Bros.....are you now telling me, A husband murdered his wife, and only the wife people can take the husband to court?. Therefore I don't have jurisdiction to take the husband to court even if I have overwhelmingly evidence that the husband committed the murder? You must be joking. If it was a pre election matter, why didn't obi take Tinubu to court before the elections? He knew they would throw the matter out the window because for pre elections matter is an internal party affair. But after the primaries and the main elections has started, things have now become an external party affair. Did the Judge say Shittema was free from the double Nomination? No. What the supreme court said is they don't have the jurisdiction to handle the case.
Murder case is entirely different from Election matter
yarimo: But Why will ALEX OTTI file stay of execution after claiming the high court judgments in Kano those not include him ? confused and liars full labour party
Carefully read it now
He took the right step
He was not joined and now that the Appeal court is taking over stay tuned
They did then because there was a president Buhari who is still in power. But by May 26th, Buhari would be merely 48hrs away from power.
Again, I’m sure they feared Tinubu might win the election fair and square with no troubles around his election.
But seeing that Buhari is on his way out (48 hours is not enough to witch-hunt judges), and seeing that INEC fraudulently declared Tinubu, the judges might want to judicial activists and save Nigeria from a Tinubu disaster.
The next most likely persons to benefit from that judgment would be either Atiku or Obi.
Now, why would they fear harassment from Obi or Atiku?
Hmmmmmm
May 26th
What a day filled with Uncertainty by Nigeria Politicians
fergie001: It wasn't.... It is estoppel per rem judicatum for the PDP because the same suit, parties and subject matter were already litigated up to the Appeal Court level. PDP cannot do so again....
It is LP who is challenging on that front.
However it was introduced in their ground 4 and also in their responses to the respondents response
Nothing has changed with respect to claims of victory.if you sat you won,you will present ec8a first in physical form one by one and compare it with inec and police copies
You are not the Judges so no need to argue with you further on this.
The electoral act does not back irev.the major difference is the bvas and Bvas data was wiped out before pdp and lp could inspect it
Go back and read the judgement
Let me tell you something today which you may not know.
Nothing was deleted from the BVAS Inec only needs that judgments back should in case.
For your information
1. BVAS was backed up whatever inspections to be caarried out is the bvas backup.
So for your information i will repeat again You have a mindset which I'm not here to argue with you on but the fact remains that what you seem to be aware of is minute to what you need to understand
The court has already settled the shettima issue...the fct issue will need arguments and counter arguments but I know the court has already made up their minds. The drug issue also needs a lot of arguments and some witnesses from america but it is a dead case as he's not an ex convict and even if,10 years has lapsed... The supreme court didnt say you need irev to prove overvoting.it said bvas and voters register.unfortunately, obi couldn't access bvas.in proving that you won,you will need primary results which is ec8a and agents copies plus police copies.irev is secondary result.therefore,vote recount and forensics are the only thing left
I'm not sure you read the Osun judgement for understanding you only cherry picked what you want.
I think you need to read the osun supreme court judgement but this time around for a better understanding
First, Apapa’s stupid lawyer was denied appearance by the Presidential Election Petition Court for representing an unknown entity. Both the lawyer and Apapa left in shame.
Now, the judge in Kano has denied giving the Kangaroo judgment you guys were celebrating even though you knew it was deficient.
Must be a bad day for BATists.
I don’t envy you people at all!
All this Kanngaroo judges, should be seriously purnished
Penguin2: Now the elections are over and attention has shifted to the different Election Petition Tribunals across the country, it is not out of place that we understand and try to make sense, to the best of our knowledge, the issues at play at the tribunals, and what to expect even though we do not know what to expect.
In this thread, I want us to consider INEC Guidelines and how much weight they carry in determining what the judges might say about the different cases before them.
It became imperative to talk about INEC Guidelines because different elements seem to have held different positions as to the relevance, power and place of INEC Guidelines as regards the different petitions in court.
Now, for explication purposes, we need to understand that the judges at the different tribunals, are going to rely on four documents to arrive at whatever ruling about any case as regards any Election Petition. These documents are:-
1) The Constitution 2) The Electoral Act 3) INEC Guidelines and 4) Judicial Precedents (of the Supreme Court in most cases).
1)They are going to rely on the constitution because it is the grund norm of all other laws in Nigeria and the document whence INEC derived its powers.
2)The Electoral Act derived its powers from the constitution and is a body of laws guiding the conduct of elections in Nigeria.
3) INEC Guidelines (this is our topic of interest): Now, the constitution that established INEC, gave it the power to formulate rules and principles/guidelines that would guide every season of electoral contest. These are called “bye laws” if you please. Now, INEC being an umpire which is supposed to be unbiased is envisaged by the constitution to issue these guidelines to parties and candidates informing them of the modalities and the rules that will guide the conduct of the election without prejudice to the constitution and the Electoral Act. What this means is that INEC has no powers or whatsoever to initiate any guideline that would be at variance with either the provision of the constitution or that of the Electoral Act. Any such act would amount to nullity.
Now, are INEC guidelines justiceable in law? Can a candidate or candidates approach the tribunal on the basis of INEC failing to adhere to its own guidelines? To that I leave us the video of Michael Aandokaa, Former Minister for Justice and Attorney General of the Federation, where he explained that the Supreme Court has ruled in previous cases that INEC guidelines have constitutional flavour.
What this means is that since INEC is an establishment of the constitution and exercises powers granted to it by the constitution, whatever guidelines they issue is enforceable in law as they can equally be taken as law.
4) Lastly, Judicial Precedents. This is how (superior) courts have decided electoral matters before which is usually binding on lower courts, in most cases, especially if the facts of the matter are the same. What this means is that the Governorship Petition Tribunal for instance cannot give a ruling that totally deviates from what the Supreme Court has previously ruled about a similar case with similar circumstances.
In conclusion, the aim of this piece is to educate those who are making arguments that tend to suggest that INEC failing to adhere to its own guidelines is without consequences.
Again, nowhere in the world does an umpire change the rule of the game in the middle of the game. And worst still without communicating such change to contestants in the game.
The referee in a football match cannot come into the game and say that because he has the final say in the outcome of the match, that there was technical glitches and VAR will not be functioning, therefore he has the right to decide that throwings are corner kicks and vice versa.
Once INEC set the guidelines for the election and communicated same to parties and candidates and the general public, it became binding on them to follow those guidelines to the letter. And any default thereof becomes fatal on the outcome of the election unless otherwise proven.
Penguin is a bird of reason.
Mynd44 Nlfpmod Fergie001 Garfield1 Engineerboat
The electoral law gave INEC a delegated power to exercise for a successful election.
It's left to the Justices now to interpret such power
I just finished reading atiku's petition,can't find obi's own.atiku own is worse than that of 2019.in 2019,he focused on 12 states but now he focused on zamfara,sokoto,rivers,kogi and focused on just few lgas and few units making wild and generalized claims. He is not claiming victory like 2019 with alternate figures. but asking for a total or partial rerun or disq of tinubu and him declared winner or a rerun between him and Tinubu. He claimed cancelled votes exceeded the margin of lead but couldn't mention the new figures.he said there was zero accreditation in 6090 units and overvoting in 9000 based on server reports.dino is his star witness.Instead of going through polling unit reversal booklets and getting a copy,he is asking inec to produce them.I think his main focus would be on violation of guidelines and fct issue.funny enough while the constitution divided the requirements into two,atiku added fct 25% as no 3 requirements
My point is very clear except you want to keep pretending that you don’t understand. Not uploading results immediately from polling units cannot be a ground for annulling any result in as much as what were eventually uploaded is not significantly different from what is on BVAS and declared by INEC.
Again, please note that SUBSTANTIAL is the key word when weighing irregularities and non compliance with INEC guidelines. Over voting was validly proved in Osun election but Supreme Court agreed with INEC and PDP that the over voting that occurred in some polling units were not substantial enough to alter the outcome of the election.
So, three things have been settled today. 1, not uploading results immediately from polling units is not relevant in as much as what was eventually uploaded is not different from what is on BVAS, the primary source of election data. 2, if there are conflict between results generated on IREV and results on BVAS, the result on BVAS takes precedence since it’s the primary source of election data. 3, even if irregularities were proved, it still won’t matter except they are substantial enough to affect the final result.
You are only contradicting, what You are saying,
The constitution gives INEC power to exercise relating to election guidelines.
So you cannot jettison Form EC8A which is the backbone of the Election result snapped on BVAS for uploading to IREV. So stay tune and follow the court proceedings of the election
Believe whatever makes you happy. The court has made it clear that BVAS is the primary source of evidence for election data. In as much as the declared result is inline with what was uploaded, arguments such as results were not uploaded from polling units holds no water. It is dead on arrival already. If the result on BVAS is not substantially different from what was declared by INEC, it stands. Period!
Listen again
BVAS is the primary source of data (Accrediatation and Election uploading)
Form EC8A data must correlate with what s on BVAS and what is on IREV
So your argument is once result declared corresponds with BVAS accrediation, now I get You but you fail to realise that every party agent have copies of signed form EC8A
Politics / Re: Appeal Court suspends judgement Sacking Otti, Abia/Kano LP Candidates by engineerboat(m): 8:29pm On May 27, 2023 