₦airaland Forum

I can't believe that Falana of all people says that any Governor at all including Fayose can be prosecuted while still in office and protected by the Constitutional immunity clause. Anyway, he did not refer to any Section of the Constitution or other law or any Judicial precedent where such a thing has ever happened. It is astonishing what partisanship can do to an otherwise brilliant Lawyer. Or maybe it is arrogance which leads him to think he can just open his mouth, say whatever catches his fancy and bamboozle the public. Smh

WE NEVER DOUBTED OUR MANDATE. TO GOD BE THE GLORY

My Good people of Abia State.
It is with great joy that I address you on this beautiful day that the Lord has made.
Yesterday, Wednesday, the 3rd day of February 2016, an erudite Panel of Supreme Court Justices led by no less a personality than the Chief Justice of Nigeria, affirmed our mandate to serve you as Governor of Abia State.
This was the same mandate that you freely gave to us when you trooped out en-masse to cast your votes for me in the Governorship elections of April 11, 2015 and the supplementary elections of April 25, 2015 in Abia State.
In the aftermath of our declaration by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as the lawful winners of that election, the candidate of the All Progressives Grand Alliance challenged our victory at the Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Umuahia. The Tribunal was unequivocal in affirming our victory and dismissing his petition.
Not satisfied, he went to the Court of Appeal in Owerri and obtained a strange judgment which declared him the winner of that election. Knowing that the judgment would not stand close scrutiny and confident that it was I, Okezie Victor Ikpeazu and not any other person that you elected to serve you as your Governor, I challenged the judgment of the Court of Appeal at the Supreme Court.
To the glory of God, yesterday, the seven Justices of the Apex court unanimously upheld our victory at the polls and affirmed my mandate as the duly and rightfully elected Governor of Abia State.
My dear brothers and sisters, I was never in doubt as to my mandate to serve you. This certainty is what informed the zeal and passion with which I have approached governance since I was sworn-in as Governor. The many projects we have been able to execute within the short period we have been in office bears testimony to our burning desire to uplift the living standards of Ndi Abia.
Let me use this opportunity to once again express my heartfelt gratitude to you all good people of Abia State for the enormous confidence you reposed in me by electing me to be your Governor.
As I have always promised and as I have no doubt shown since I assumed office, more than ever before and with renewed vigour, I will make all of you proud to have voted me as your Governor.
To all those who supported my opponents, I will not begrudge you your right of choice. If your desire was to see a better Abia, then I invite you to extend that same support to me and together, we will bequeath to generations unborn an Abia State that they will be proud to call home.
That being said, yesterday’s judgment marked the end of all electoral and legal disputes relating to my mandate as the Governor of Abia State. While we will welcome constructive criticisms and corrective opposition, we urge all not to engage in any act that will jeorpadise the peace and tranquility of the state in the name of opposition politics.
Let me use this opportunity to express my deepest appreciation to all those who stood resolutely by us throughout this process from all strata of society. True brotherhood and friendship is confirmed in the face of adversity. You have proven to be reliable allies. I say a big thank you. The real work begins now. There is a lot to be done and together, we will attain our God-given potentials.
May I also call on all our supporters to be magnanimous in victory. I urge you all not to engage in any acts that will victimize our political opponents for the choices that they made. I am Governor of all Abia State and I wholeheartedly embrace everyone irrespective of the candidate that they supported. If you truly support me, then you will not victimize anyone in my name.
After all said and done, all we have to say is: To God alone be all the Glory.

Ndi Abia, Ndi Nwem, Ekelelam unu. Oga adiri unu na mma na aha Jesus.

Thank you very much and may God bless you all

Sagay was my Dean at the University of Benin and as a student was beloved by all of us, but I have to say that his comments on litigation matters have always been a terrible disappointment. It was the same way he tarnished his reputation with his comments on the Abia Guber poll Election Petition Tribunal Judgment in 2007. Sagay's problem is however very clear to understand; he is a distinguished Law teacher no doubt but he is no Barrister. There is a world of difference between theory and practice. Sagay was a law Teacher for the majority of his Professional working life, rising to become a distinguished Professor of Law specializing in Contracts. At a very late stage in his professional life, he decided to try his hands in private Legal Practice but his record in Litigation has been filled with blunder after blunder: there is a reason that the proverb says that you don't learn new tricks in old age. SAGAY IS NO LITIGATOR simple and should stop embarrassing himself by giving myopic opinions on litigation matters. He was awarded a SAN ENTIRELY for his academic accomplishments & not for anything he has ever done in the Court room. Moreover, I do not know of a single Election Petition in which SAGAY has been Lead Counsel. Election Petitions is a highly technical practice Area and many lawyers, including SANs reject such Briefs or recommend others if approached. Most Politicians know those who are experts in this exclusive area of practice & Sagay is certainly not one of them. The first Rule in critique of Judgments is that you must have all the facts of a case so that you know exactly what the Court you are criticizing knows. Moreover in these cases, the Supreme Court has not even given its reasons for the Judgments so people of the standing of SAGAY should have been slow to make such disparaging comments on our APEX Court for now. It would be understandable if this was some green-wig lawyer or rabble-rousing "radical" lawyer making these comments. NOW TO THE ISSUE: I have some suspicions as to why almost all the Governorship cases will end up this way. First, the Supreme Court is consistently known and revered for its CONSISTENCY over the years. With the SC, you know exactly what the law is unlike the Courts of Appeal who keep on putting their foot in their mouth and somersaulting all the time. Most Petitioners in this election circle took the easy way out by relying & putting the fate of their Petitions on Card Readers. The traditional way of prosecuting & proving electoral malpractices is very difficult & so when the issue of Card Readers came up, they shouted "eureka" & focused all their energies on proving malpractices using Card Reader data. Even those who pleaded other forms of malpractices & non-compliance failed to call adequate evidence on them as proving malpractices through Card Reader data appeared simpler & straight forward. But they did not take cognizance of one thing: Card Reader as part of the accreditation process IS NOT YET part of our Electoral Laws. Card Reader is commendable; it will reduce rigging; it will improve transparency in the electoral process BUT IT IS NOT PART OF THE LAW YET: you cannot put something on nothing. The fault for this lacuna should not be put on the doorsteps of the SC but is entirely that of INEC. INEC failed to get accreditation by Card Reader legislated into law before the elections. The duty of any Court, including the SC is to interpret the law: in doing so, a Court should interpret the law AS IT IS and not AS IT OUGHT TO BE. This forum is not adequate to expantiate on this issue but let me finalize by saying this: the mode of accreditation recognized by the Electoral Act is as set out at Section 49 of the Act. Once the data & details of a prospective voter appears in the Voter's Register & match that in his PVC, he should be given a ballot paper and allowed to vote. There is no mention of Card Reader anywhere in the Electoral Act & so INEC Presiding Officers were giving ballot papers to voters to cast their votes, even if the Card Reader failed to authenticate their PVCs once their particulars are in the Register & match that on their PVC. So in essence, what many Courts of Appeal did was to annul the elections in places where the number of votes cast exceeded the number of accredited voters captured by Card Reader but the Supreme Court is saying no: the votes cast should include those accredited with Voter's Register only (popularly called "manual accreditation". Once that happened, most Petitions fail at the Supreme Court because, as I explained earlier, most Petitioners put all their eggs in the single basket of Card Reader. INEC failed to get the National Assembly to further amend the Electoral Act to legislate Card Reader into law as a legal means of accreditation. They only issued a directive that Card Reader should be used; however this is what Section 138(2) of the Electoral Act provides: "An act or omission which may be contrary to an instruction or directive of the Commission or of an officer appointed for the purpose of the election but which is not contrary to the provisions of this Act shall not of itself be a ground for questioning the election". Clearly accreditation without using Card Readers is not contrary to the Electoral Act & is therefore not a ground for nullifying any election. This is all the Supreme Court is saying. I can vouchsafe that the CJN & other Noble Lords of the SC are not happy with the outcomes but what can they do when INEC failed to do the needful? What can they do when Petitioners failed to prove their case to the exacting degree & standards required by law? Remember the Court, including Supreme Court does not make law; they only interpret it. Lastly it is intriguing that no one heard the voice of SAGAY & his ilk when the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division gave THE VERY FIRST JUDGMENT EVER on the issue of Card Reader, holding that it was not part of our electoral laws. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal brought by the PDP & their candidate, Agbaje against the APC & Ambode which was premised on Card Reader. Sagay & others like him praised the sagacity of the CA but because the same interpretation by the CA on Card Reader which favored the APC then now favors the PDP at the Apex Court, our Noble Lords of the SC are being rubbished by ignorant comments.

More budgetary allocation needs to be made to the Educational Sector. In doing so, attention should be seriously paid to Teacher training. For instance, having a First Class in mathematics does not mean that one can teach it well as the later requires a totally different skill-set. The ability to impart knowledge is a different skill on its own because one may know something but lack the skill to teach it. We seriously need to restructure our educational sector from bottom down

All the Appeals by Ikpeazu, PDP & INEC have been allowed; decision of Court of Appeal set aside. Election of Victor Okezie Ikpeazu (Ph.D) allowed. UNANIMOUS decision. Full reasons to be given on the 26 February 2016

Okezie Victor Ikpeazu has won

NOW FOR THE ABIA APPEALS

All the Appeals filed by the PDP and their Candidate Udom Emmanuel GABRIEL in Akwa Ibom State are allowed and Judgments of the two lower Courts set aside. All unanimous decisions. Election of Emmanuel Udom affirmed

PDP has won Akwa Ibom and it is unanimous decision of the seven Judges. Second Judgment in Akwa Ibom also won by PDP

First Judgment from Akwa Ibom: the Supreme Court has affirmed the Election of Gov. Emmanuel Udom of Akwa Ibom. Judgment of Court of Appeal and Tribunal are set aside. Full reasons to be given on Feb. 15

HERE WE GO, The Court has resumed; awaiting the first Judgment

Mega2010:
Am just tired,for them to have spent all this time,something is really not right,Will take anything that comes as I Don't have a choice now,I still wish Alex wins though,PDP can never change,I can't just trust them...

Remember they are writing nine Judgments even if it is not the full Judgment; six in Akwa Ibom and three for Abia. It's not easy and these are old men

Kelechi2020:
bigchief46 ndewo....how is the process going.....hop you have emptied our bladder cos I see you sleeping over...

Lol, I have indeed emptied my bladder but na real serious hunger dey wire man now; no food since morning but it's all good. We are hanging in there as the Judgment must be delivered today.

While we are waiting for the Court to resume and deliver the Judgments, Omo, the tension in the jam-packed Court Hall is now so palpable that you could cut it with a knife. Suddenly many people, men & women alike, Lawyers and laymen are heading to the conveniences; their bladder has failed them..........

GodpunishBuhari:
It's easier to guess whr your support lies.... try not show it with all this ghen ghen shit... this not a movie your reporting

Don't flatter yourself; what exactly makes you think I owe you anything? Some folks amaze me with their sense of entitlement

The Court has now gone on break; they will come back to deliver the Judgments in the Akwa Ibom & Abia Appeals but they did not indicate how long it will take them

Ghen ghen ghen. Breaking now:

THE FIRST RULING FOR TODAY.

The Supreme Court after hearing Chief Akin Olujinmi has struck-out Alex Otti's Cross-Appeal (SC/35/2016) as incompetent. All SEVEN Members of the panel agree and it is UNANIMOUS

Chief Akin Olujimi resurrects his application to regularize his Cross-Appeal. Let me not bother you because the Court is taking him on. I will just post the final Ruling of the Court in the application to regularize

Alex Otti's Cross-Appeal (SC/35/2016) has now been called up and same appearances as before

INEC Appeal is fully argued & Judgment reserved to later today. Let's now see what happens to the Cross-Appeal filed by Alex Otti & APGA

Chief Akin Olujimi says that Chief Awa Kalu, SAN who is part of his team will respond to the INEC Appeal. He is doing so now

fizzile:
Bigchief wetin happen? Ur quiet.

INEC Counsel Chief Awomolo requested that one of the SANs in his team Dr. Livy Uzoukwu be allowed to orally adumbrate on the INEC Brief and he is still making his submissions urging the Court to allow the Appeal

Arguments in PDP Appeal concluded & Judgment reserved for later today.
INEC Appeal (SC/22/2016) is now called up. Same appearances as before. Chief Awomolo, SAN Counsel to INEC identifies his Brief. Same procedures as before. Counsels will make oral submissions for few minutes & urge the Court to allow the Appeal or dismiss it as the case may be

Kelechi2020:
you are being tactical with the analysis, the miscreants will always bark....

You mean the judges have already taken there decision?

what then is the essence of coming to the supreme court....

The way appellate Courts work is that the parties write down ALL the arguments they wish to canvass in support of their case. This written argument is called a Brief in the Court of Appeal & Supreme Court. Parties are supposed to come and adopt it as their submission in the case. Before the hearing, the Judges would have read it already and know what arguments the parties are making in support of their case. So when you now come for the hearing, it is only to identify your Brief, make amendments if necessary and give further explanations if necessary. If there are new cases which have been delivered or came to the attention of Counsel, they will cite it. Counsel is not allowed to make new submissions orally not already contained in the Brief but only to explain what is there. That is why is any of the parties & their Counsels do not come to Court on the day of hearing, the Court will simply DEEM his Brief as having been adopted

Chief Akin Olujinmi, SAN informs the Court that Chief Chris Uche, SAN who is in his team will respond to this Appeal. Chris Uche identifies their Brief, adopts it and relies on it in urging the Court to dismiss the Appeal as lacking in merit in its entirety. He proceeds to adumbrate orally

Kelechi2020:
bigchief46. I need a brief analysis of the possible outcomes of this judgement...

If I tell you now, some miscreants will accuse me of being biased or partisan so I will not. But I will give you two pointers: just analyse all the decisions already given by the Court in these Governorship cases; what does it tell you? Also, the Court already stated when they came in that they have already read all the Briefs filed by the Parties to this dispute yesterday and also spent 2 hours this morning having a conference on it which is why they were late coming out today. They have therefore asked Counsels not to waste time in elaborate oral arguments and are giving only 3-5 minutes for adumbrating. What this tells you is that they have already made up their mind & what we are doing now is mere formalities. That is why they want to give all the Judgments today because they already know where they are going. I suspect where they will go because the Supreme Court is noted for being consistent but let us just hold on for a while

We have resumed. The PDP Appeal (SC/19/2016) is called up. Counsels announce the same appearances as before. Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu, Lead Counsel for the PDP introduces his Brief and adopts it as his argument in urging the Court to allow the Appeal. He is given few minutes to amplify the Brief orally

The members of the Panel are about to come in now

The Court has decided to stand down the other Appeals and has ordered a break. We will resume by 5.30pm to hear the Appeals by PDP, INEC & possibly the Cross-Appeal by Otti if it is later revisited and the regularization sought is allowed. Till 5.30pm then; but this is an opportunity to go refill your pop-corn & get more iced Coke; the real drama is coming. JUDGMENT IS TODAY

The Appeal by Ikpeazu is now fully heard & Judgment reserved to later today. Ladies and gentlemen, THE JUDGMENT IS TODAY. We are now going to the Appeal by PDP

Rudolfchris:
kingofabia Argument ongoing on the viability of Alex Otti's cross
appeal. Registrar blamed for making a mistake in the
numbering..............How come you forgot this part


The guy is being partial in his reporting, does he think he's the only one here in the Supreme Court room?

What are you people talking about?; it would be a pity if you are a Lawyer; I hope you are just a layman then it will be forgivable. Olujimi brought an application to regularize his Cross-Appeal. After much argument as to how the irregularity or error sought to be amended arose, the Court refused to allow him regularize the error "for now". It is Olujimi who is claiming that the mistake is from the Registrar but Ikpeazu, PDP & INEC's Lawyers insist that the error is from his own incompetence. The Court did not rule on who is responsible for the error but merely said they would not allow him to regularize the error "for now"; maybe they may allow him later but his application to amend was refused for now; so how am I being partisan? I can see you guys want to play the ostrich, bury your heads in the sand and be unreasonable or maybe you just want to DISTRACT me; so I will NOT RESPOND TO YOUR NONSENSE ANYMORE. Go and create your own thread and post your lies there. I may support a candidate or Political Party (AS I AM ENTITLED TO) but I am a top professional and I value my honor so I will continue to give factual reports; if they do not favor your position, I have no apologies to any of you

Rudolfchris:
Bigchief46 Court has just refused to allow Alex Otti's Lawyer, Olujimi, SAN to regularize the Cross Appeal for now and has instead instructed Chief Wole Olanipekun to argue his Appeal. Olanipekun is now identifying his Brief of Argument. He adopts his Brief and urges the Court to allow the Appeal. He is now adumbrating orally & the CJN says they will only give 5 minutes as they have already read the Briefs. Olanipekun starts and says he formulated ten issues. The submissions are ongoing now.

The regularisation you are talking about is the numbering in the cross appeal of which the mistake emanated from the court registrar. Pls be straightforward and report exactly what it is and stop confusing people. Thank u

Sorry Sir, the issue is not what the regularization is but what ever it is, did the Court allow him to regularize? Why are you people so pathetic? Why is he seeking to regularize if his papers are in order? If the Court refused to allow him regularize the Cross Appeal, what is the effect? Did I say the Court struck out or dismissed the application to regularize or the Cross Appeal? I only reported FACTUALLY that the Court refused the application to regularize "FOR NOW". Pls I am not in your league, so don't even try because you will just show yourself up. I WILL REPORT FACTUALLY & it is nothing to me that the FACTS do not favor you