Na zombideents go still cry here pass

Slurity:
IT'S A WASTE OF TIME. THEY WILL LOSE BIG TIME. I WANT TO BELIEVE THEY ARE HEADING FOR SUPREME COURT JUST TO SAVE FACE. It's just too obvious they made two big mistakes.
Supreme court can never overlook those two errors.

"how Yusuf could have been successfully nominated on the INEC portal if his name was not submitted with the NNPP membership card" did you also read this?
Also Whose name was on the returning certificate issued by INEC?

Jostoman:
The judgement is totally a miscarriage of justice because i dont know what concern APC and Gawuna with NNPP membership.

I thought Supreme court said one party can not meddle in the affairs of other political party or they want to change their ruling to favour APC again as usual.

Wait and see same supreme court explain that previous ruling to favour APC. They have 101 ways of twisting the law to favour the highest bidder.
Yes the judiciary is the hope of the common man; provided no one bids for the rulings.

DeLaRue:


From what I understand, the register of members submitted to INEC by NNPP didn't have the man's name.

That's fait accompli.

But how did the certificate of return issued by INEC had Yusuf's name on it if truly his name wasn't in their record as NNPP candidate?

Yusuf and nnpp were caught off guard. Kano is Apc already....lost both in tribunal and appeal court,he thinks supreme Court will be different.

AbuAeesha:


"how Yusuf could have been successfully nominated on the INEC portal if his name was not submitted with the NNPP membership card" did you also read this?
Also Whose name was on the returning certificate issued by INEC?

You need to get the point clear else, you will miss the real argument. Registration with inec is different from been a member of a political party first, Yusuf is a member of NNPP from the party"s view but there is a stipulated time frame that that membership must be fulfill else it's will not stand. It is not for inec to argue for a party if there no need. But opponent can raise the argument.

DeLaRue:


From what I understand, the register of members submitted to INEC by NNPP didn't have the man's name.

That's fait accompli.

The Supreme Court has long settled this kind of case.

Even an Appeal Court settles this in APM v. Peter Obi just this year.

fergie001:
The Supreme Court has long settled this kind of case.

Even an Appeal Court settles this in APM v. Peter Obi just this year.

He was removed on two grounds. The 160k unsigned ballots and his non-membership of NNPP. Again, the case against him is different from that of Peter Obi and APM. Apart from the fact that his name was not found in the register of NNPP members, he was unable to provide a valid membership card of NNPP.

So, this is about the constitutional requirement that a candidate for governorship election must be a member of a political party. If he couldn’t prove to the court that he’s a member of NNPP, what then do you want the court to do?

Waste of time

The case has already been decided at the appeal court

The Supreme court is 100% of acedemic exercise

Supreme Court will set aside that rubbish judgment the Court of Appeal delivered. How do u talk about membership of a political party in an election petition case. If he was not a member of NNPP, how did INEC manufacture his name and NNPP logo and give to Abba, was he not nominated by that party.

seunmsg:
He was removed on two grounds. The 160k unsigned ballots and his non-membership of NNPP. Again, the case against him is different from that of Peter Obi and APM. Apart from the fact that his name was not found in the register of NNPP members, he was unable to provide a valid membership card of NNPP.

So, this is about the constitutional requirement that a candidate for governorship election must be a member of a political party. If he couldn’t prove to the court that he’s a member of NNPP, what then do you want the court to do?

I will focus on the membership register of the Political Party argument.

Visit this thread: https://www.nairaland.com/7753103/obi-not-member-labour-party#124226839

Olanipekun submitted the membership register of Labour Party and Obi's name was missing.

Olanipekun further argued on behalf of Tinubu and Shettima that Obi had no locus to file same because he is an independent Candidate.

The tribunal held that only a Party can determine her members.

A tribunal sits in 5, that means their decision even supercedes this judgement, the Courts must provide clarity and not cherry-pick Judgements like we saw in Plateau.

This was what the tribunal said when Olanipekun submitted the register!

It is a waste of time as long it is APC ... tinubu owns INEC, Court... tinubu is the Court himself.... it can never be taken unless God wishes... remember God says if there's no work faith is useless.... get ur mandate by force whatever means ....grab, snatch and run

Jostoman:
The judgement is totally a miscarriage of justice because i dont know what concern APC and Gawuna with NNPP membership.

I thought Supreme court said one party can not meddle in the affairs of other political party or they want to change their ruling to favour APC again as usual.

But what was the interest of labour party and Obi in APC and Shettima double nomination?

damkin24:

But what was the interest of labour party and Obi in APC and Shettima double nomination?

you hear what supreme said about it

He who laughs last, laughs best!

seunmsg:


He was removed on two grounds. The 160k unsigned ballots and his non-membership of NNPP. Again, the case against him is different from that of Peter Obi and APM. Apart from the fact that his name was not found in the register of NNPP members, he was unable to provide a valid membership card of NNPP.

So, this is about the constitutional requirement that a candidate for governorship election must be a member of a political party. If he couldn’t prove to the court that he’s a member of NNPP, what then do you want the court to do?

Here is what the law says as regards ballot papers not signed and stamped


"(1) Subject to subsection (2), a ballot paper which does not bear
official mark prescribed by the Commission shall not be counted.
(2) If the returning officer is satisfied that a ballot paper which does not
bear the official mark was from a book of ballot papers which was furnished
to the presiding officer of the polling unit in which the vote was cast for use at
the election in question, he or she shall, notwithstanding the absence of the
official mark, count that ballot paper".

From the above, the law provided a leeway to the issue of unsigned and unstamped ballot papers.

Slurity:
it is about the Nigerian law and not about belonging to that particular party. Nigerian law said you must belong to a particular part before you can contest for any political position.
Don't also forget that, the second reason the court sack the NNPP governor is even more huge than the first. Over 160k votes of NNPP votes has been removed because they where not sign nor stamped by Inec and counted for only NNPP candidate which clearly means rigging of that election. After removal of those vote, he came second position.

Here is what the law says as regards ballot papers not signed and stamped


"(1) Subject to subsection (2), a ballot paper which does not bear
official mark prescribed by the Commission shall not be counted.
(2) If the returning officer is satisfied that a ballot paper which does not
bear the official mark was from a book of ballot papers which was furnished
to the presiding officer of the polling unit in which the vote was cast for use at
the election in question, he or she shall, notwithstanding the absence of the
official mark, count that ballot paper".

From the above, the law provided a leeway to the issue of unsigned and unstamped ballot papers.

Olatundex22:
don’t discredit NIGERIA JUDICIARY for their wrongdoing , the over 160k votes that has no INEC signatures and stamp is that judiciary or the INEC party registration list submitted by NNPP that he’s name was not among is judicial system wrongdoing.

Here is what the law says as regards ballot papers not signed and stamped


"(1) Subject to subsection (2), a ballot paper which does not bear
official mark prescribed by the Commission shall not be counted.
(2) If the returning officer is satisfied that a ballot paper which does not
bear the official mark was from a book of ballot papers which was furnished
to the presiding officer of the polling unit in which the vote was cast for use at
the election in question, he or she shall, notwithstanding the absence of the
official mark, count that ballot paper".

From the above, the law provided a leeway to the issue of unsigned and unstamped ballot papers.

Effortless Effort!!
The governor of demolition must go down in the history of Kano.

Never built a single structure but demolished 100 houses in less than three months.

Never built a round about, but demolished a beautiful round about, with excuses that it has Cross in the middle. The Cross will definitely chase you out of the government house.

Useless hypocrite governor, if people like him have chance, he will demolish all Churches in Kano State.

Slurity:
it is about the Nigerian law and not about belonging to that particular party. Nigerian law said you must belong to a particular part before you can contest for any political position.
Don't also forget that, the second reason the court sack the NNPP governor is even more huge than the first. Over 160k votes of NNPP votes has been removed because they where not sign nor stamped by Inec and counted for only NNPP candidate which clearly means rigging of that election. After removal of those vote, he came second position.

Is that what the Law says or it is your own opinion?

Truths9ja:


Here is what the law says as regards ballot papers not signed and stamped


"(1) Subject to subsection (2), a ballot paper which does not bear
official mark prescribed by the Commission shall not be counted.
(2) If the returning officer is satisfied that a ballot paper which does not
bear the official mark was from a book of ballot papers which was furnished
to the presiding officer of the polling unit in which the vote was cast for use at
the election in question, he or she shall, notwithstanding the absence of the
official mark, count that ballot paper".

From the above, the law provided a leeway to the issue of unsigned and unstamped ballot papers.

So, did NNPP’s lawyer call the returning officer to testify that he/ she was satisfied that the ballot came from booklets provided by INEC?

fergie001:

I will focus on the membership register of the Political Party argument.

Visit this thread: https://www.nairaland.com/7753103/obi-not-member-labour-party#124226839

Olanipekun submitted the membership register of Labour Party and Obi's name was missing.

Olanipekun further argued on behalf of Tinubu and Shettima that Obi had no locus to file same because he is an independent Candidate.

The tribunal held that only a Party can determine her members.

A tribunal sits in 5, that means their decision even supercedes this judgement, the Courts must provide clarity and not cherry-pick Judgements like we saw in Plateau.

This was what the tribunal said when Olanipekun submitted the register!

Only presidential tribunal consist of 5 justices from the appeal court..other tribunals have 3 justices from the high courts

The presidential tribunal judgement doesn't supercede that of the appeal court, even if the appeal court sit in a panel of 3 judges as they now do

Emyzoloye5:


Only presidential tribunal consist of 5 justices from the appeal court..other tribunals have 3 justices from the high courts

The presidential tribunal judgement doesn't supercede that of the appeal court, even if the appeal court sit in a panel of 3 judges as they now do

Can a Supreme Court sitting in 5 invalidate another panel sitting in 7?

Yes or No?

fergie001:

Can a Supreme Court sitting in 5 invalidate another panel sitting in 7?

Yes or No?

No it can't, it's judgement is supreme be it 5 or 7 judges

Emyzoloye5:
No it can't, it's judgement is supreme be it 5 or 7 judges

Exactly.

If a panel sitting in 7 rules on a matter, those sitting in 5 cannot upturn same no matter how bizarre. Only a panel sitting in 7 can do so. The panel sitting in 5 MUST always follow that decision of the panel that sat in 7.

Olatundex22:
don’t discredit NIGERIA JUDICIARY for their wrongdoing , the over 160k votes that has no INEC signatures and stamp is that judiciary or the INEC party registration list submitted by NNPP that he’s name was not among is judicial system wrongdoing.

so you mean everytime new members joined a party you must inform inec?

fergie001:
Exactly.

If a panel sitting in 7 rules on a matter, those sitting in 5 cannot upturn same no matter how bizarre. Only a panel sitting in 7 can do so. The panel sitting in 5 MUST always follow that decision of the panel that sat in 7.

Your opinion is misleading, theres no truth in it

RALPHOW:
Effortless Effort!!
The governor of demolition must go down in the history of Kano.

Never built a single structure but demolished 100 houses in less than three months.

Never built a round about, but demolished a beautiful round about, with excuses that it has Cross in the middle. The Cross will definitely chase you out of the government house.

Useless hypocrite governor, if people like him have chance, he demolish all Churches in Kano State.

100! But that's so much. Why did he have to do that?

Emyzoloye5:
Your opinion is misleading, theres no truth in it

You can confirm.

The SC sits in 7 especially on Constitutional matters. No matter how wrong or bizarre that judgement is, for it to be vacated, they must sit in 7. It's a conventional procedure.

The Appeal Court can also sit in 5 if it's a Constitutional matter as well like in Jegede v. Aketi.