₦airaland Forum

AAEEI:
The Constitution and Tinubu's drug case

Those who framed the NG 1999 constitution seem to like controversy. See two seemingly contrasting laws that both disfavor and favor Tinubu.

If you are a judge, which would you take?

Chapter vi of the 1999 Constitution, Section 13(d) says:

137. (1) A person shall not be qualified for election to the office of President if -

(d) he is under a sentence of death imposed by any competent court of law or tribunal in Nigeria or a sentence of imprisonment or fine for any offence involving dishonesty or fraud (by whatever name called) or for any other offence, imposed on him by any court or tribunal or substituted by a competent authority for any other sentence imposed on him by such a court or tribunal; or

Tinubu was fined 460K by forfeiture, which by the current CJN's own judgment means guilty as charged and conviction.

Please notice the last ''or'' above in section 137 d, as that may be the gamechanger to favor Tinubu

Then Section 137 (e) says

(e) within a period of less than ten years before the date of the election to the office of President he has been convicted and sentenced for an offence involving dishonesty or he has been found guilty of the contravention of the Code of Conduct.

But then there is still this one in Section 137 (j):

(j) he has presented a forged certificate to the Independent National Electoral Commission.

Did Obi pursue the issue of forged certificate in addition to others?

helinues:
Nigerians abi end sars bandits

frank14011991:
because he is a public servant he doesn't have right to his privacy, if he want shit follow am enter toilet

Freeedaw:
Buy PayPal Funds For 550 Naira Per $,

Verified Paypal Account For 5K


Verified Coinbase+bank attached (USA) For sale. You Can sell your PayPal for us.


You can also let us handle your online payment like eBay, walmart and Aliexpress with PayPal.

Our order starts from $12 to $2k















... My WhatsApp number is on my Signature and profile


We offer you the best rate with less than 10 mins payment after confirmation



My WhatsApp: Check My Profile

BIZNess123:


This man that year

One the happiest moment in my life this year was the way tinubu flogged obi like a common criminal in the election....my joy that day knows no bounds...


They said it's a stolen mandate..I asked them for proof...Dem tu ama

favor914:
Na shame they make the man they run from pillar to post, who will make a person like that idiot President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria?

Even President of The Republic of Biafra he cannot win, let alone Nigeria.

netricoin:
Amazon has the legal right to allow Peter obi LP to get Inec data from their Amazon clowd because Inec refused to obey court order to allow Peter obi LP get access to the BVAS data

[color=#006600][/color]
In a petition filed Tuesday at the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC), Mr Obi told the court that the election of Tinubu was invalid by reason of corrupt practices or non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2022 by INEC.
He stated that due to the manifest non-compliance by INEC with the Electoral Act and specific requirements of the Regulations for the conduct of the Presidential election, by the INEC failing, refusing, and neglecting to instantly transmit and upload the result of that election electronically to the iRev from the BVAS, INEC violated the integrity and safety measures entrenched for the conduct of the said election.
Fidelity Leaderboard
Obi further stated that due to INEC’s refusal and neglect to upload and transmit the result of the election in the polling units to the IReV as required by law on the day of the election, INEC suppressed the actual scores obtained by the Labour Party.
Peter Obi told the court that he has in his possession a Spread Sheet containing the Polling Units Codes and details of the aforesaid Eighteen Thousand and Eighty-Eight Polling Units, as well as the authentic results in the aforesaid Eighteen Thousand and Eighty­ Eight Polling Units.
He added that in Benue State, INEC “mischievously uploaded blurred Forms EC8A allegedly for Polling Units to suppress the lawful result of the election in the Polling Units. The Petitioners shall also at trial rely on a Forensic Report of the Presidential Election held in Polling Units in Benue State.”
In Rivers State during the collation exercise at the Federal level, INEC announced the scores of the Labour Party as 175,071 votes and the APC as having 231,591 votes. However, by the actual scores obtained at the polling units, Labour Party’s lawful votes in Rivers State are 205,110 votes, while APCs’ score ought to be 84,108 votes.
Obi further contend that if INEC had, as it was mandated to do, utilised the scores recorded on the Forms EC8A as against the fictitious Forms uploaded on the IReV, the Petitioners Obi would have won Rivers State.
Similarly, in Benne State, INEC whilst suppressing the lawful votes obtained by the Labour Party, announced that Labour Party scores from the polling units in Benue State is 308,372 votes. APC’s score was falsely announced as being 310,468 votes. However, the actual scores of Labour Party from the polling units in Benne State was 329,003 votes, while APC scores were 300,421 votes.
‘By the unlawful announcement made by INEC, they denied me being the winner of the election in Benue State’, Obi told the court. He told the court has obtained “forensic analysis of the election for Rivers State and Benue State made pursuant to the inspection of the election materials as ordered by the Court.”
Whilst purportedly acting under the cover of uploading the result of the Presidential Election held on 25th February 2023 on the iRev, INEC “embarked and are still embarking on massive misrepresentation and manipulation by uploading fictitious results in Polling Units where there were no elections as well as uploading incorrect results. The actual scores of the Petitioners have been reduced, tampered with, and falsely represented in the false election results uploaded in the iRev.”
Obi said he has Forensic Report of the election result showing his actual scores obtained from the Polling Units and from the result of the election pursuant to the Inspection of the election materials as ordered by the Court.
scores were 300,421 votes.
‘By the unlawful announcement made by INEC, they denied me being the winner of the election in Benue State’, Obi told the court. He told the court has obtained “forensic analysis of the election for Rivers State and Benue State made pursuant to the inspection of the election materials as ordered by the Court.”
Whilst purportedly acting under the cover of uploading the result of the Presidential Election held on 25th February 2023 on the iRev, INEC “embarked and are still embarking on massive misrepresentation and manipulation by uploading fictitious results in Polling Units where there were no elections as well as uploading incorrect results. The actual scores of the Petitioners have been reduced, tampered with, and falsely represented in the false election results uploaded in the iRev.”
Obi said he has Forensic Report of the election result showing his actual scores obtained from the Polling Units and from the result of the election pursuant to the Inspection of the election materials as ordered by the Court.
The scores obtained by the Labour Party were unlawfully reduced and added by INEC to the scores of the APC. Further, INEC deliberately uploaded blurred result which were in favour of the Labour Party on the iRev in a bid to conceal them.
Obi asked the court to deduct these unlawful scores added to the APC and for those scores which were legitimately obtained by the Labour Party to be credited to the Labour Partys’ scores. When the scores unlawfully added to the APC are deducted, the Labour Party will have the highest number of votes in the election, as shown in the Forensic Report.
“When the results of Polling Units, Wards, Local Governments, States are properly tabulated and calculated as required by the Electoral Act and the Regulations and Guidelines for election, the overall results of the election and the percentages scored by the Political Parties will show that the Labour Party won the Presidential election of 25 February 2023.”
“From the correct Polling Unit result transmitted electronically and supported by the accreditation on the BVAS, the Labour Party won the election”, according to the Inspection Reports as well as Forensic/Expert analysis pursuant to the orders of the Court.
Obi also claimed that votes cast in the Poling Units in Ekiti State, Oyo State, Ondo State, Taraba State, Osun State, Kano State, Rivers State, Borno State, Katsina State, Kwara State, Gombe State, Yobe State and Niger State exceeded the number of voters accredited on the BVAS in those states.
“The computation and declaration of the result of the election, based on the uploaded results, the votes recorded for the APC did not comply with the legitimate process for computation of the result and disfavoured the Petitioners in RIVERS, LAGOS, TARABA, BENUE, ADAMAWA, IMO, BAUCHI, BORNO, KADUNA, PLATEAU and OTHER STATES OF THE FEDERATION.
In declaring the result of the election, INEC violated its own Regulations when it announced the result of the elections despite the fact that at the time of the said announcement or declaration, the totality of the Polling Unit results was yet to be fully scanned, uploaded and transmitted electronically as required by the Electoral Act, Obi said.
“The results and details recorded in the Forms EC8A. ECSB. EC8C. ECSD and ECSE which formed the basis of the declared result were not the product of compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2022 and INEC’s Regulations mandating the process of accreditation, voting, counting, recording of votes, and uploading to the INEC’s iRev Portal and the backend virtual server installed to ensure a uniform process.
Obi and the Labour Party further contend that when the purported scores recorded in the polling units where the above instances of over­ voting occurred are deducted from the alleged votes obtained by Bola Tinubu and on which INEC based the hurried declaration of Tinubu as the winner of the election, the margin of the purported lead between the APC and the Labour Party will be far less than the number of voters who ought to legitimately vote in those polling units.
Mr Obi stated that instances of over-voting in the conduct of the Presidential election held on 25th February 2023 occurred in more places than stated on the Form EC40G(iii), according to the Report of the BYAS Accreditation in the polling units.
The above instances of non-compliance substantially affected the outcome of the election, in that if these instances did not occur in the conduct of the Presidential election, the labour Party would have emerged the winners of the said election. Obi said.
Below are the Regulations for the conduct of the Presidential election which Obi claimed were violated by INEC
By the Regulations, voting was to be in accordance with the Continuous Accreditation and Voting System (CAVS) and no person was to be allowed to vote at any Polling Unit other than the one at which his or her name was disclosed on the Register of Voters. The intending voter was then to present the Permanent Voters Card (PVC) to INEC’s staff who was to verify. same using BVAS.
(i) Checking the Permanent Voter’s Card (PVC) of the voter;
(ii) Positive identification of the voter in the BVAS;
(iii) Authentication of the voter by matching his/her fingerprints or face (facial recognition) using the BVAS;
(iv) Positive identification of the voter in the Register of voters;
(v) Completion of Forms EC40H (1) – PWD Voter Information and Statistics; and
(vi) Applying indelible ink to the cuticle of the finger of the voter (where available).
By the said process of accreditation, the voter was to present himself to the Agent of the 1st Respondent who was to request the PVC of the voter. Where the voter had none, he was not to be allowed to vote; but if the voter had presented the said PVC, the Agent of the 1st Respondent was to proceed as follows:
(i) Call up the voter’s data on the BVAS by reading the bar code on the back of the PVC or reading the QR code against the name of the voter in the Register of Voters or entering the last six digits of the Voter Identification Number (VIN) of the voter into the BVAS or searching the BVAS with the surname of the voter;
(ii) On appearance of the voters’ data on the BVAS, the APO l was to ascertain that the photograph on the PVC was that of the voter and that the Polling Unit details correspond with those of the Polling Unit;
(jii) Request the voter to place his/her thumb or any other finger (where possible) in the place provided on the BVAS for authentication or, if this failed, match the face of the voter to the picture in the BYAS using the device’s facial recognition facility; and
(jv) If the fingerprint or face of the voter matched, request the voter to proceed to APO II.
After complying with the procedure above, the verified voter was to be further scrutinized before proceeding to the process of actual voting. Where the BVAS for the polling unit failed to identify the intending voter, that voter was not be allowed to vote.
(a) In order to ensure that voting did not proceed except as specifically prescribed with the use of the BVAS, in the event of any malfunctioning of the BVAS for a polling unit, the INEC Agent was to:
(i) Immediately inform the LGA and RA supervisors, the Supervisory Presiding Officer (SPO), the Electoral Officer (EO), and the Election monitoring and Support Centre (EMSC) for rcplacc111cnl:
(ii) Suspend Accreditation and Voting until a new BVAS was made:
(iii) file a report of the incident to the designated Official; and
(iv) Inform the voters and polling agents of the situation.
(b) Where a replacement BYAS was not available by 2:30pm, the Presiding Officer was to:
(i) Inform the LGA and RA Supervisors, SPO, EO, and EMSC of the situation.
(ii) File a report of the incident; and
(iii) Inform the voters and polling agents that accreditation and voting for the affected Polling Unit was to continue the following day.
(c) Where a BVAS was replaced in the middle of an election, the data of verified voters in the faulty BYAS was to be merged with data in the replacement B VAS for purposes of determining the number of verified voters.
After clue accreditation and casting of votes by the duly accredited voters, the Presiding Officer was to count the votes at the Polling Unit and enter the votes scored by each candidate in the Form prescribed by the 1st Respondent known as Form ECSA, which Form was then to be signed and stamped by the Presiding Officer and counter signed by the candidates or their Polling Agents where available at the Polling Unit.
The Presiding Officer was then to deliver copies of the result sheet to the party agents who desired to collect such copies as well as the Police Officer where available. Thereafter, the Polling Unit results for all the Polling Units within a Registration Area were to be delivered to the Registration Area Collation Officer who was to collate the results in the Form provided by the 1st Respondent. This process was to be repeated at all stages of collation, whereby the Ward Results were to be delivered to and collated by the Local Government Collation Officer, who was under duty to accelerate same to the final Constituency Collation Officer.
The Petitioners aver that, apart from the importance of the BYAS in the capture of accreditation at a polling unit in an election, the BV AS is also mandatorily to be used in the process of uploading the information or data imputed into it by the 1st Respondents’ Presiding Officer at each Polling Unit, who shall, upon completion of voting and due recording and announcement of the result:
(i) Electronically transmit or transfer the result of the Polling Unit directly to the collation system as prescribed by INEC;
(ii) Use the BVAS to upload a scanned copy of the Form ECSA to the INEC Result Viewing Portal (iRev), as prescribed by the I s1 Respondent; and
(iii) Take the BYAS and the original copy of each of the forms in tamper-evident envelope to the Registration Area/Ward Collation Officer, in the company of Security Agents. The Polling Agents may accompany the Presiding Officer to the Registration Area/Ward Collation Centre.
Amazon Server
Obi told the court that as part of the technological architecture for the conduct of the 2023 General Elections, including the Presidential election, INEC utilized virtual servers on Amazon Web Services (AWS) for the hosting/storage of INEC’s data, particularly results obtained and or generated from the 2023 General Elections, including the election results of the Presidential Election held on 25th February 2023 on the Amazon Cloud Platform. The Petitioners may subpoena the relevant staff or officer of Amazon to establish this, and related facts pleaded in this Petition.
The Amazon Cloud Platform is the world’s most comprehensive and broadly adopted platform which enables users such as large enterprises and government agencies like the 1si Respondent to effectively and in real time manage data, to lower costs, become more agile and effective. The Petitioners hereby plead relevant pages on the website of Amazon which can be accessed at https://aws.amazon.com.
The INEC data captured and or generated during the 2023 Presidential Election held on 25th February 2023, and stored on the AWS data warehouse using cloud computing technology is accessible.
In addition to the above, the result of the Presidential Election held on 25th February 2023 displayed/stored on INEC’s Result Viewing Portal (iRcv) ought to be the same in all material particulars with the result of the election stored in the Virtual Servers on the AWS or the Amazon Cloud Platform.
Transmission of Results
INEC created various levels of collation at the Registration Areas, Local Government Areas, State Constituencies and the Federal Constituency; and by that process, the results of any election, including the one hereby challenged, were only to be accepted for collation if the Collation Officer ascertained that the number of accredited voters corresponded with the number captured in the BVAS and where votes for the parties corresponded with the result electronically transmitted directly from the Polling Units.
In the case of a dispute, the results electronically transmitted or transferred directly from the lower levels and announced were to be used to determine the results at that level of the Collation process. Where no result was directly transmitted in respect of a Polling Unit or a level of collation, it would not be possible to resolve that dispute. In this case, the Labour Partys’ agents and agents of other political parties walked away in protest from the National Collation Centre when the Collation Officer blatantly refused to resolve their disputations of the results being collated as mandatorily stipulated by the Electoral Act, 2022. The Petitioners hereby plead a video clip of the incident as reported by some media houses.
Copies of the Forms EC8A scanned and uploaded through the BVAS to INEC’s Result Viewing Portal (iRev) as mandated by the INEC, were to exactly reflect all other results which originated from the Polling Units. Those which were instantaneously uploaded at the earliest moment ought to be the standard for assessing other results subsequently advanced by the 1st Respondent in the process of Collation leading to the final segment which was the declaration of the result of the election.

https://universalreportersng.com/how-inec-rigged-the-2023-presidential-election-for-tinubu-peter-obi/

Omowale2023:
Okay....I totally and outrightly agree with him that Abuja is a mere 37th. But in the constitution for you to be a governor of a state, you must have the popularity votes and 25% in 2/3 of the state. Therefore if Abuja is a state, who is the governor?, the president or the president?. Your guess is as good as mine.

The president is the governor of Abuja, hence if that be the case, how can a governor be elected without getting 25% and the popularity votes from the state?

To unbuttress your opposing opinions, since 1999 to 2019, no president has been sworn into power without winning Abuja or getting 25%.

What do you think?

Do you think obi is wasting is time?

Do you think Tinubu's presidency is unconstitutional?

Do you think that the Judiciary will do the wrong thing as usual?

I leave you with your thoughts.

NaijaOlosho:
He's taking treatment in the hospital

duro2chang:
You don't need to ask the question again after all the president has been elected. Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu the best man for the job, the best of all the contestants has been elected. I pray for the progress of the country during his tenure.

duro2chang:
Obi can never never be president. Obi and his gullible followers dwell on lies, intimidation, provocation, mischief, falsehood, blackmail, character assassination and mudslinging. They will all labour in vain.

duro2chang:
Continue to deceive yourself. Your obi cannot even talk about rigging in the court because there was nothing like that. Any election you lose is rigged.

FreedomfromtheT:
What makes you think so?

duro2chang:
May God bless Bola Ahmed Tinubu the president elect. May his time usher in peace progress and prosperity.

SmartPolician:
There should even be a law that compels the judiciary to invite the media to broadcast the tribunal proceedings live.

We don't want the media to use their words and summarize what happened. We want to see everything with our two eyes

FreedomfromtheT:
From what I read online, I get this idea that the ruling APC through their media team are trying to give the impression that the Labour Party and PDP are against the current CJN while they (APC) are in his defense.
Somebody like FFK who, in my opinion is being overzealous in the negative to impress his new party or prospective employer, from what I read, gave the impression that the other parties that are in court over the declaration of senator Bola Tinubu by INEC as president elect are against the CJN while his party is on the CJN's side.
How are we sure this attack on the CJN is not being fueled by the ruling party who turn around to publicly speak against those criticizing the CJN?
Does the APC hope to get unjust judgment from the Supreme Court by giving the impression that they are in the CJN's support?

Livelystone01:
Today is 27th March 2023?

Are we safe?

Wksur8038:
Buy PayPal Funds For 550 Naira Per $.... Verified Coinbase+bank attached (USA) For sale. You Can sell your PayPal for us.

You can also let us handle your online payment like eBay, walmart and Aliexpress with PayPal.

Our order starts from $12 to $2k





We offer you the best rate with less than 10 mins payment after confirmation



My WhatsApp: Check My Profile

Sunmolar:
An unwrinkled face is not good for a resounding slap. So it is somewhat indelicate for a lawyer who ought to be grounded in the ethics of the law profession to publicly criticize the opinions of other senior lawyers, who are revered to be authorities in their fields.

Afe Babalola, Gboyega Awomolo, Wole Olanipekun, J. B. Daudu, Lateef Fagbemi, Kanu Agabi, Oluwarotimi Akeredolu, J. K. Gadzama, E. C. Ukala, Yunus Ustaz Usman, Adeniyi Akintola, Emeka Ngige, Chris Uche, Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu, Mike Ozekhome, Dele Adesina, J. S. Okutepa, Mahmud Magaji, Dayo Akinlaja, Ahmed Raji, Femi Falana, A. Mustapha, Ebun-Adegboruwa, and many hosts legends of the inner bar are jurists who have become oracles of constitutional law and whose opinions carry weight and speak volumes. For some of these oracles of law, their names have refused to leave the pages of our law reports.

And when they lend their respected voices to public issues, their words are taken as gospel by laymen who lack the qualification and the intellectual rigour to interrogate their opinions. So, to laymen, the opinions of these senior lawyers are Yeah and Amen!

However, this electioneering season has been an eye opening one for some of us. It has been a season of unraveling and miracles as to how some legal professionals have, either by deliberate action or absence of proper research, interpret one of the simplest provisions in our Constitution as regards election to the office of the President and requirements of the candidate for that highest public office in the land.

We have seen those that should know and those who have held exalted and enviable positions hold curious opinions on Constitutional issues that embarrass our industry and harass ones intellect.

For some of them, politics have been mixed with law in order to please certain quarters of the political class. But this is a dangerous mix. There is politics, and there is law. While they can sometimes intersect, they should not be muddled up when discussing pertinent legal issues that affect the nationhood of the country and the collective development of her citizens.

A number of emergency analysts of the law we have never heard of, or are known for being passive about crucial National issues suddenly appeared to become public figure in interpreting the laws in our Constitution as if they are a collection of formal and informal texts in an English textbook compiled for letter writing.

It is quiet even disturbing when some of my professional colleagues across border were analysing those colloquial interpretations here on one occasion of our group interactions. I must confess that I felt uncomfortable with many of their comments.

As I write this, I find myself grappling with the question: when is politics taken too far? This question has far reaching ramifications, because a honest answer to it will reveal that some senior lawyers give certain legal opinions they do not even believe in just because they have been tainted by politics. It is the common man on the streets that suffers this dangerous game of deliberate obfuscation and misinterpretation of our laws.

Lawyers cannot frown at the attitude of people flouting court orders and still be the ones selling the law of the land for a token on the altar of political standing. Deliberately misinterpretation of the law by a lawyer is a mockery of our Constitution and the legal profession and such character has a way of turning to hunt its maker.

It is therefore incumbent upon some of us who understand that the primary role of lawyers as ministers in the temple of justice is first and foremost the attainment of justice. And justice cannot be attained without truth.

Consequently, amidst the brouhaha surrounding the interpretation of section 134(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the multifarious explanations given by public commentators and senior lawyers alike, it is important to set the record straight and state the true position of the law, devoid of emotion and political chicanery.

The provisions of Section 134(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), particularly sub-paragraph (b) thereof have generated so much fuss and controversy in the past few days, especially after the conclusion and announcement of the winner of the recently concluded presidential elections.

Basically, there are two opposing sides in the arguments the above section has spawned: those who argue that for a candidate to be declared winner, he must get 25% of the votes cast in FCT (asides meeting other Constitutional criteria) and those who contend that a candidate need not poll 25% of the votes cast in FCT to be declared winner, so far as he meets other Constitutional requirements.


For the sake of clarity, Section 134(2) provides that:

(2) A candidate for an election to the office of the President shall be deemed to have been duly elected where, there being more than two candidates for the election –

(a) he has the highest number of votes cast at the election; and

(b) he has not 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.

Even though the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja (FCT) is not a State properly so called, the Constitution has clothed it with the toga of a State. In other words, the FCT is treated like a State, and all the powers of a Governor in a State is vested in the Minister of the FCT. While the Houses of Assembly of the 36 States of the Federation legislate for each State respectively, the National Assembly makes laws for the FCT. Furthermore, while the States have their respective Local Government Areas, the FCT has Area Councils.

Pursuant to the above, Section 299 of the Constitution expressly provides that the provisions of the Constitution shall apply to the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja as if it were one of the States of the Federation. Section 299 of the Constitution has received the judicial imprimatur of the full panel of the Supreme Court in FAWEHINMI & ORS v. BABANGIDA & ORS (2003) LPELR-1255 (SC).

Hence, each time the draftsman intends to refer to the 36 States and FCT in the Constitution, it says “all the States in the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja (FCT)”, bearing in mind that the FCT has also been clothed with the toga of a State.

Having made the above clarification, the “and” as used by the draftsman between “all the States of the Federation” and “the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja” in sub-paragraph (b) of Section 134(2) of the Constitution cannot be interpreted to mean that what applies to other States is inapplicable to FCT. Rather, it means that the FCT is on the same pedestal as the States of the Federation, even though it’s not a State properly so called.

So, the intention of the draftsman as regards Section 134(2)(b) of the Constitution is that, the candidate, in addition to having the highest number of votes cast at the election, must also poll not less than one quarter (25%) of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the States in the Federation (36 States) and the FCT (a State kind of), thereby making it 25% of votes cast in at least 2/3 of 37 States. 2/3 of 37 is 24.6.

Drawing from the reasoning of the erudite jurist, Otutu Andrews Obaseki, JSC (of blessed memory), in the landmark decision of the full panel of the Supreme Court in AWOLOWO v. SHAGARI & ORS (1979) LPELR-653(SC), there’s nothing like 24.6 States, for a State is a geographical setting incapable of being divided.

Borrowing a leaf from the revered jurist, the construction that two-thirds of 37 States in the Federation (FCT inclusive) is 24.6 States may be correct in the abstract but in relation to the Constitution, it is impracticable. Where there are two possible meanings conveyed by the words of a statute or the Constitution, it is the most reasonable one that should be adopted. Where the other meaning leads to absurdity or evinces internal contradiction, that meaning should be dropped for the first as the legislature never intends to be absurd or contradictory.

The word 'each' in the sub-section (2)(b) of Section 134 qualifies a whole State and not a fraction of a State and to interpret it otherwise is to overlook the disharmony between the word "each" and the fraction "two thirds". Two-thirds of thirty-seven (37), to avoid any disharmony, gives 25.

As a way of covering the base, the second school of thought contend that for a candidate to be declared winner, he must score 25% in the FCT (asides meeting other Constitutional requirements). If one agrees with this view, then it logically follows that if a candidate wins the entire 36 states of the Federation and polls the majority number of votes cast, if he fails to get 25% in FCT, then he cannot be declared winner. This cannot be the intendment of the draftsman, as the FCT cannot hold the entire nation to ransom.

So, once a candidate severally polls at least 25% of votes cast in at least 25 states, whether inclusive of FCT or not, he’s won the election so long he also has the majority of the votes cast all over the Federation.

The issue under reference has been before the Supreme Court, in 2003 in the case of Buhari Vs Obasanjo (2003) All NLR 168, the apex court in the land prophesied and held that if there’s any issue on the provision of Section 134(2), they’ll toe the part that accords with common sense. They further undertook that the court is bound to adopt a construction which is just, reasonable and sensible.

For the sake of emphasis, the operative words are "just, reasonable and sensible."

This then begets the question: is it just, reasonable and sensible to argue that a candidate who, for instance, won 36 States of the Federation and also polled the highest number of votes cast at an election but failed to score 25% of the votes cast in FCT, Abuja cannot be deemed the winner of the election? I think not. That would not be just, reasonable and sensible.

In Bakari v. Ogundipe (2021) 5 NWLR (Pt.1768) 1, the supreme Court held that by virtue of section 299(a) (b) of the Constitution, the provisions of the Constitution shall apply to the FCT, Abuja as if it were one of the States of the Federation.

If that is the case, why then would the FCT, Abuja be placed on so high a pedestal, like some lawyers have done, that it now supersedes other States of the Federation?

Buttressing further, If the provisions of the Constitution are to apply to FCT, Abuja as if it were one of the States of the Federation, then surely it cannot be ranked above other States of the Federation.

To steelman our arguments above, in Baba-Panya v. President, FRN (2018) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1643) 423, the Court held that the FCT, Abuja is to be treated like a State and it is not superior or inferior to any state in the Federation.

As a corollary, it would then be unjust, unreasonable and insensible to argue that scoring 25% of the votes cast in the FCT, Abuja is a mandatory Constitutional requirement, when no other State or even the entire States of the Federation enjoy this preferential treatment.

A reasonable, just and sensible interpretation of section 134(2) would then be that scoring 25% of the votes cast in the FCT, Abuja is like scoring 25% in any other State of the Federation.

That is just, reasonable and sensible.


Source: Shahara reporters

IyaebeTheGreat:
Obidient is a movement that’ll not stand the tests of times. Obidient was built on religious and tribal bigotry and nothing built on a faulty foundation last long, it’ll sure fade. Obidients please come for me I’m bored at home

suckmedownthere:
He don fall tinubu hand....... men baba go vex oh.....10 years ago still means there is possibility he is still doing the damn thing underground....those kind of crime is not easy to identify when the person involved is rich and powerful with political influence and have lots of thugs that will deal with anyone when he throws his coins at them and point his crooked finger towards the target,they will run after the target without looking back..... They can even slap their own mother if she says anything about it.. So pathetic