₦airaland Forum

slivertongue:
NYSC is notorious for making mistakes on certificates

Agreed! But why waiting till now? There is more to the story

moderatedguy:
All these talks are irrelevant,the fact remains that he started and completed his NYSC.This is a no case submission jare.

. He applied for exception certificate.He did not take part in the service....Why did he wait till now for correcting it?There is more to the story

slivertongue:
NYSC is notorious for making mistakes on certificates

. Agreed. However why waiting till now to correct it? There is more to the story.Do not trust politicians who aspire for a post.They can go to any length to accomplish their mission.

moderatedguy:
All these talks are irrelevant,the fact remains that he started and completed his NYSC.This is a no case submission jare.

. He was exempted from the service.He corrected his discharge certificate.....

senatordave1:
I think we will find out at tomorrow's hearings

exactly

fergie001:
ejimatic senatordave1 kahal29......let us do justice to this

The last time I met Justice Sirajo was when he headed Adeleke Oyetola tribunal in Osun.He knows much about electoral acts and provisions in the constitution.My concern now is why the deputy governor apply for a change of spelling? Is it to maintain consistency in his name or for another purpose? It is clear he applied for the change but reason for the application was not given.Was it a collusion between NYSC and him for an evil means? It is logical for the court to ask him to bring the original copy .There must be a consistency in his certificate or else there is foul play in his name arrangement without any supporting affidavit.At any rate the deputy governor has to clarify his change of spelling of his name with a substantive evidence.If he is found guilty it will spell doom for their joint ticket.

madamgrace:
http://muslimrightsmuric..com/2020/05/amotekun-muslims-reject-oduduwa.html?m=1

. The emergence of Oduduwa republic is not subjects to the approval of the muslims .It is Yorubas that have the project. Amotekun has come to stay.Pronto

Anazp:
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2020/05/edo-gov-obaseki-7-apc-govs-meet-tinubu/

. Obaseki is confused.I know days like this will come.Oshiomoke made him what he is today. Yet he betrayed him.Now he wants to retain his seat.He is empty now and needs those he betrayed. His days are numbered.The best thing for him is to write his handover note now.His game is up.

Johnnyessence:
no case again. till 2022 governorship poll. imole de.

The coast is clear for him now

MT:
Knowing I share this Nigeria space with intellectual like you gives me hope for the betterment of tomorrow. Well said sir.

. Thank you my brother

Johnnyessence:
no case again. till 2022 governorship poll. imole de.

. very ridiculous

Johnnyessence:
https://punchng.com/police-remove-adelekes-name-from-exam-malpractices-charges/

. The leading prosecution counsel is a disturbed and confused lawyer.He should have found another reason to remove Adeleke s name .or ask for withdrawal of the case.He gave a flimsy and childish excuse Adeleke was released on bail on medical ground in May 2019. He later traveled abroad where he is now undertaking a degree programme. If an accused jumps bail like this he should be subpoenaed by the court and those who stood as his sureties must be arrested.It is disgraceful that the prosecution counsel appealed for removal of his name and it was granted by the court..It is injustice to all the respondents .The NJC must be petitioned for this judicial tomfoolery ..

fergie001:
Let the Court decide that....for now..we have established at the least...his party he seeks to join in the suit is de-registered.

. We await the decision of the tribunal and appeals that will follow it to the SC.because both parties will challenge the decision of the tribunal either for or against and vice versa

surgical:
There is no independent candidacy
For you to be a candidate in an election in Nigeria you must be sponsored by a political party recognized by law
If your party is deregistered on what leg will the petitioner stand on in court

. As at the time of election was there LM? Yes. As at the time of the election did LM have a candidate? Yes The candidate of LM who is not claiming to be declared winner can challenge an election he took part in in which there was a case of forgery........Conversely. if he wants to be declared winner he needs to stand on A party in his petition.

fergie001:
If they choose to appeal........

. Whether it is challenged or not the petitioner in Bayelsa has the locus clasicus to challenge the eligibility of Diri,'s deputy.....

senatordave1:
I still maintain my stance that it cannot affect an ongoing legal process.it is not a ground for an election petition.as at the time of the election,was he qualified or not? This are the crix of the matter.
Let me also add that this is a different case from the other filed by 33 parties.they can always appeal or get a stay

I have earlier made a similar comment .....I stand with you.

fergie001:
ejimatic, senatordave1

. The SC will have to say something on the deregistration matter and its relevance to fundamental human right of freedom of association...If challenged the decision will be in abeyance until it is determined by the SC

fergie001:
In the case of the 4th alteration, example the Case of Akeredolu v Abraham....whilst the case was ongoing at the SC, the 180 days was introduced and passed by the NA.
That effectively killed the case, irrespective the fact that as at filing and processes at the FHC and CoA, the cases were still inline.

Again, with the SC judgement on the OUK case..that the presiding judge had been promoted, over 70 cases are dead by that decision.

Are you saying that inec's deregistration doesn't affect this case as it matters?

I have established from you that....once you are a candidate in an election, it is NOT COMPULSORY to join your party as a member of the suit. All you need to do is file your processes?


That's what they should do...

https://guardian.ng/news/court-begins-hearing-on-suit-against-inecs-deregistration-of-youth-party/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
This is Youth Party..they have instituted their own case in Court

. The SC judgement on Kalu's accomplice did not invalidate the case and 70 others but it was an order for a retrial for all cases because the judge was not supposed to preside over them sequel to his promotion.Also the nature of your case determines who will be petitioners and co petitioners. if the LM candidate wants to be declared winner his party must be included on the petition as a. co petitioner and his deputy too..However he only wants to correct an anomaly in the election process which does not benefit him..Inclusion of his party is not a necessity ..Marafa vrs APC 2019

fergie001:
For the 33 parties entered....LM wasn't there.

74 were de-registered, and 41 felt they had no need to come in anymore.

. If LM was not there as shown here inclusion of the party in the petition is not necessary. As at the time of the election LM was a party with a candidate.The candidate took part in the election which qualifies him to challenge any anomaly....Additionally LM has the right to reregister like other parties deregistered by INEC

fergie001:
Set aside when?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/tribuneonlineng.com/court-stops-inec-from-de-registering-33-political-parties/amp/

https://m.guardian.ng/news/court-bars-inec-from-deregistering-31-political-parties/

Please read this.....

. This is judgement that set it aside

senatordave1:
In reference to what fergie said about deregistration,it cannot be a ground for disqualification because a careful reading of the electoral act and supreme court judgments will reveal a popular phrase "as at the time of the election was not qualified". I don't think any post election disq can prevent the petition as far as he was qualified as at the time of election.rochas vs inec hc can suffice.

Again,the election process does not end with declaration of results but continues till the final determination by the courts.therefore,any deregistration cannot affect any party still active in any election process. Fergie,I hope you are taking note.this case will be decided in its merit

. correct ! I stand with you here

senatordave1:
I now understand.I have read his petition and he never asked to be declared winner.he asked for fresh elections or someone else to be sworn in.again,I recall that the courts have said something about the prayers or reliefs of a petitioner determining his petition.that of marafa is perfect.

. Alright sir!

fergie001:
I intend to challenge this on four grounds..one after another..

NUMBER ONE
Why do you think after the tribunal had reserved ruling, his party (de-registered) are filing post-21 days to be a party to the suit?

. INEC decision to deregister it was set aside.The next step is to r.eregister. ..Additionally his party is not needed in this case Marafa vrs APC 2019

senatordave1:
I will also like you to say something about the purported deregistration of his party by inec which was later stopped by the courts though his party was not part of that suit

. INEC was wrong to have taken a step to deregister the petitioner's party .That is why a court of law stopped and set aside the INEC decision.Additionally the petitioner does not need to include his party in his petition because the party has nothing to gain from it.The question is :did the petitioner take part in the election under a party? Since the answer his yes he is qualified to bring up a case of forgery against any contestant on the election.Maraca vrs APC 2019 supra

senatordave1:
I will also like you to say something about the purported deregistration of his party by inec which was later stopped by the courts though his party was not part of that suit

. INEC was wrong to have taken a step to deregister the petitioner's party .That is why a court of law stopped and set aside the INEC decision.Additionally the petitioner does not need to include his party in his petition because the party has nothing to gain from it.The question is :did the petitioner take part in the election under a party? Since the answer his yes he is qualified to bring up a case of forgery against any contestant on the election.

senatordave1:
Sorry sir,you are confusing me.the petitioner filed this case at the tribunal as an election petition case therefore section 137 must come into force.again,I read something about those who have locus standi in an election case.I still believe that a candidate can sue without his party and vice versa.
Again,I believe that since the reliefs he is asking does not directly affect his party,but to correct an anomaly,he does not need to join his party

You are right ! Your opinions are mine too.However. since he brought his petition to the Election Petition Tribunal the question is. did he participate in the election? Answer is Yes under a party with an evidence of participation. He does not need his party as a joint petitioner because the petition does not benefit his party nor him.So section 137 may not apply here.What applies in a case like this is whether the petitioner took part in the election or not......Marafa vrs APC 2020supra

senatordave1:
Sorry sir,you are confusing me.the petitioner filed this case at the tribunal as an election petition case therefore section 137 must come into force.again,I read something about those who have locus standi in an election case.I still believe that a candidate can sue without his party and vice versa.
Again,I believe that since the reliefs he is asking does not directly affect his party,but to correct an anomaly,he does not need to join his party

. You are right ! Your opinions are mine too.However. since he brought his petition to the Election Petition Tribunal the question is. did he participate in the election? Answer is Yes under a party with an evidence of participation. He does not need his party as a joint petitioner because the petition does not benefit his party nor him.So section 137 may not apply here.What applies in a case like this is whether the petitioner took part in the election or not......Marafa vrs APC 2020supra

fergie001:
kahal29, ChristianNorth, ejimatic, agborotiejoye....help us here

The petitioner is not challenging the results of the election and neither did he pray that he should be declared the winner.He is challenging the purported forgery of the deputy governor.Section 137 does not apply here.Any of the contestants in the election can bring up the case as a post election matter even in a federal high court.This case is not status bared neither does it require inclusion of the petitioner's party.The petitioner's inclusion of PDP, both the governor and the deputy,. and INEC in the suit as respondents makes it strong for they are stakeholders.Thus the case has merit in terms of time and suitability of the petitioner.

senatordave1:
Ejimatic,I'll love you and duwdu to break the tie

The petitioner is not challenging the results of the election and neither did he pray that he should be declared the winner.He is challenging the purported forgery of the deputy governor.Section 137 does not apply here.Any of the contestants in the election can bring up the case as a post election matter even in a federal high court.This case is not status bared neither does it require inclusion of the petitioner's party.The petitioner's inclusion of PDP, both the governor and the deputy,. and INEC in the suit as respondents makes it strong for they are stakeholders.Thus the case has merit in terms of time and suitability of the petitioner.

senatordave1:
SHARES


Godwin Tsa, Abuja

The Deputy Governor of Bayelsa State, Mr Lawrence Ewhrudjakpo, has asked the state governorship tribunal sitting in Abuja to dismiss the petition filed against him by the governorship candidate of Liberation Movement (LM), Vijah Opuama, saying the suit is incompetent.

The petitioner has alleged that Mr Ewhrudjakpo submitted forged documents containing false information to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for the 16 November 2019 governorship election in Bayelsa State.



The petitioner is praying the tribunal to disqualify the Governor, Duoye Diri, his Deputy Ewhirudjakpo and their political party – the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) – and to order a fresh election without the disqualified PDP.

But picking holes in the petition, the deputy governor in his preliminary objection filed by his counsel, Mr Chukwuma-Machukwu Ume, SAN, urged the tribunal to dismiss and or strike out the petition for being incompetent.

In the preliminary objection brought pursuant to section 6 (6) of the 1999 constitution, section 145(1) of the Electoral Act, 2010 and other relevant laws, Mr Ewhrudjakpo contended that the petition is statute-barred having been filed outside the mandatory statutory period of 21 days.



Mr Ume, who argued that the petition is incompetent, added that the petitioner lacked the locus standi to solely contest the outcome of the election without joining the political platform (LM) that sponsored him to participate in the election.

On this ground, the senior lawyer referred the tribunal to section 137(1)(b) of the Electoral Act to emphasise that LM, being the party that sponsored the petitioner in the November election, is a necessary party for the purpose of determining the petition before the tribunal.

In addition, Mr Ume submitted that as of when the petition was filed on February 20, 2020, or thereabout, the petitioner’s erstwhile political party (LM) has long ceased to exist as a political party as it has been de-registered by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) since February 6, 2020.

Mr Umeh noted that it was for these reasons that the petitioner failed to join the political party that sponsored him in his petition contrary to section 177(1)(C) of the 1999 constitution.

Ume submitted that situating the legal position of the petitioner to his own petition, his political party cannot reap from the judgment of the Federal High Court in suit No: FHC/ABJ/ CS/ 444/2019 between Advanced Congress of Democrats (ACD)& 32 Ors Vs AGF and Anor, since it was not a party to the suit.

It is also the position of the deputy governor that it was too late in the day for the petitioner to now file a motion seeking to join his political party (LM) as a party to the petition since his preliminary objection contesting the competence of the petition has since been taken and issues already joined by parties.

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.sunnewsonline.com/bayelsa-guber-deputy-gov-asks-tribunal-to-dismiss-petition-against-him/&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiFs8TjnNbpAhWL3oUKHeD2CKEQFjABegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw27OO6D_05KmVdPd_ysnIPk

Mynd44
Lalasticlala
Bayelsaowei
AAA
Kelvinginzie
Naijaroyalty
Helinues
Gamelnasser
Naptu2
Blue3k
Guzel
Vicdom
Fergie
Afroknight

. The petitioner is not challenging the results of the election and neither did he pray that he should be declared the winner.He is challenging the purported forgery of the deputy governor.Section 137 does not apply here.Any of the contestants in the election can bring up the case as a post election matter even in a federal high court.This case is not status bared neither does it require inclusion of the petitioner's party.The petitioner's inclusion of PDP, both the governor and the deputy,. and INEC in the suit as respondents makes it strong for they are stakeholders.Thus the case has merit in terms of time and suitability of the petitioner.

ajibola1979:
http://www.politico.ng/we-will-capture-lagos-in-2023-our-strategies-will-work-pdp/

. I laugh in PDP language.

freshkpomo:
Abeg make we try celebrate our children cos na them be the future of this country.. I also wan use this medium appreciate parents, him nor easy abeg.


God bless Nigeria.

. I pity children who are less than ten years now.By the time they grow up and become twenty they will know that they are not in the country where they are supposed to be.Imagine our great country in 15 years time.I pray God will be with you all and open special ways for you in adulthood..To all our looters your days are numbered..