in Peter Obi v INEC (2007)
Notwithstanding used in a section of the statute is meant to: exclude any impending effect of any other provision of the statute or other subordinate legislation so that the said section may fulfill itself.

---

The tribunal ordinarily is stripped off jurisdiction to handle same, following the interpretation.

Again, just this year alone based on the Electoral Act 2022, 3 Appeal Court judgements have reacted to S77 & nomination:

The Electoral Act is not infallible, the Courts shot down certain sections of the Electoral Act 2010.

(08/02/2023) in APM v Peter Obi:
The panel headed by the PCA was emphatic that:
1. It is an internal affairs of a Political Party.
2. It is a pre-election matter by virtue of S285.

This year again... Abueh v INEC (05/01/2023)
Appeal Court:
"A political party is not allowed by extant Electoral Act, 2022 and the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to sue another political party in a bid to challenge the nomination of the latter party’s candidates elected from primary election conducted by the latter political party and seeking to prevent the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from acting on the list of candidates submitted to it by the political party sued.”

Appeal Court in PDP v INEC (Makurdi): (23/01/2023):
“In the light of all I have stated above, it seems clear to me and I so firmly hold that by whatever canons of interpretation employed on the provisions and wordings of Section 285(14) (c) of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 as amended it can neither accommodate nor confer any locus standi on one political party to challenge the internal affairs or planning, preparations and holding of the primary election of another political party.

“Simply put, the Appellants/Cross-Respondents, being PDP and its candidates for the House of Representatives in the 2023 General Elections lack the locus standi to challenge by way of instituting their Suit before the lower Court to challenge the planning, preparations, and holding or even non-holding of primary elections by the 2ndRespondent, APC.”

Appeal Court : PDP v INEC (Nov 2022)
“The appellant is a member of PDP, not APC, and even if he is a member of the APC, he would have no locus to challenge the nomination of the 1st Respondent as he is not one of the Aspirants who participated in the primary election. In my view, he is a meddlesome interloper who has assumed the position of the hired mourner and is crying more than the bereaved”.

Just this year in PDP v Shettima:
In its judgment, the apex court held that section 284(14)(c) of the constitution does not extend to a party poking into the affairs of another party no matter how pained and disgruntled it may be.

“The position of the law has always been that no political party can challenge the nomination of a candidate of another political party.”

In Summary:
All of these judgements say the same thing:
- It is pre-election
- It is internal affairs of a Political Party


This is the reason I have said let's wait for the CTC so that we can rightly explore the judgement in toto.

Alright. Let’s wait for the CTC of the judgement and the final decision of the appeal court.

Tareq1105:


Is he a member of LP?

Is his name on the Register submitted to INEC for the purpose of the 2023 General Election?

INEC announced his name. Labour Party submitted his name as their candidate, the primary took place within the stipulated window. You all can continue to carry on with your propaganda... we will be here for it

seunmsg:


I have seen the penalty imposed by the act for polling officers who willfully violate any provision of the act. Now, Show me where the act provides that the penalty for not uploading results directly from polling units to IREV is cancellation of election and stop wasting my time with lengthy gibberish.

You're wrong, it's penalty for wilfully contravening section 60(1-5) and not any provision of the Act has you insinuated. The penalty does not cover all electoral Act sections.
Please my friend, I do hope you did comprehension in secondary school? Please can you now go back and reread the provision but this time around read it slowly as to get the meaning. If the section says transmit as stipulated in section 60 (5) as prescribed by the commission in their INEC guidelines for 2023 elections as captured in section 92 and 93.
By now I expected you to show me section of the electoral Act where the judge premised his judgement and ourst that LP member. At least in every dos, there should be donts. Please where is it written in the electoral Act that penalty for non-availability of candidate name in the party's register is disqualification. Just stop shifting goal post to justify your assertion, show me a section that backed your jubilation of that judgement.

FreeStuffsNG:
smh.

Mr Obi was not a member of LP as at the deadline time LP submitted its membership register to INEC. No court waved aside that fact for Obi as it's now clearly shown that what Obi did was an infraction on the Electoral law. Not even the court judgement Obidatti is using to confuse you waved it aside for Mr Obi or recognised him as a candidate beyond his name featuring on a list of candidates INEC published! Read the judgement of the AC that Mr Obi is clawing on as a straw :

The Appeal Court waved aside the argument by both Obi and the LP that the suit was statute barred.

The appellate court noted that whereas Obi resigned from the PDP on May 24, 2022, INEC published his name as candidate of the LP on September 20, 2022.

It further observed that following the publication of Obi’s name, the APM, being a registered political party that also has a candidate for the presidential election, filed its suit on September 30, 2022.

The court held that since the suit was filed exactly 11 days after Obi’s name was published by INEC, it was not caught by the 14 days limitation stipulated in Section 285 (9) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, and therefore not statute barred.

However, it held that Sections 29 (5), 84(14) and 142 of the Electoral Act, as well as Section 285(14) of the Constitution, clearly defined a person that could lodge a pre-election case to disqualify a candidate in an election.

The appellate court stressed that under section 157 of the Electoral Act, only an aspirant could challenge the nomination of a candidate to INEC.

It held that APM did not qualify as an aspirant, adding that the duty of INEC was to publish names submitted to it by political parties.

The court held that by INEC publishing Obi’s name, “it has done no more than comply with provisions of the Electoral Act”.

More so, the appellate court held that though the APM alleged that Obi’s name was not on the register the LP submitted to INEC, it failed to tender the said register in evidence.
Now, every candidate and LP aspirant challenging LP mandate 'place holder' in court is presenting the LP register in every court. Even the few seats LP got from the illegality will be lost. PDP and APC will gain more seats following this judgement.

LP register is now hot cake. Trust Mr Arabambi and co who are the real owners of LP to by now be mass producing it for anyone who needs it to prove their case in court and claim back the mandate illegally obtained by LP impostors a.k.a Mandate Thieves
Mr Obi ti lule pi sir. Check my signature for free stuffs!


The tribunal in a judgement on Monday, held that Okolie was not duly sponsored by the Labour Party as he was not a member of the party as at May 28, 2022 when the primary purportedly held.

Same ruling awaits Mr Obi.

These few days ahead of the PEPT judgement, the way and manner the back to back court judgements have been peeling away the LP illegalities and landing heavily to crush and destroy the evil unpatriotic house built with saliva from the lying tongues in LP and its mob is a forerunner of what awaits the lies-laden low budget petition of Mr Obi at the PEPT. Arabambi and Pa Apapa are vindicated. Even that our Igbo brother ,Chinedu of LP in Lagos, will receive his own reality check soon too.O ti zeh!

By now,INEC, APC, PDP and the Pa-Apapa faction should start demanding for damages from LP and their impostor candidates or press for their committal to prison for perjury, impersonation and electoral crimes. Check my signature for free stuffs!

I thought you are learned. The Appeal will throw away the ruling of the tribunal. I'm surprised that the judges in the tribunal don't follow judicial precedent.

The supreme court has ruled on similar case like this.
https://punchng.com/just-in-supreme-court-affirms-udofia-as-akwa-ibom-apc-gov-candidate/