in my opinion the honourable justices of the supreme court erred in this judgement.their earlier judgement clearly stated that in the eye of the law,the governors' tenure ended on may 29 2011,the court of appeal judgement which extended their tenures was rendered null and void,it goes to say that sylvia had a good case

since they judged that their tenures ended in may 2011,knowing fully well that the law cannot allow for a lacuna,it goes to say that in the eye of the law,those seats should have been the focus of an election in 2011 and the primaries conducted before the court of appeal judgement should be valid.i see GEJ's hand in this.

Lawyers in the house, please help me with how this case is different from that of Omeha and Amechi in Rivers State.

@Beaf, what joy do you derive in derailing threads & casting aspersions on people. Cant you for once see the satanic hands GEJ? Did the Supreme Court rule on your alleged extra-judicial killings?The issue here is unjust disqualification of a man who was cleared & nominated in less than 9 months earlier. What were the committed between January & September, 2011? Why was he cleared at the 1st instance, if not to deliver Bayelsa to GEJ in the Presidential election? Don't you know Sylva would have returned as Govnor if the election held last year? Stop your usual ostrich analysis. It does you no good. The matter before the court wasnt about extra-judicial killing but unlAwful disqualification!

This cocaine snorting clown never had a ghost of a chance to win the appeal anyway.

Remii: Lawyers in the house, please help me with how this case is different from that of Omeha and Amechi in Rivers State.

In the case of Amaechi/Omehia, it was just a single election process, so the issue was who was the legitimate winner/candidate. While in the case of Sylva/Seriake, there were two processes. So the question was which process was legitimate. Also, we should note that there is nothing like "candidate in waiting" Sylva went to court to contest an election which he was the nominated candidate of his party. He won and the election was cancelled. Now, he is going to the same court to claim candidacy? Was he asked to refund the salaries and allowances he collected during this time? The supreme court did the right thing. The electoral act 2010 states that no court has jurisdiction in the affairs of a political party.

FROM ALL THE FREED CORRUPT CASES AND ELECTION,I don't think we have a supreme court in Nig except PDP COURT OF NIGERIA: ALL RULES ARE NOT THE SAME.

@ E nice
you seem not to have details of the case.sylva didnt go to court to contest the outcome of an election.he went to court to challenge the validity of the primaries which dickson won seeing as the pdp already conducted a primary election in the rundown to the may 2011 election which didnt take place.

the prayers of the suit was for the court to compel inec to recognize the primary election that produced him and not the one that produced dickson.IMO he had a strong case which the supreme court should have heard based on its merit.it is judgements like this that erode/damage the integrity of the judiciary

Ibime: In the bible, David had to chide Joab for killing Absalom on his behalf.

Lets just say that even Odili did not know when some of his political enemies were eliminated and had to chide his boys on at least one occasion for overzealousness in protecting oga's political interests.

Some guys forget that certain saints they proclaim today were their oga's eyes, ears, mouth and hand during the most murderous regime Rivers State (or any state in the Federation) has ever seen.

As for Epomas contention, it is not beer parlour gossip, although open to embellishment and people who add jara. Viki boys run Rivers State and Speaker of the "House of Vikings" is no saint.

Please keep bible and ill-informed sermon out of this issue. If you are clueless on this subject matter as I have anticipated, just shut your mouth.

Delafruita: @ E nice
you seem not to have details of the case.sylva didnt go to court to contest the outcome of an election.he went to court to challenge the validity of the primaries which dickson won seeing as the pdp already conducted a primary election in the rundown to the may 2011 election which didnt take place.

Election is a process which begins with the nomination of candidates by political parties for the election (primaries) and ends with the issuance of certificate of return to the winner. In the case of the first process in which Sylva was involve, it was not completed due to Sylva going to court. Hence the need for the second process which Sylva willing indicated interest to participate in but was disqualified. So was are you saying

I think this country is plague with cabals and I am of the opinion that we do not have a Judicial system rather as mentioned by someone in this forum, PDP and her affiliates which includes the Judiciary. This judgment is to serve an unseen hand just as the Amaechi vs PDP judgment of 2007 is to serve an unseen hand. The Apex courts cannot be speaking from both sides of the mouth. What a shame.


Sylva Vs PDP: Political Parties Have Absolute Power Over Primaries –S/Court

The Supreme Court made another landmark pronouncement on Friday when it held that political parties had absolute power to determine their candidates for elections, even as it confirmed Bayelsa State Governor Seriake Dickson as the lawful governorship candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party in the state.

A full-panel of the court consequently dismissed an appeal by the former governor of the state, Timipre Sylva, challenging the decision of the ruling party to dump the first primary election won by him, in place of the second one won by Dickson, in presenting a candidate for the 2012 Bayelsa governorship election.

In the lead judgement written by Justice Bode Rhodes-Vivour, the apex court held that no court had no jurisdiction to determine who a political party should sponsor.

The same apex court had imposed Rivers State governor, Rotimi Amaechi as the lawful candidate of the PDP for the state governorship election in 2007 and sacked the party’s anointed and sitting governor, Sir Celestine Omehia.

The apex court also imposed Ifenayi Araraume as the governorship candidate of PDP in Imo State, though the party had chosen Charles Ugwuh as its candidate for the 2007 governorship election.

But the apex court’s panel unanimously held on Friday that it was the exclusive preserve of a political party to choose its candidates for election.

Rhodes-Vivour listed other absolute rights of nominating political party to include "*The right to nominate or sponsor a candidate by a political party is a domestic right of the party.

"*A member of the party has no legal right to be nominated/ sponsored.

"*A court thus has no jurisdiction to determine who a political party should sponsor.

Spyker:
The same apex court had imposed Rivers State governor, Rotimi Amaechi as the lawful candidate of the PDP for the state governorship election in 2007 and sacked the party’s anointed and sitting governor, Sir Celestine Omehia.

The apex court also imposed Ifenayi Araraume as the governorship candidate of PDP in Imo State, though the party had chosen Charles Ugwuh as its candidate for the 2007 governorship election.

But the apex court’s panel unanimously held on Friday that it was the exclusive preserve of a political party to choose its candidates for election.

Rhodes-Vivour listed other absolute rights of nominating political party to include "*The right to nominate or sponsor a candidate by a political party is a domestic right of the party.

"*A member of the party has no legal right to be nominated/ sponsored.

"*A court thus has no jurisdiction to determine who a political party should sponsor.

What the supreme court and the electoral act is saying is that once a political party has decided on which method (concensus, election, selection etc) to adopt in producing its candidate, then it must follow it's own (party) laid down rules. This is why INEC is required to be present as umpire. In the case of Amaechi/Omehia, PDP had decided on election which Amaechi won. Overnight, PDP substituted Omehia's name for Amaechi's. But in the case of Sylva/Seriake, two different processes (primaries) were conducted. The question was which of this is legal according to the electoral act 2010!

@E nice
inec was preparing to hold elections in bayelsa in 2011 but then the court of appeal ruled that their tenures be elongated.before then,primaries had already been conducted and names had been submitted to inec.then the supreme court ruled that the tenure elongation was null and void.inec simply had to continue the process

the judgement of the supreme court stated that in the eye of the law,those seats werent vacant as they should have been filled in may 2011.since the law assumes there was no lacuna,it goes to say that fresh primaries werent necessary.there,s a similar case in kogi.lets see how that goes

I see this judgement as an act of witch hunting or exercise of power and influence by GEJ. Though Sylva has sekeleton in his cupboard and all around him, he should not be denied his right. The same pre-election case which the same Supreme Court handled that made Omehia of Rivers State loose his seat to Amaechi is what the Supreme Court declared that they don't have Jurisdiction to handle.

This the major reason why this Country can't move forward as corruption has eaten deep into the facets of our bones. Did the court not consider the implication of contradicting themselves in such a case knowing quite well that they have handled similar case in the time past. The Judiciary should bury their head in shame as this Case and that of Ibori have exposed their inefficiency. I recommend that the judiciary should be scrapped and let's revert to the Old system of traditional method which has a track record of being the most effective method of judging cases.

Delafruita: @E nice
inec was preparing to hold elections in bayelsa in 2011 but then the court of appeal ruled that their tenures be elongated.before then,primaries had already been conducted and names had been submitted to inec.then the supreme court ruled that the tenure elongation was null and void.inec simply had to continue the process

Continue the process! how? Government is a continuum. It is assumed that everything Sylva did during those 8 months is valid. his salary and allowance would not be refunded, all law, acts, and contract signed by him are valid. if that is the case, how can we then go back as if nothing happened? Everybody has the right to vote and be voted for. So, are you now saying that we should wait for sylva to come down from his high horse to contest election before any other person can be voted for?
Sylva willingly submitted himself to the PDP election committee, he signed a form of "terms and conditions apply" ie agreeing to accept the committees verdict. hence the supreme courts judgement that courts have no jurisdiction in party affairs.

Since Sylva himself caused this brohaha, he has himself to blame not PDP

@E nice
in amaechi vs omehia,the supreme court ruled that it is parties that contest elections and not individuals.in ararume vs pdp,the court ruled that though primary elections are conducted by the party,they must still conform with the constituition.i still believe the supreme court should have heard this case on its merit

Delafruita: @E nice
in amaechi vs omehia,the supreme court ruled that it is parties that contest elections and not individuals.in ararume vs pdp,the court ruled that though primary elections are conducted by the party,they must still conform with the constituition.i still believe the supreme court should have heard this case on its merit

Exactly what i have been trying to say but i don't see any merits in hearing the case because it will be a waste of time.

We all know that the end has come for sylva, so he should expect to spend some few years in jail.

Delafruita: @E nice
in amaechi vs omehia,the supreme court ruled that it is parties that contest elections and not individuals.in ararume vs pdp,the court ruled that though primary elections are conducted by the party,they must still conform with the constituition.i still believe the supreme court should have heard this case on its merit

which merit?

Ibime: In the bible, David had to chide Joab for killing Absalom on his behalf.

Lets just say that even Odili did not know when some of his political enemies were eliminated and had to chide his boys on at least one occasion for overzealousness in protecting oga's political interests.

Some guys forget that certain saints they proclaim today were their oga's eyes, ears, mouth and hand during the most murderous regime Rivers State (or any state in the Federation) has ever seen.

As for Epomas contention, it is not beer parlour gossip, although open to embellishment and people who add jara. Viki boys run Rivers State and Speaker of the "House of Vikings" is no saint.

The same Amaechi wey kneel down for ALEM altar swear say him never join cult for him whole life?
Him use God name swear say him no be runs man.

The court had maintained that
“the fact that Sylva paid
N5.5million, presented himself
to the Screening Committee of
his party, and campaigned
extensively for the fresh primary elections fixed by his
party for November 19, 2011,
to choose its candidate to stand
for governor of Bayelsa in
elections fixed for February 12,
2012, indicated that he had abandoned the results of the
primaries he won in January
2011.” Also the court ruled that “the
primaries that the 1st
respondent (Sylva) won in
2011, fades into insignificance
since the elections for which
the said primaries was conducted, were cancelled.” More importantly, the court
ruled that “Courts in Nigeria do
not have jurisdiction to
question the nomination and
sponsorship of a candidate for
election”. Although Sylva described the
ruling as “no justice,” alleging
that it portrays a dark moment
for the nation’s democracy,
many observers have
maintained that the pronouncement will both
reduce election petitions in the
country and help sanitise the
polity. However, others
insisted that the ruling has
created fresh confusion when considered alongside the ruling
of the same apex court in the
case of Governor Rotimi
Amaechi of Rivers State. Obviously anticipating such
responses, the learned justices
did not fail to comment on the
matter while delivering
judgment on Sylva’s petition. Amaechi’s case The apex court, while
delivering the judgment,
explained that the case of Sylva
was distinct from the decided
case-law in Amaechi v. INEC,
pointing out that whereas Governor Rotimi Ameachi
contested the primaries and
won, but was barred from
contesting the general
elections, his party, the PDP
was unable to give cogent and verifiable reasons why he was
not allowed to contest the
election. It noted that in the instant case,
“Sylva contested primaries in
January 2011 for a general
election fixed for April 2011.
The general election was
cancelled. Fresh primaries were fixed by this party, but
he was not allowed to contest. “There is thus no similarity in
Ameachi case and this case. In
Amaechi’s case, he was barred
from contesting the general
election. In this case Governor
Sylva was barred from contesting primaries of his
party,” said the learned
justices.