₦airaland Forum

Ondo: Tinubu, APC leaders can endorse candidate, says Odigie-Oyegun http://punchng.com/ondo-tinubu-apc-leaders-can-endorse-candidate-says-odigie-oyegun/

[quote author=dammy222 post=43606941]Hello nairalanders,Good morning. Please am in need of an accounting /audit trainee job .I am an Economics graduate but would love to switch to accounting /auditing line. I really need to gain experience. I don't mind the pay . Thank you

First of all get familiar with the use of some accounting packages e.g sage 50,QuickBooks and tally. This will really heip with the practical exercise.

caselessogbuagu:
Obj: amaechi, don't bother explaining things to wailers, they can never understand.

Lwkmd

Dose two sent GEJ packing!!!

No be small thing

This picture look like where is your friend Jonah? And Amaechi ................

[quote author=Phylmat80 post=42997206]Fighting in any work place is considered as a gross misconduct offence which could lead to termination of appointment. If your friend is on suspension, he could resign without any trouble.

Thanks, that's my candid advice before but he said may be he should wait till his suspension elapsed.

Please my dear friend needs an advice on what to do. He told me that he had quarel in his place of work with his colleague and he was suspended. Though after narrating what happens my advice to him Is dat he should just resign based on what he told me 1 he said his monthly pay is 40k as a graduate of 6 to 7 years 2 no condition of service I.e no entitlement or pension he said what they do is pay as you come. With these my candid advice to him is dat he should resign and look for better job but the fear of unknown and indecision worrying him. But my question now is that can he resign while he is on suspension? And repackage himself better pls HR in the house your advice.

emekamigo:
Wike vs Dakuku: How the Supreme Court May Decide

In a few days the Supreme Court will bring the Governorship Election case in Rivers State to a conclusion. One issue that will attract close attention is how the Apex Court will decide the fate of the card reader in view of

Section 160 of the 1999 constitution (which empowers INEC to makes its own rules without any approval from the President)
Section 49 (which provides for the mode of accreditation and voting),
Section 52 (which prohibits electronic voting),
Section 57 (which empowers INEC to determine how voters can record their votes)
Section 138 (1) of the Electoral Act (which provides the four grounds for the nullification of an election),
Section 138 (2) (which states that an act or omission of an INEC staff which is contrary to the directive of the Commission but not contrary to the provision of the Electoral Act shall not by itself be ground for questioning the election
The Manual for Election Officials and Approved Guidelines and Regulation 2015 made by INEC (which expanded the accreditation process to include the card reader)
The interest generated by the Rivers state case may be situated in the case of Governor Ambode vs Jimi Agbaje in which it was decided, from the trial court up to the Supreme Court, that the non-use of the card reader is not a valid ground for the nullification of an election.
Governor Wike’s camp has latched on to the Ambode/Agbaje case and the pronouncement of the Chief Justice of the Nigeria on conflicting judgments as a possible escape route from the adverse judgments of the Tribunal  and Appeal court.
One important element which may guide the Apex Court’s decision is how the issue of the card was framed in the Rivers case. In the Ambode/Agbaje case, counsel to Agbaje, as it were, implanted the non-use of the card reader into section 138 of the Electoral Act.
Indeed at the Tribunal level, Dr Dakuku sought for four reliefs one being the nullification of Wike’s election based on non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act and the 2015 INEC manual for election and approved guidelines among others. The card reader issue was embedded in the INEC manual and approved guideline (2015).
One knotty appellate issue was whether the manual and approved guideline were ultra vires or intra vires with respect to the Constitution and the 2010 Electoral Act. However, at the Tribunal level,  Wike’s adverse judgment was mainly based on the gross irregularities noticed across board in INEC accreditation records as captured by card readers and incident forms, result and collation sheets and the disastrous testimonies of witnesses both for INEC and Wike during cross examinations.
INEC called 16 witnesses (who were all Electoral and Presiding officers) while Wike called 24 witnesses (who were voters and law enforcement officers) to testify on their behalf.  Of the 40 witnesses, the Justices found only one, DW14, to be credible. The remaining 39 witnesses, according the three the Tribunal Justices
“Were manifestly unreliable, incredible and their characters impugned as a result of cross examination”
On the other hand, this is what the Justices said of the 56 witnesses called by Dakuku and the APC,
“We watched the witnesses when in witness box and we do not see any element of untruthfulness in the demeanour. They testified directly as to what they observed at the election and such evidence remains credible and reliable.”
The probative value ascribed to witnesses became an issue (issue 7) during the appeal. The Appellate Court however said quoting a Supreme Court case
”Evaluation of relevant and material evidence and the ascription of probative value to such evidence are the primary functions of the trial court which saw, heard and assessed the witnesses as they testified. Where the trial court unquestionably evaluates the evidence and justifiably appraised the facts, as it has been manifestly shown to have been done in the instant case, it is not the business of an appeal court to substitute its own views for the views of the trial court. The application of this trite principle by the lower court cannot, certainly, be a basis for the reversal of the court's decision.”
The Appeal Court went on to conclude that
“The only rare occasion this Appellate Court is allowed to intervene and interfere with the findings of a lower court or tribunal concerning evaluation of evidence of witnesses who testified before it and the use to which documentary evidence are put by the tribunal is when the Appellant can positively show that the findings are perverse and not in consonance with the totality of the oral and documentary evidence on record before the lower court or tribunal.”
The Appeal Court held that the Tribunal findings were in consonance with the testimonies of witnesses and exhibit tendered. 
On the vexing issue of card readers which was embedded in the INEC   election manual and guidelines (2015) the Leading Appellate Judge  (with other concurring) said
‘’As for sections 49 and 52 (1)(b) of the Electoral Act as amended which were heavily relied upon by the appellant and I do not see any conflict between the two sections of the Electoral Act and the Manual for Election Officials and Approved Guidelines and Regulations made by the Independent Electoral Commission. They actually complement and supplement each other positively to enable INEC conduct transparent, free and fair credible election.’’
‘’The introduction of the card reader to a polling booth unit for authentication or verification of the biometrics of a voter is not ultra vires but intra vires as it gives teeth to the provisions of section 49 of the electoral act. A person who has no business at a polling unit is thus put at bay.’’
Wike appeal to the Appellate court was based on 27 grounds distilled into seven issues. The Appellate court ruled against him in all seven issues. Having read both the Tribunal and Appeal Court Judgments and seen how thorough they were in their application of the law and evaluation of witnesses and evidence pleaded, it is highly unlikely that Wike Appeal’s will succeed at the Supreme Court.

huuuuuuu true but.............