Wole Olanipekun technicality in the Election Petition tribunal is a Preelection matter. His case will be dismissed in the Presidential Election tribunal. There’s a waiver for a Candidate that decamp to another party to contest for a political positions. APC lost their battles again.

APC response in the Presidential election petition tribunal will be dismissed for lacking merit. It’s only Lp that can take a candidate to the court and not other political parties . Supreme Court of justice have ruled on that. APC will suffer another defeat in the tribunal court of justice.

When God is on your side, Goliath APC must fall.

God is with Peter Obi

press9jatv:
Wole Olanipekun technicality in the Election Petition tribunal is a Preelection matter. His case will be dismissed in the Presidential Election tribunal. There’s a waiver for a Candidate that decamp to another party to contest for a political positions. APC lost their battles again.

How is not suing Atiku and PDP pre election matter? How is the absence of Mr Obi's name on the register as at the deadline pre-election matter? Even if there is a waiver , it must be submitted even before the primaries and acknowledged by INEC and accompany his petition but Mr Obi resigned from PDP on May 27, joined LP on May 28 and primary held on May 30 while he was not yet a member of LP.

It is the legality of his membership and participation which he is using to file a petition so if he has no locus standi the courts have no basis wasting its time!

The APC willfullly waited till now after the election so that Mr Obi can cancel Alhaji Atiku of PDP and Obi did the job for APC. Now it is time to legally dispense with Obi for doing a thankless job of destroying PDP.

Section 285( of the Constitution provides that: Where a preliminary objection or any other interlocutory issue touching on the jurisdiction of the tribunal or court in any pre-election matter or the competence of a petition itself is raised by a party, the tribunal or court shall suspend its ruling.

Well, having read the submissions of the APC in response to the LP's petition:

This is just the defendant's reply to the petition, we have not even gotten to the pre-hearing stage, let alone proper trial.

The LP now has 7 days to apply for pre-hearing or 5 days to respond to the defendant's new facts which I believe there is.
However, it is expected that the Tribunal will respond to the Objections first, during the ruling proper.

A Presidential election petition of this magnitude will naturally not dwell on technicalities.

1. That Obi was not a registered member of the LP before May 24 last year.

This is at best puerile. Does the APC have the locus standi to challenge? NO.

a. Once there is no locus standi, there is no jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is the lifeblood and existence of any case. Once there is no jurisdiction, no matter how finely delivered a case is ruled upon, it becomes null and void, ab initio.

Only a member of the LP can challenge the membership of Peter Obi. The Court can best describe the APC as meddlesome interlopers and busybodies.

b. This matter is a pre-election matter. Membership, nomination and sponsorship of any Candidate in a political party is a pre-election issue that should be filed not more than 14 days after the cause of action at the FHC.

Same suit was brought up by a political party, the APM and the Appeal Court ruled in February 2023, that they do not have the locus. The PEPT or SC will not even delve into the merits but shut it out for lack of locus standi.

2. Non-joinder of Atiku Abubakar & PDP
This again should likely not upturn anything. This is an election petitions tribunal and it is declaratory in nature.

It is an independent and individualistic appeal, at best, this is academic considering that the PDP & her Candidate are also in Court. It is urging the Court to subject to intellectual argument and satisfy intellectual prowess which cannot answer the questions in the live issues to be determined in the suit.

3. Arrangement of tables, etc.

Is this enough to throw out the petitions before we even get to the stage of hearing in the petitions? In my humble opinion, NO.

I believe all 3 Objections will be dismissed so that we can really listen to the REAL ISSUES.

What the defendant has done is not unexpected, raise up issues to dismiss the suit.

press9jatv vicdom ejimatic garfield1 senatordave1 kyase

press9jatv:
Wole Olanipekun technicality in the Election Petition tribunal is a Preelection matter. His case will be dismissed in the Presidential Election tribunal. There’s a waiver for a Candidate that decamp to another party to contest for a political positions. APC lost their battles again.

It was forged. Disgraced LP national chairman Abure forged court documents to implement the substitutions. You cannot build something on nothing.

press9jatv:
APC response in the Presidential election petition tribunal will be dismissed for lacking merit. It’s only Lp that can take a candidate to the court and not other political parties . Supreme Court of justice have ruled on that. APC will suffer another defeat in the tribunal court of justice.

Are you aware that LP is already in court challenging the substitution of candidate names using forged FCT court documents? Or why do you think Abure was disgraced out of office as national chairman?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bjui8CmIBLU

FreeStuffsNG:

How is not suing Atiku and PDP pre election matter? How is the absence of Mr Obi's name on the register as at the deadline pre-election matter? Even if there is a waiver , it must be submitted even before the primaries and acknowledged by INEC and accompany his petition but Mr Obi resigned from PDP on May 27, joined LP on May 28 and primary held on May 30 while he was not yet a member of LP.

It is the legality of his membership and participation which he is using to file a petition so if he has no locus standi the courts have no basis wasting its time!

The APC willfullly waited till now after the election so that Mr Obi can cancel Alhaji Atiku of PDP and Obi did the job for APC. Now it is time to legally dispense with Obi for doing a thankless job of destroying PDP.

freestyffsNg or whatever you called yourself, you never read law neither you are a lawyer. Your stuff as been lies and propaganda on nairaland. Don’t worry I will school you small. It’s only the candidates party members or leaders that can sued the party candidate for contravene their constitution and not other party candidate. Supreme Court of justice have ruled on that. Check section 285 of Nigeria constitution. Infact Wole Olanipekun technicality case will be dismissed and knock out in the tribunal. Supreme Court of justice have ruled that other parties don’t have the right to sued the party candidate of a party. It’s the party members or leaders that have the right to sued the candidate in their party. Concerning the Peter Obi been nominated to be the Lp presidential candidate, there’s a waiver in a party and it’s in Lp constitution too so this waiver protect Peter Obi in Lp. I will address it more, just stay tuned.

Supreme Court, electoral justice and pre-election matters


The constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended created three sets of courts in Nigeria to obtain justice. These courts are the High Court, the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court. In the hierarchy of courts, the Supreme Court is the highest in the land. In election and pre-election matters, appeals from Tribunals and Federal High Courts go to the Court of Appeal and from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court in some cases.

The Supreme Court is the highest in Nigeria. The Constitution has allocated time for the adjudication of cases to these three sets of courts. For instance, 180 days and 60 days are allotted to the trial courts and the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme court, respectively, as can be seen in sections 285(10) and (11) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended.

The basis of the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal is to correct whatever errors the trial Federal High Court may have made in Pre-election matters and should there be errors committed by the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal, the draftsman of our constitution allotted to the Supreme Court powers and jurisdiction to determine and correct such errors within 60 days.

But recently there have been worrying trends from the apex court, the Supreme Court in which the majesty of that court appears to have surrendered to the principle that if the trial Federal High Court failed to examine the merit of a case within 180 days, then such errors cannot be corrected on appeal even in cases where the justice of the matter deserves the exercise of the powers vested in the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court not only by statutes but even the Constitution that created the rights of appeal and the appellate jurisdiction of these courts.

There is a need for the Supreme Court to revisit its stand as I will show anon. The right of appeal created by the Constitution was not donated not to be exercised. It is because the draftsman of our laws appreciated that errors such as not doing what the trial court was expected to do that the right of appeal was created.

Furthermore by sections 6, 233, and 235 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, whether the failure of the trial court and the Court of Appeal to comply with section 285( of the same Constitution cannot stop the Supreme Court from exercising its appellate jurisdiction.

This is because the Constitution did not say that the failure of the trial court or the Court of Appeal to exercise their jurisdiction within 180 and 60 days respectively cannot be corrected by the Supreme Court. The Constitution did not say so and we cannot read into the Constitution what it did not say.

The Constitution never intended to leave errors of the trial Federal High Court uncorrected. The Supreme Court of Nigeria cannot abdicate its majesty and finality under the guise that once the 180 days has elapsed then whatever errors the trial Federal High Court committed to not examining the merit of pre-election matters will remain uncorrected forever.

No, it cannot be a correct approach to justice. The constitution cannot donate supervisory and appellate jurisdiction in the Supreme Court and it will engage in giving an interpretation that creates injustice in adjudication. Section 6(6) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, sets out the hierarchy of Nigeria’s judicature to exercise adjudicatory powers in all matters between persons, or between government or authority and to any persons in Nigeria, and to all actions and proceedings relating thereto, for the determination of any question as to the civil rights and obligations of that person.

In respect of the adjudicatory powers mentioned in the Constitution, the grundnorm specifically sets out both the order of hierarchy and the procedure through which all claims must climb, by way of systemic and systematic review, before arriving at the Supreme Court. Section 84(14) of the Electoral Act, 2022 says pre-election matters be filed in the Federal High Court.

Section 285( of the Constitution provides that: Where a preliminary objection or any other interlocutory issue touching on the jurisdiction of the tribunal or court in any pre-election matter or the competence of a petition itself is raised by a party, the tribunal or court shall suspend its ruling and deliver it at the stage of final judgment.

This section of the Constitution was interpreted by the Supreme Court in APP vs. Obaseki [2022] 13 NWLR 11 (Pt.1846) 1 at 41-42, where his lordship Ogunwumiji, JSC, put it in the most admirable erudition that: “By section 285( of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), every ruling that is capable of terminating an election petition in limine be it a preliminary objection or an interlocutory issue touching on the jurisdiction or competence of the court must be deferred or suspended until the final Judgment when both would be rendered together.

[d]

The provision of section 285( of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) is mandatory, as the word ‘shall’ used therein leaves no room for discretion. The mischief sought to be cured by the section is simply to prohibit the tribunal or court of first instance in election matters from truncating an election petition in limine based on any preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the tribunal or court or competence of the petition. In the instant case, the Court of Appeal was wrong in scolding the trial tribunal for obeying the letters and spirit of the Constitution.”

Even though the mischief sought to be cured by section 285( of the Constitution is a situation whereby a court would deliver a ruling in limine, and a default judgment without considering the merit of the case or cases, experience has shown that some judicial officers of the trial court still breach this provision of the constitution.

If the trial court failed to consider an action on merit, why should the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court refuse to correct the errors? Is it justice for the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court to see an obvious error for which jurisdiction was donated to them by the Constitution for their lordships to shy away from their constitutional duties and responsibilities under the guise that 180 days have lapsed? What is the essence of jurisdiction donated to them?

The powers of the Supreme Court and its jurisdiction were donated to check the excesses or errors of both the trial court and the Court of Appeal. That is the majesty of the Supreme Court. It is the apex court of the land. See sections 233 and 235 of the Constitution. Whilst section 233 empowers the Supreme court to adjudicate over decisions of the Court of Appeal, section 235 of the Constitution makes the decisions of the Supreme Court final. Final in the sense of finality. See Adegoke Motors (Nig.) Ltd vs. Adesanya & Ors. (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 109) 250 at 274.

How appeals are being withdrawn or counsel is being advised to withdraw appeals based on the 180 days principle that appears concerning making the right of appeal to the Supreme Court meanless and options. The Supreme Court needs to revisit its stand on this issue before the trial court becomes Supreme Court in pre-election matters.

This is because some judex may deliberately decide not to decide the merit of matters for reasons other than justice. The Supreme Court cannot afford to set this policy or standard. To continue to say appeals cannot be heard to correct what the trial court failed to do or did not do within 180 days means that the trial court has become the final court in pre-election matters.

The Supreme Court is a policy court. See Marwa vs Nyako (2012) 6 NWLR (Part 1296) 199. If the current position is not urgently reviewed and departed from it means that the Supreme court is unwittingly encouraging a very dangerous policy that trial courts can now wait until the end of their statutory allotted period to deliver their judgments, in which said judgments, they can raise issues suo motu and get rid of claims without hearing the merit of these cases and the possibility of such decisions being reviewed on appeal becomes impossible.

That cannot be in the interest of justice. It cannot even be in the interest of the existence of the Supreme Court. It will not be in the interest of the majesty of the Supreme Court. No, it cannot be.

In Ebodaghe vs. Okoye (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt 905) 472 at 494 – 495, the Supreme Court made it clear that even in the face of a challenge to its jurisdiction, the court is duty bound to first resolve any issue of its majesty, to leave same intact. On this leg alone, to wit, the court’s majesty which must ring true at all times, the Supreme Court ought to and should review its current stand on the 180 days question of its jurisdiction to hear aggrieved parties.

To be continued tomorrow
Okutepa is a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN).


https://guardian.ng/opinion/supreme-court-electoral-justice-and-pre-election-matters/

So by the provisions of the Electoral act,Obi was not even a member of the labor party as at the time he was parading himself as a presidential candidate.

Revelations of widespread forgery carried out by the former chairman does not also speak well of the party.

Barrister fergie001, we need more of your inputs here on judgement of pre election matters and your input on Wole Olanipekun SAN technicality case in the presidential election petition tribunal. Thanks 🙏

Praxtech:


It was forged. Disgraced LP national chairman Abure forged court documents to implement the substitutions. You cannot build something on nothing.

not true at all, this is a propaganda and lies from APC fold. Lp Abure didn’t forged any documents joor. Besides the Federal high Court In Benin has restricted any Lp members or leaders to suspend. Abure remains Lp national chairman.

densiks:
So Obi is not even a member of the labor party

peter obi is a member of Labour Party joor

Praxtech:


Are you aware that LP is already in court challenging the substitution of candidate names using forged FCT court documents? Or why do you think Abure was disgraced out of office as national chairman?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bjui8CmIBLU

Federal high Court In Benin has restricted any Lp members or leaders to suspend. Abure remains Lp national chairman. no Appeal on the judgement of the high court in Benin

fergie001:
Well, having read the submissions of the APC in response to the LP's petition:

This is just the defendant's reply to the petition, we have not even gotten to the pre-hearing stage, let alone proper trial.

The LP now has 7 days to apply for pre-hearing or 5 days to respond to the defendant's new facts which I believe there is.
However, it is expected that the Tribunal will respond to the Objections first, during the ruling proper.

A Presidential election petition of this magnitude will naturally not dwell on technicalities.

1. That Obi was not a registered member of the LP before May 24 last year.

This is at best puerile. Does the APC have the locus standi to challenge? NO.

a. Once there is no locus standi, there is no jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is the lifeblood and existence of any case. Once there is no jurisdiction, no matter how finely delivered a case is ruled upon, it becomes null and void, ab initio.

Only a member of the LP can challenge the membership of Peter Obi. The Court can best describe the APC as meddlesome interlopers and busybodies.

b. This matter is a pre-election matter. Membership, nomination and sponsorship of any Candidate in a political party is a pre-election issue that should be filed not more than 14 days after the cause of action at the FHC.

Same suit was brought up by a political party, the APM and the Appeal Court ruled in February 2023, that they do not have the locus. The PEPT or SC will not even delve into the merits but shut it out for lack of locus standi.

2. Non-joinder of Atiku Abubakar & PDP
This again should likely not uotirn anything. This is an election petitions tribunal and is declaratory in nature.

It is an independent and individualistic appeal, at best, this is academic. It is urging the Court to subject to intellectual argument and satisfy intellectual prowess which cannot answer the questions in the live issues to be determined in the suit.

3. Arrangement of tables, etc.

Is this enough to throw out the petitions before we even get to the stage of hearing in the petitions? In my humble opinion, NO.

I believe all 3 Objections will be dismissed so that we can really listen to the REAL ISSUES.

What the APC has done is not unexpected, raise up issues to dismiss the suit.

press9jatv ejimatic garfield1 senatordave1 kyase

I agree with you.I feel these are just distractive missiles to delay the case or kill time

garfield1:


I agree with you.I feel these are just distractive missiles to delay the case or kill time

That's it!

fergie001:
That's it!

One month is already gone,remaining 5 months.

Apc intentionally waited till die minute b4 they responded so It is very obvious they want to cause delays and also waste time. Indeed APC is A Party of/for Criminals.

garfield1:


I agree with you.I feel these are just distractive missiles to delay the case or kill time

Why the law requires pre-election cases to be decided before elections



In a unanimous judgment delivered on February 14, 2020, the Supreme Court of Nigeria sacked the Bayelsa State Governor-elect, David Lyon and his Deputy, Biobarakuma Degi-Eremieoyo who had run on the platform of the All Progressive Congress (APC). The judgment was nullified on the grounds that Degi-Eremieoyo presented false information to the Independent National Electoral commission (INEC) in his nomination form for the governorship election held on November 16, 2019. Consequently, the Court directed INEC to declare the results of the election following the cancellation of the votes scored by the APC in the election. Barely 24 hours later, INEC declared the candidate of the People’s Democratic Party, Senator Duoye Diri as the new Governor-Elect.

No doubt, the pre-election matter filed by the PDP against the APC and its governorship candidates in the Bayelsa Stare has been rested by the judgment
it has since continued to generate reactions from a cross section of the society. With respect, majority of people who have reviewed the judgment have not paid attention to the line of dichotomy which has been drawn between pre-election and election petitions by section 285 of the Constitution as amended by Alteration Act No 8 of 2017. Contrary to the belief of some lawyers the said amendment has altered the electoral jurisprudence of the country. This review is essentially anchored on the implications of the effect of the amendment on pre-election matters.

PENALTY FOR FIELDING UNQUALIFIED CANDIDATES BY POLITICAL PARTIES

By virtue of section 31 of the Electoral Act, disputes arising from the information contained in the nomination form of a candidate contesting any election shall be resolved before the election is conducted by the Independent National Electoral Commission. In other words, it is a pre-election matter which cannot continue to be heard once the the election has been held. Indeed, the penalty for fielding unqualified candidates by political parties has to be meted out to those who are found to have violated the provisions of the Electoral Act before the election. I am referring to Section 31(5- thereof which states:

Advertisement

“5. Any person who has reasonable grounds to believe that any information given by a candidate in the affidavit or any document submitted by that candidate is false may file a suit at the Federal High Court; High Court of a State or FCT against such persons seeking a declaration that the information contained in the affidavit is false

6. If the Court determines that any of the information contained in the affidavit or any document submitted by that candidate is false, the Court shall issue an order disqualifying the candidate from contesting the elections.

7. A candidate for an election shall, at the time of submitting the prescribed form, furnish the Commission with an identifiable address in the State where the intends to contest the election at which address all documents and court processes from either the Commission or any other person shall be served on him.

Advertisement

8. A political party which present to the Commission the name of a candidate who does not meet the qualifications stipulated in this section, commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a maximum fine of N500,000.00”

Since an unqualified candidate is expected to be disqualified from contesting the election the pre-election matter praying for his or her disqualification has to be decided before the election. A candidate cannot be disqualified from participating in an election that has been held and concluded. Having regards to the fact that the nomination of governorship candidate and deputy governorship candidate is a joint ticket section 182 (1) of the Constitution provides that no person shall be qualified for election to the office of Governor of a State if he or she fails to meet the conditions stiputed in the section including the presentation of a forged certificate to the INEC. The same prerequisites are applicable to a deputy governorship candidate pursuant to section 187 (2) of the Constitution.

As far as section 285 of the Constitution is concerned a pre-election matter can no longer be turned into a post election matter and determined after the election. Ex abudanti cautela, section 285 (14) of the Constitution as amended in 2017 defines a pre-election matter as a suit filed by an aggrieved aspirant or political party “….in respect of the selection or nomination of candidates for an election” or “……in respect of preparation for an election.” It is crystal clear from the novel provision of the Constitution that a pre-election case filed “in respect of preparations for an election” cannot metamorphose into a post election case.

RIGHT OF APPEAL BY PARTIES IN PRE-ELECTION MATTERS



It was generally believed in legal circles that a pre-election could be continued after an election being challenged has been held. The practice was questioned by the Supreme Court in the case of Toyin Obayemi v People’s Democratic Party (unreported Suit No SC. 308/2018) wherein the appellant had filed a pre-election case at the Federal High Court on 10th April 2015 to challenge the nomination of the 3rd Respondent on grounds that he forged the waec certificate submitted to INEC. Before the determination of the case the respondent won the election to the Ekiti State House of Assembly. Thereafter, the learned trial judge granted the relief sought by the appellant and ordered the appellant’s removal from the assembly. The appeal filed at the Court of Appeal by the Respondent was allowed. Dissatisfied with the decision the appellant filed an appeal at the Supreme Court on March 13, 2018.

In a judgment delivered on 18th January 2019 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was filed after the 60 days stipulated by section 285 of the Constitution notwithstanding that the said amendment which limits the time for pre-election matters came into force on June 18, 2018 i.e. during the pendency of the appeal. In fact, the amendment took effect three months after the filing of the appeal. In justifying the position of the Court, Tanko Muhammad JSC as he then was held that “Thus, once an appeal comes outside the time set out for its determination, the court has no jurisdiction to entertain it. See Chigbu v. Tonimas (Nig.) Ltd. (2006) 31 WRN 179; (2006) 9 NWLR (Pt. 84) 189, Ogun State Govt. v. Dalami (Nig.) Ltd. (2017) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1035) 66. It is clear that this appeal has been caught up by the limitation of time in section 2 (13)) of the Constitution afore stated. That section renders the appeal a nullity. By this reason alone, the appeal is rendered incompetent and it is hereby struck out.”

In applying the law with retrospective effect to the pending appeal the Supreme Court was desirous to put an end to the pre-election matter pursued after elections. It is on record that the definitive pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the appeal ended all pre-election matters pending in the various high courts and appeallate courts at the material time. Even though the law did not extinguish the right of aggrieved persons to exercise their right of appeal to finality the Supreme Court did so in order to discourage them from turning such matters into post election cases.

However, since section 285 (6) & (7) of the Constitution provides that a court in a pre-election matter shall deliver its judgment within 180 days and an appeal arising therefrom shall be determined within 60 days from the date of filing the appeal it is submitted that any of the parties involved in the Bayelsa state pre-election case could have filed an application for interlocutory injunction restraining INEC from conducting the Bayelsa state governorship election pending the determination of the pending appeal in the matter. More so, that the Court of Appeal had granted a stay of the execution of the order of the Federal High Court which had disqualified the APC governorship and deputy governorship candidates pending the determination of the appeal. I am of the strong view that the application to postpone the election would have been granted in view of the position of the Supreme Court in the case of Obi v INEC (2007) 45 WRN 1.

Advertisement

But once an election has been conducted and concluded the results cannot be challenged in a trial court or appellate court via a pre-election matter. At that stage the challenge of the election could only be questioned at an election petition tribunal. No doubt, the appellate courts are empowered to exercise jurisdiction in respect of appeals arising from the decisions of the election petition tribunals. Hence, section 133 of the Electoral Act provides that “No election or return under this Act shall be questioned or in any manner other than by election petition complaining of an undue election or undue return (in this Act referred to as an “election petition”) presented to the competent tribunal or court in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution or of the Act , and in which the person elected or returned is joined as a party.”

Indeed, the jurisdiction of any court to hear a pre-election matter has been completely ousted by section 285 (2) of the Constitution which provides that the governorship election petition tribunal shall, “to the exclusion of any court or tribunal have jurisdiction to hear and determine petitions as to whether any person has been validly elected to the office of Governor or Deputy Governor of a State.” Therefore, the election petition tribunal is the only juridicial organ which has the competence to annul an election based on disqualification of an elected Governor or Deputy Governor. If the election petition tribunal annuls an election on grounds of disqualification it shall order a fresh election so that the electorate can elect another candidate of their choice.


https://www.thecable.ng/why-the-law-requires-pre-election-cases-to-be-decided-before-elections/amp

garfield1:


One month is already gone,remaining 5 months.

...and it's not pre-hearing yet.

fergie001:
Well, having read the submissions of the APC in response to the LP's petition:

This is just the defendant's reply to the petition, we have not even gotten to the pre-hearing stage, let alone proper trial.

The LP now has 7 days to apply for pre-hearing or 5 days to respond to the defendant's new facts which I believe there is.
However, it is expected that the Tribunal will respond to the Objections first, during the ruling proper.

A Presidential election petition of this magnitude will naturally not dwell on technicalities.

1. That Obi was not a registered member of the LP before May 24 last year.

This is at best puerile. Does the APC have the locus standi to challenge? NO.

a. Once there is no locus standi, there is no jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is the lifeblood and existence of any case. Once there is no jurisdiction, no matter how finely delivered a case is ruled upon, it becomes null and void, ab initio.

Only a member of the LP can challenge the membership of Peter Obi. The Court can best describe the APC as meddlesome interlopers and busybodies.

b. This matter is a pre-election matter. Membership, nomination and sponsorship of any Candidate in a political party is a pre-election issue that should be filed not more than 14 days after the cause of action at the FHC.

Same suit was brought up by a political party, the APM and the Appeal Court ruled in February 2023, that they do not have the locus. The PEPT or SC will not even delve into the merits but shut it out for lack of locus standi.

2. Non-joinder of Atiku Abubakar & PDP
This again should likely not upturn anything. This is an election petitions tribunal and it is declaratory in nature.

It is an independent and individualistic appeal, at best, this is academic considering that the PDP & her Candidate are also in Court. It is urging the Court to subject to intellectual argument and satisfy intellectual prowess which cannot answer the questions in the live issues to be determined in the suit.

3. Arrangement of tables, etc.

Is this enough to throw out the petitions before we even get to the stage of hearing in the petitions? In my humble opinion, NO.

I believe all 3 Objections will be dismissed so that we can really listen to the REAL ISSUES.

What the defendant has done is not unexpected, raise up issues to dismiss the suit.

press9jatv vicdom ejimatic garfield1 senatordave1 kyase

you are very right here Barrister fergie001, APC and Wole Olanipekun want to used the technicality case to waste time in the Presidential Election Petition tribunal. The technicality will never hold any water. What APC and Wole Olanipekun should have done before 25th February 25th presidential poll is now they are approaching tribunal to sued the candidate of Lp. It won’t work. The justices of the panel will dismissed Wole Olanipekun technicality for lacking merit. Infact the Supreme Court of justices will rule on that too.

fergie001:
...and it's not pre-hearing yet.

Yes,from what I witnessed in 2019 pept,obi and atiku will have about one month and half to present while the defence will also have sane amount of time

Whois:
Apc intentionally waited till die minute b4 they responded so It is very obvious they want to cause delays and also waste time. Indeed APC is A Party of/for Criminals.

Apc will eventually win the case anyway

garfield1:


Yes,from what I witnessed in 2019 pept,obi and atiku will have about one month and half to present while the defence will also have sane amount of time

It's a long road but even the Judges will not even have that kind of time. Five petitions in a Presidential Election, where the President-Elect will have been sworn-in?

It is good for our jurisprudence, but I have told my good friends not to be optimistic.

fergie001:

It's a long road but even the Judges will not even have that kind of time. Five petitions in a Presidential Election, where the President-Elect will have been sworn-in?

It is good for our jurisprudence, but I have told my good friends not to be optimistic.

No,in 2019 I think four parties sued apc and they handled it well.it is their job afterall an average court in nigeria handles at least 5 cases a day.
Me and you know how it will end.the 2019 certificate case had more meat

The criminal structure will win the case

garfield1:



Apc will eventually win the case anyway

Whois:
The criminal structure will win the case

Which criminal structure

garfield1:


No,in 2019 I think four parties sued apc and they handled it well.it is their job afterall an average court in nigeria handles at least 5 cases a day.
Me and you know how it will end.the 2019 certificate case had more meat

The pressure then and now isn't the same.

Buhari was an incumbent, there was only one strong opposition.
Now, the pressure is more, the sentiments even more.
I have a premonition how it will end though.

garfield1:



Apc will eventually win the case anyway

nope Garfield1. Good case in the tribunal. This year presidential election tribunal is very interesting. Good judgement coming out on APC technicality case too. Wole Olanipekun don shots himself already.

It's an open secret or are you living under a rock?

garfield1:


Which criminal structure