₦airaland Forum

Faber:
Na here go kill INEC and APC watch out. You think say you go school, you wise pass us abi?

The court will not crown your candidate a winner because he says he's a good man , you think he's the best for the job or not to hurt your feelings.

He who alleges must prove.

DMerciful:
Why not have patience before you tell yourself what you wanna hear

It's an "opinion" based on the law.
You're free to have yours 👍

0monnak0da:
Interesting
But the Shagari Awolowo case is not relevant to the FCT situation in regard to Lagos it might be in determining whether 24 or 25 states is required

People use the word Lagos carelessly or vaguely
Lagos state was never the capital of Nigeria. Lagos city was. The terminology FCT was not applied to Lagos state
There never was ambiguity about the status of Lagos state requiring court clarification
The constitution was clear that there were 19 states
Lagos state was created in 1967 BY DECREE by Gowon along with 11 other states on the same day
It was created by taking territory from The former Western Region and adding it to the federal capital. It has always had governors not a Minister In 1979 every state had 5 senators at that same election Shagari Awolowo contested ,House of Reps members and a State House of Assembly
The Supreme court was not considering whether Lagos or any other state was actually a state
All states were known and named

Whether or not 25% is required in Abuja will be determined by court but bears absolutely no relationship to Lagos or indeed whether Abuja is a state
The controversy is not about whether it is a state but whether it has some kind of exalted status
Which requires that 25% must be secured there no matter what. That would still be argued even if it were not considered to be a state

Yes. The 1979 CFRN didn't define Lagos as the FCT.

However, my main authorities were section 299 of CFRN 1999 that gives the FCT a status of a State and Bakare v. Ogundipe which the Supreme Court affirmed that the FCT has the status of a state.

The authority of Shagari v Awolowo came in because a school of thought suggests that the draftsmen of the constitution intended 25% in the FCT because it is the"seat of power" and the President stays there.

Wiseandtrue:
OP, you be God

Abeg go sidown

I'm not God. I'm stating the law as it is. It doesn't care about emotions or feelings.

Maazieze:
On point 3, what measure of noncompliance with electoral procedures is needed for it to be considered "substantial"?

It's subject to the discretion of the court. In all presidential election cases in Nigeria, the court has always held that the irregularities are not substantial. It's left for the court to decide in this case.

But by substantial it means that it must be very very very obvious that it affected results in most places. For instance, Tinubu has a 2 million+ gap. It means that it must have affected at least the votes/ results of at least 2 million people.

Presidential elections cost billions of Naira. There's also a possibility of nationwide civil unrest or armed conflict if the supreme court
removes a president. "Substantial" means that the error is so big that you don't mind risking everything to correct it.

I personally don't see that "substantial" change in results that non-compliance caused.

THE OPPOSITIONS’ CHANCES ARE SLIM AT THE TRIBUNAL: A LEGAL OPINION


I hereby congratulate His Excellency Bola Ahmed Tinubu of the All Progressive Congress (APC) who was declared the President-elect of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on the 1ST of March 2023 in accordance with the provisions of section 134 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.

The major opposition parties are not satisfied with the outcome of the February 25th 2023 election and have vowed to approach the Election Tribunal to clear their doubts. Based on conversations on the streets and virtual society, my legal opinion on select issues are discussed briefly below.

Legal Issues

1. Where does the Presidential Election Tribunal start and who are the judges that make up the tribunal?

2. Whether images/pictures of result sheets will be admissible by the tribunal as evidence?

3. Whether the election will be declared void or cancelled because the regulations guiding transmission of the results was not complied with?

4. Whether 25% of votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory is a prerequisite to become the President of Nigeria?


1. Where does the Presidential Election Tribunal start and who are the judges that make up the tribunal?

Section 239 (1)(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 establishes the Court of Appeal of Nigeria as the Presidential Election Tribunal (See also section 130(2)(b) of the Electoral Act 2022). The venue of the court will most likely be the Court of Appeal (Abuja Judicial Division). Not less than 3 justices of the Court of Appeal will be members of the Presidential Election Tribunal (see section 247 of CFRN 1999). The tribunal must have been set up 30 days before the elections in accordance with section 130 (3)(a) of the Electoral Act 2022.


2. Whether images/pictures of result sheets will be admissible by the tribunal as evidence?

The answer is no. Pictures of results taken or downloaded whether by party agents or electorates will not be admissible as evidence in court. The admissible documentary evidence in court is the result sheet itself as will be presented by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) (See sections 86, 88 and 102 of the Evidence Act 2011). Since the result sheet is a public document (section 102 of the Evidence Act), if it is missing a certified true copy will be tendered in accordance with section 90 (1) ( c ) of the Evidence Act. Electronic evidence from the BVAS system or Ires/INEC’s website can only be tendered by INEC because only the Commission can satisfy the conditions of tendering Electronic Evidence laid down by Section 84 of the Evidence Act and emphasized in the case of Kubour v. Dickson.


3. Whether the election will be declared void or cancelled because the regulations guiding transmission of the results was not complied with?

The answer is most likely no although it is subject to the discretion of the tribunal. Section 135(1) of the Electoral Act 2022 is quoted below:

“An election shall not be liable to be invalidated by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of this Act if it appears to the Election Tribunal or Court that the election was conducted substantially in accordance with the principles of this Act and that the non-compliance did not affect substantially the result of the election.”

The provision quoted above means that even if INEC does not conduct the election exactly as stated in the Act, the election will be valid as long as the provisions violated did not affect the result of the election “substantially”.

4. Whether 25% of votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory is a prerequisite to become the President of Nigeria?

The answer is no. Section 134 of CFRN 1999 states that a candidate must not have “less than one-quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the States in the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja” to become the President of Nigeria. That provision must be read together with section 299 of the same constitution which gives the FCT, Abuja, the status of a state. The court of Appeal will not deviate from the decision of the Supreme Court in Bakare v. Ogundipe (2021) where the supreme court reiterated the status of the FCT Abuja as a state in accordance with section 299 of CFRN 1999. Even in the classical case of Shagari V. Awolowo, the Supreme Court of Nigeria counted “Lagos State” which was then the seat of government as a state to determine whether the candidates had 25% in the required states.