₦airaland Forum

fergie001:
When we get to that bridge, we will cross it.

He dey look for information as usual. Na better answer you give am so.

garfield1:
Section 77 says submit register 30 days before fixed primaries.it is not talking about members in the register but a simple rule,follow it and avoid sanctions.in any case,this judgment is a moral lesson.technicalities is a double edged sword,it can swing to apc today,lp tomorrow and pdp next.so stop complaining when it favours apc

This judgment doesn’t even favour APC.

If Otti goes today, it’s PDP that would benefit from it, not APC.

garfield1:
We are already there.the nysc dg has made a sweeping statement yesterday

I totally agree with you that the case at hand will be upturned on Appeal as the Kano Federal High Court had no jurisdiction whatsoever.

Penguin2:
This judgment doesn’t even favour APC.

If Otti goes today, it’s PDP that would benefit from it, not APC.

No.you dont get it.no reasonable or strategic apc member will support otti losing abia.I started supporting otti since 2015 and even clashed with fergie who supported ikpeazu.apart from the fact that I like otti,I want pdp to lose as much ground as possible to lp in se and elsewhere.if otti loses,pdp gains so otti must win at all costs.
Even in Enugu,lp must reclaim power.anything but pdp is my motto.pdp must be wiped out.lp is a cancer to pdp politically.my only issue is just obi and his presidential ambition.

NothingDoMe:
He dey look for information as usual. Na better answer you give am so.

You dont like otti more than me.I am sure you started supporting otti recently.go back to the 2015 election and court case thread on abia and see my comments

seunmsg:
I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that the judgement will be upturned. However, until the judgement is set aside by a superior court, it remains valid.

Btw, it’s really funny you’re now hiding under technicalities to defend Labour Party. You can’t even deny the fact that the judgement is sound in law. It is the exact position of the law and nothing else. Good enough, APC also raised the same issue in her cross petition to the tribunal. We will be waiting to see what the tribunal will decide.

Hopefully, when some of the issues raised by Peter Obi are also similarly decided by the technicalities you’ve employed on this thread, we can all keep the same energy and not insult the judiciary.

Lawyer Kadoso!😁😁😁😁😁

Make them sack Obi and all other LP Candidates Jawe!

Make we rest!

fergie001:
The sack of all Labour Party Candidates in Abia and Kano States by a Federal High Court sitting in Kano, is on the hot burner.

The Originating Summons was filed by Mr. Ibrahim Haruna Ibrahim against the Labour Party (LP) and the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC. It allegedly borders on the failure of the 1st defendant (LP) to submit her membership register to the 2nd defendant (INEC) 30 days prior to the Primaries of the Party.

Section 77(3) of the Electoral Act reads: Each political party shall make such register available to the Commission not later than 30 days before the date fixed for the party primaries, congresses or Convention.

With Otti as a case study, the Abia Gov-Elect resigned from the APC on May 28 and won the Party Primary conducted on June 09, 2022.

However, I believe this judgement was delivered per incuriam.

Elections have been won and lost not only in Abia State but all over the Country, hence it is only through the elections petition tribunal that reliefs (if any) can be sought as of now.

It is trite law that jurisdiction is the life-blood and existence of any suit. No matter how finely delivered, the suit becomes null and void if the Court has no jurisdiction. Lokpobiri v. Ogola per Onnoghen JSC (as he then was).

The Court does not determine the membership of a Political Party. The Party determines her members.

Mr Haruna, the plaintiff, had deposed his OS on 11th May, 2023 well over one month after the election for a suit whose cause of action was June 2022. It is clearly statute-barred, divesting the court of jurisdiction to have entertained same. He ought to have come under Section 285 of the 1999 CFRN and filed 14 days after the course of action for it to be heard.

It is clear that the Federal High Court (Pre-Election) Practice 2022, Nos 3 & 4 were obviously not judiciously followed by the court.

The question that comes to my mind is:
- does the plaintiff even possess the locus to file this suit?

Section 84(14) of the Electoral Act reads:
Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act or rules of a political party, an aspirant who complains that any of the provisions of this Act and the guidelines of a political party have not been complied with in the selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election, may apply to the Federal High Court for redress.

Was Mr Haruna a candidate of the Labour Party in Abia State? The certain answer is NO. He had no locus, no business with the issues having not participated in the Primaries of the Party in that State.

Again, what comes to my mind is that relevant and interested parties were not joined.

Whilst non-joinder does not necessarily invalidate the proceedings of Court, the absence of a proper or necessary party before the Court renders the entire suit an exercise in futility, as a Court cannot validly make an order or decision which will affect a stranger to the suit, who was never heard nor given an opportunity to defend himself. (Katami v. Katami 2018) per Oho JCA

The proper thing was for the Judge to have allowed a window for necessary parties to be properly joined thereof, at worse.

The plaintiff did not bring himself to show cause why he should be taken seriously neither had he shown the injury he will suffer in Abia State if his suit isn't adjudicated upon.

Again, Can Section 77(3) of the Electoral Act override the Constitutional eligibility requirements of these Candidates in Abia and/or Kano?

Still on the disqualifications issue in APM v. Mr. Peter Obi: The Appeal Court per Anthony Ugochukwu Ogakwu JCA, held that Mr Peter Obi cannot be disqualified by Section 77(3) supra having satisfied the conditions of Sections 131 and 137 of the 1999 CFRN.

Sections 131 and 137 are direct and copious to Sections 177 and 182 (for Governors).

The plaintiff's apparent lack of locus standi should have deprived the trial court of the jurisdiction to grant the relief sought by the plaintiff in his OS.

When the plaintiff has been found not to have the standing to sue, the question whether other issues in the case had been properly decided or not does not arise. The position of the law is to dismiss same (Maxi Okwu & Anor v. INEC & Ors) per Okoro JSC

Interestingly, Justice M N Yunusa contradicted himself when he held that:

"... the candidates that participated in the Abia election are not parties before the court, he lacks the jurisdiction to make an order on the issuance of certificate of return."

Then again

“....That the failure of the 1st Defendant (Labour Party) to submit its register of members in Kano state and Abia state is in crass breach of the provisions of section 77(3) of the Electoral Act, 2022 and the purported primary elections of the 1st defendant is invalid, null and void and of no effect,”

Whilst Justice Yunusa invalidated the Primaries that produced Otti, he had neither restrained nor asked INEC to withdraw the Certificate of Returns issued to the Gov-Elect/NASS Candidates. In lay terms, he made no consequential orders.

This should normally not stop the inauguration for NASS Candidates and/or Otti, however, it has to be vacated or appealed as the judgement is valid and subsisting.

It is wholesomely clear that this suit have no scintilla of merit and will not survive the scrutiny of higher Courts.

Oga Boss, I dey see your hand work!

Twale for you, intelligent and resourceful Nairalander.

But I think say una don talk say na Kangaroo court say make anybody no bother dem self about the Judgement.

Well, if una no find better court go obtain better Judgement, Otti will just add Lo and become Otilo.

fergie001:
The sack of all Labour Party Candidates in Abia and Kano States by a Federal High Court sitting in Kano, is on the hot burner.

The Originating Summons was filed by Mr. Ibrahim Haruna Ibrahim against the Labour Party (LP) and the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC. It allegedly borders on the failure of the 1st defendant (LP) to submit her membership register to the 2nd defendant (INEC) 30 days prior to the Primaries of the Party.

Section 77(3) of the Electoral Act reads: Each political party shall make such register available to the Commission not later than 30 days before the date fixed for the party primaries, congresses or Convention.

With Otti as a case study, the Abia Gov-Elect resigned from the APC on May 28 and won the Party Primary conducted on June 09, 2022.

However, I believe this judgement was delivered per incuriam.

Elections have been won and lost not only in Abia State but all over the Country, hence it is only through the elections petition tribunal that reliefs (if any) can be sought as of now.

It is trite law that jurisdiction is the life-blood and existence of any suit. No matter how finely delivered, the suit becomes null and void if the Court has no jurisdiction. Lokpobiri v. Ogola per Onnoghen JSC (as he then was).

The Court does not determine the membership of a Political Party. The Party determines her members.

Mr Haruna, the plaintiff, had deposed his OS on 11th May, 2023 well over one month after the election for a suit whose cause of action was June 2022. It is clearly statute-barred, divesting the court of jurisdiction to have entertained same. He ought to have come under Section 285 of the 1999 CFRN and filed 14 days after the course of action for it to be heard.

It is clear that the Federal High Court (Pre-Election) Practice 2022, Nos 3 & 4 were obviously not judiciously followed by the court.

The question that comes to my mind is:
- does the plaintiff even possess the locus to file this suit?

Section 84(14) of the Electoral Act reads:
Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act or rules of a political party, an aspirant who complains that any of the provisions of this Act and the guidelines of a political party have not been complied with in the selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election, may apply to the Federal High Court for redress.

Was Mr Haruna a candidate of the Labour Party in Abia State? The certain answer is NO. He had no locus, no business with the issues having not participated in the Primaries of the Party in that State.

Again, what comes to my mind is that relevant and interested parties were not joined.

Whilst non-joinder does not necessarily invalidate the proceedings of Court, the absence of a proper or necessary party before the Court renders the entire suit an exercise in futility, as a Court cannot validly make an order or decision which will affect a stranger to the suit, who was never heard nor given an opportunity to defend himself. (Katami v. Katami 2018) per Oho JCA

The proper thing was for the Judge to have allowed a window for necessary parties to be properly joined thereof, at worse.

The plaintiff did not bring himself to show cause why he should be taken seriously neither had he shown the injury he will suffer in Abia State if his suit isn't adjudicated upon.

Again, Can Section 77(3) of the Electoral Act override the Constitutional eligibility requirements of these Candidates in Abia and/or Kano?

Still on the disqualifications issue in APM v. Mr. Peter Obi: The Appeal Court per Anthony Ugochukwu Ogakwu JCA, held that Mr Peter Obi cannot be disqualified by Section 77(3) supra having satisfied the conditions of Sections 131 and 137 of the 1999 CFRN.

Sections 131 and 137 are direct and copious to Sections 177 and 182 (for Governors).

The plaintiff's apparent lack of locus standi should have deprived the trial court of the jurisdiction to grant the relief sought by the plaintiff in his OS.

When the plaintiff has been found not to have the standing to sue, the question whether other issues in the case had been properly decided or not does not arise. The position of the law is to dismiss same (Maxi Okwu & Anor v. INEC & Ors) per Okoro JSC

Interestingly, Justice M N Yunusa contradicted himself when he held that:

"... the candidates that participated in the Abia election are not parties before the court, he lacks the jurisdiction to make an order on the issuance of certificate of return."

Then again

“....That the failure of the 1st Defendant (Labour Party) to submit its register of members in Kano state and Abia state is in crass breach of the provisions of section 77(3) of the Electoral Act, 2022 and the purported primary elections of the 1st defendant is invalid, null and void and of no effect,”

Whilst Justice Yunusa invalidated the Primaries that produced Otti, he had neither restrained nor asked INEC to withdraw the Certificate of Returns issued to the Gov-Elect/NASS Candidates. In lay terms, he made no consequential orders.

This should normally not stop the inauguration for NASS Candidates and/or Otti, however, it has to be vacated or appealed as the judgement is valid and subsisting.

It is wholesomely clear that this suit have no scintilla of merit and will not survive the scrutiny of higher Courts.

Whatever you guys decide wil help APC

Political party constitutions have have what is called waivers.

fergie001:
The sack of all Labour Party Candidates in Abia and Kano States by a Federal High Court sitting in Kano, is on the hot burner.

The Originating Summons was filed by Mr. Ibrahim Haruna Ibrahim against the Labour Party (LP) and the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC. It allegedly borders on the failure of the 1st defendant (LP) to submit her membership register to the 2nd defendant (INEC) 30 days prior to the Primaries of the Party.

Section 77(3) of the Electoral Act reads: Each political party shall make such register available to the Commission not later than 30 days before the date fixed for the party primaries, congresses or Convention.

With Otti as a case study, the Abia Gov-Elect resigned from the APC on May 28 and won the Party Primary conducted on June 09, 2022.

However, I believe this judgement was delivered per incuriam.

Elections have been won and lost not only in Abia State but all over the Country, hence it is only through the elections petition tribunal that reliefs (if any) can be sought as of now.

It is trite law that jurisdiction is the life-blood and existence of any suit. No matter how finely delivered, the suit becomes null and void if the Court has no jurisdiction. Lokpobiri v. Ogola per Onnoghen JSC (as he then was).

The Court does not determine the membership of a Political Party. The Party determines her members.

Mr Haruna, the plaintiff, had deposed his OS on 11th May, 2023 well over one month after the election for a suit whose cause of action was June 2022. It is clearly statute-barred, divesting the court of jurisdiction to have entertained same. He ought to have come under Section 285 of the 1999 CFRN and filed 14 days after the course of action for it to be heard.

It is clear that the Federal High Court (Pre-Election) Practice 2022, Nos 3 & 4 were obviously not judiciously followed by the court.

The question that comes to my mind is:
- does the plaintiff even possess the locus to file this suit?

Section 84(14) of the Electoral Act reads:
Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act or rules of a political party, an aspirant who complains that any of the provisions of this Act and the guidelines of a political party have not been complied with in the selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election, may apply to the Federal High Court for redress.

Was Mr Haruna a candidate of the Labour Party in Abia State? The certain answer is NO. He had no locus, no business with the issues having not participated in the Primaries of the Party in that State.

Again, what comes to my mind is that relevant and interested parties were not joined.

Whilst non-joinder does not necessarily invalidate the proceedings of Court, the absence of a proper or necessary party before the Court renders the entire suit an exercise in futility, as a Court cannot validly make an order or decision which will affect a stranger to the suit, who was never heard nor given an opportunity to defend himself. (Katami v. Katami 2018) per Oho JCA

The proper thing was for the Judge to have allowed a window for necessary parties to be properly joined thereof, at worse.

The plaintiff did not bring himself to show cause why he should be taken seriously neither had he shown the injury he will suffer in Abia State if his suit isn't adjudicated upon.

Again, Can Section 77(3) of the Electoral Act override the Constitutional eligibility requirements of these Candidates in Abia and/or Kano?

Still on the disqualifications issue in APM v. Mr. Peter Obi: The Appeal Court per Anthony Ugochukwu Ogakwu JCA, held that Mr Peter Obi cannot be disqualified by Section 77(3) supra having satisfied the conditions of Sections 131 and 137 of the 1999 CFRN.

Sections 131 and 137 are direct and copious to Sections 177 and 182 (for Governors).

The plaintiff's apparent lack of locus standi should have deprived the trial court of the jurisdiction to grant the relief sought by the plaintiff in his OS.

When the plaintiff has been found not to have the standing to sue, the question whether other issues in the case had been properly decided or not does not arise. The position of the law is to dismiss same (Maxi Okwu & Anor v. INEC & Ors) per Okoro JSC

Interestingly, Justice M N Yunusa contradicted himself when he held that:

"... the candidates that participated in the Abia election are not parties before the court, he lacks the jurisdiction to make an order on the issuance of certificate of return."

Then again

“....That the failure of the 1st Defendant (Labour Party) to submit its register of members in Kano state and Abia state is in crass breach of the provisions of section 77(3) of the Electoral Act, 2022 and the purported primary elections of the 1st defendant is invalid, null and void and of no effect,”

Whilst Justice Yunusa invalidated the Primaries that produced Otti, he had neither restrained nor asked INEC to withdraw the Certificate of Returns issued to the Gov-Elect/NASS Candidates. In lay terms, he made no consequential orders.

This should normally not stop the inauguration for NASS Candidates and/or Otti, however, it has to be vacated or appealed as the judgement is valid and subsisting.

It is wholesomely clear that this suit have no scintilla of merit and will not survive the scrutiny of higher Courts.

I want to believe that they passed the hasty judgement in order to pre-empt the outcome of the tribunal..

The double standard INEC, una mumu never still do? Nonsense

Oga stop all these online cry cry stunt, go to court of appeal or remain silent and never disturbs us with that disgusting party called LP.

Pray for Abia State

seunmsg:
I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that the judgement will be upturned. However, until the judgement is set aside by a superior court, it remains valid.

Btw, it’s really funny you’re now hiding under technicalities to defend Labour Party. You can’t even deny the fact that the judgement is sound in law. It is the exact position of the law and nothing else. Good enough, APC also raised the same issue in her cross petition to the tribunal. We will be waiting to see what the tribunal will decide.

Hopefully, when some of the issues raised by Peter Obi are also similarly decided by the technicalities you’ve employed on this thread, we can all keep the same energy and not insult the judiciary.

Lol.

See how you rushed to comment cause the thread is bodied by an issue that is detrimental to the Labour Party. Even when you tried to hide your much known hatred for the Party and her Presidential Candidate with your attempt at sounding a bit objective, perceptive minds like me still see through your smokescreen.

Anyway, the federal high court in Kano has denied issuing any judgement sacking Alex Otti and other Labour Party candidates in Abia State. The news is currently on Channels television news bar as a major headline. So you and your likes can rest with your propaganda.

Oga, rest in Jesus name!!

Acekidc4:
It Must stand by Fire by Force............. Labourers in Safia Pains.

Obidients should sell Labour Party and use the Money to Look for Obi Manhood, sorry Mandate.😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣

you people are trying to instigate Civil war, but when he sup, don't run oh

fergie001:
The sack of all Labour Party Candidates in Abia and Kano States by a Federal High Court sitting in Kano, is on the hot burner.

The Originating Summons was filed by Mr. Ibrahim Haruna Ibrahim against the Labour Party (LP) and the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC. It allegedly borders on the failure of the 1st defendant (LP) to submit her membership register to the 2nd defendant (INEC) 30 days prior to the Primaries of the Party.

Section 77(3) of the Electoral Act reads: Each political party shall make such register available to the Commission not later than 30 days before the date fixed for the party primaries, congresses or Convention.

With Otti as a case study, the Abia Gov-Elect resigned from the APC on May 28 and won the Party Primary conducted on June 09, 2022.

However, I believe this judgement was delivered per incuriam.

Elections have been won and lost not only in Abia State but all over the Country, hence it is only through the elections petition tribunal that reliefs (if any) can be sought as of now.

It is trite law that jurisdiction is the life-blood and existence of any suit. No matter how finely delivered, the suit becomes null and void if the Court has no jurisdiction. Lokpobiri v. Ogola per Onnoghen JSC (as he then was).

The Court does not determine the membership of a Political Party. The Party determines her members.

Mr Haruna, the plaintiff, had deposed his OS on 11th May, 2023 well over one month after the election for a suit whose cause of action was June 2022. It is clearly statute-barred, divesting the court of jurisdiction to have entertained same. He ought to have come under Section 285 of the 1999 CFRN and filed 14 days after the course of action for it to be heard.

It is clear that the Federal High Court (Pre-Election) Practice 2022, Nos 3 & 4 were obviously not judiciously followed by the court.

The question that comes to my mind is:
- does the plaintiff even possess the locus to file this suit?

Section 84(14) of the Electoral Act reads:
Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act or rules of a political party, an aspirant who complains that any of the provisions of this Act and the guidelines of a political party have not been complied with in the selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election, may apply to the Federal High Court for redress.

Was Mr Haruna a candidate of the Labour Party in Abia State? The certain answer is NO. He had no locus, no business with the issues having not participated in the Primaries of the Party in that State.

Again, what comes to my mind is that relevant and interested parties were not joined.

Whilst non-joinder does not necessarily invalidate the proceedings of Court, the absence of a proper or necessary party before the Court renders the entire suit an exercise in futility, as a Court cannot validly make an order or decision which will affect a stranger to the suit, who was never heard nor given an opportunity to defend himself. (Katami v. Katami 2018) per Oho JCA

The proper thing was for the Judge to have allowed a window for necessary parties to be properly joined thereof, at worse.

The plaintiff did not bring himself to show cause why he should be taken seriously neither had he shown the injury he will suffer in Abia State if his suit isn't adjudicated upon.

Again, Can Section 77(3) of the Electoral Act override the Constitutional eligibility requirements of these Candidates in Abia and/or Kano?

Still on the disqualifications issue in APM v. Mr. Peter Obi: The Appeal Court per Anthony Ugochukwu Ogakwu JCA, held that Mr Peter Obi cannot be disqualified by Section 77(3) supra having satisfied the conditions of Sections 131 and 137 of the 1999 CFRN.

Sections 131 and 137 are direct and copious to Sections 177 and 182 (for Governors).

The plaintiff's apparent lack of locus standi should have deprived the trial court of the jurisdiction to grant the relief sought by the plaintiff in his OS.

When the plaintiff has been found not to have the standing to sue, the question whether other issues in the case had been properly decided or not does not arise. The position of the law is to dismiss same (Maxi Okwu & Anor v. INEC & Ors) per Okoro JSC

Interestingly, Justice M N Yunusa contradicted himself when he held that:

"... the candidates that participated in the Abia election are not parties before the court, he lacks the jurisdiction to make an order on the issuance of certificate of return."

Then again

“....That the failure of the 1st Defendant (Labour Party) to submit its register of members in Kano state and Abia state is in crass breach of the provisions of section 77(3) of the Electoral Act, 2022 and the purported primary elections of the 1st defendant is invalid, null and void and of no effect,”

Whilst Justice Yunusa invalidated the Primaries that produced Otti, he had neither restrained nor asked INEC to withdraw the Certificate of Returns issued to the Gov-Elect/NASS Candidates. In lay terms, he made no consequential orders.

This should normally not stop the inauguration for NASS Candidates and/or Otti, however, it has to be vacated or appealed as the judgement is valid and subsisting.

It is wholesomely clear that this suit have no scintilla of merit and will not survive the scrutiny of higher Courts.

This makes a lot of sense.

"With Otti as a case study, the Abia Gov-Elect resigned from the APC on May 28 and won the Party Primary conducted on June 09, 2022."

I hope some people can make some sense out of this.

The same politicians in APC, PDP LP and NNPP

fergie001:
The sack of all Labour Party Candidates in Abia and Kano States by a Federal High Court sitting in Kano, is on the hot burner.

The Originating Summons was filed by Mr. Ibrahim Haruna Ibrahim against the Labour Party (LP) and the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC. It allegedly borders on the failure of the 1st defendant (LP) to submit her membership register to the 2nd defendant (INEC) 30 days prior to the Primaries of the Party.

Section 77(3) of the Electoral Act reads: Each political party shall make such register available to the Commission not later than 30 days before the date fixed for the party primaries, congresses or Convention.

With Otti as a case study, the Abia Gov-Elect resigned from the APC on May 28 and won the Party Primary conducted on June 09, 2022.

However, I believe this judgement was delivered per incuriam.

Elections have been won and lost not only in Abia State but all over the Country, hence it is only through the elections petition tribunal that reliefs (if any) can be sought as of now.

It is trite law that jurisdiction is the life-blood and existence of any suit. No matter how finely delivered, the suit becomes null and void if the Court has no jurisdiction. Lokpobiri v. Ogola per Onnoghen JSC (as he then was).

The Court does not determine the membership of a Political Party. The Party determines her members.

Mr Haruna, the plaintiff, had deposed his OS on 11th May, 2023 well over one month after the election for a suit whose cause of action was June 2022. It is clearly statute-barred, divesting the court of jurisdiction to have entertained same. He ought to have come under Section 285 of the 1999 CFRN and filed 14 days after the course of action for it to be heard.

It is clear that the Federal High Court (Pre-Election) Practice 2022, Nos 3 & 4 were obviously not judiciously followed by the court.

The question that comes to my mind is:
- does the plaintiff even possess the locus to file this suit?

Section 84(14) of the Electoral Act reads:
Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act or rules of a political party, an aspirant who complains that any of the provisions of this Act and the guidelines of a political party have not been complied with in the selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election, may apply to the Federal High Court for redress.

Was Mr Haruna a candidate of the Labour Party in Abia State? The certain answer is NO. He had no locus, no business with the issues having not participated in the Primaries of the Party in that State.

Again, what comes to my mind is that relevant and interested parties were not joined.

Whilst non-joinder does not necessarily invalidate the proceedings of Court, the absence of a proper or necessary party before the Court renders the entire suit an exercise in futility, as a Court cannot validly make an order or decision which will affect a stranger to the suit, who was never heard nor given an opportunity to defend himself. (Katami v. Katami 2018) per Oho JCA

The proper thing was for the Judge to have allowed a window for necessary parties to be properly joined thereof, at worse.

The plaintiff did not bring himself to show cause why he should be taken seriously neither had he shown the injury he will suffer in Abia State if his suit isn't adjudicated upon.

Again, Can Section 77(3) of the Electoral Act override the Constitutional eligibility requirements of these Candidates in Abia and/or Kano?

Still on the disqualifications issue in APM v. Mr. Peter Obi: The Appeal Court per Anthony Ugochukwu Ogakwu JCA, held that Mr Peter Obi cannot be disqualified by Section 77(3) supra having satisfied the conditions of Sections 131 and 137 of the 1999 CFRN.

Sections 131 and 137 are direct and copious to Sections 177 and 182 (for Governors).

The plaintiff's apparent lack of locus standi should have deprived the trial court of the jurisdiction to grant the relief sought by the plaintiff in his OS.

When the plaintiff has been found not to have the standing to sue, the question whether other issues in the case had been properly decided or not does not arise. The position of the law is to dismiss same (Maxi Okwu & Anor v. INEC & Ors) per Okoro JSC

Interestingly, Justice M N Yunusa contradicted himself when he held that:

"... the candidates that participated in the Abia election are not parties before the court, he lacks the jurisdiction to make an order on the issuance of certificate of return."

Then again

“....That the failure of the 1st Defendant (Labour Party) to submit its register of members in Kano state and Abia state is in crass breach of the provisions of section 77(3) of the Electoral Act, 2022 and the purported primary elections of the 1st defendant is invalid, null and void and of no effect,”

Whilst Justice Yunusa invalidated the Primaries that produced Otti, he had neither restrained nor asked INEC to withdraw the Certificate of Returns issued to the Gov-Elect/NASS Candidates. In lay terms, he made no consequential orders.

This should normally not stop the inabd Baauguration for NASS Candidates and/or Otti, however, it has to be vacated or appealed as the judgement is valid and subsisting.

It is wholesomely clear that this suit have no scintilla of merit and will not survive the scrutiny of higher Courts.

. My only concern is whether a FHC can rule on disqualification even after election. Cases of Deogi and Mafawara in Bayelsa and Zamfara ckearky show that even before and shortly after election a federal Hugh Court ,AC abd SC. can overrule any Victory of a political party!

Not only LP candidate alone but the electoral system must be truncated and new polls taken.

fergie001:
'The proper thing was for the Judge to have allowed a window for necessary parties to be properly joined thereof, at worse.

The plaintiff did not bring himself to show cause why he should be taken seriously neither had he shown the injury he will suffer in Abia State if his suit isn't adjudicated upon.

Interestingly, Justice M N Yunusa contradicted himself when he held that:

"... the candidates that participated in the Abia election are not parties before the court, he lacks the jurisdiction to make an order on the issuance of certificate of return."

Then again

“....That the failure of the 1st Defendant (Labour Party) to submit its register of members in Kano state and Abia state is in crass breach of the provisions of section 77(3) of the Electoral Act, 2022 and the purported primary elections of the 1st defendant is invalid, null and void and of no effect,”

Whilst Justice Yunusa invalidated the Primaries that produced Otti, he had neither restrained nor asked INEC to withdraw the Certificate of Returns issued to the Gov-Elect/NASS Candidates. In lay terms, he made no consequential orders.
[/i]

Well written and objective writeup. The so called judge definitely acted unprofessionally. He must have been heavily bribed to hurriedly pass the judgement. He must be sanctioned.

fergie001:
The sack of all Labour Party Candidates in Abia and Kano States by a Federal High Court sitting in Kano, is on the hot burner.

The Originating Summons was filed by Mr. Ibrahim Haruna Ibrahim against the Labour Party (LP) and the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC. It allegedly borders on the failure of the 1st defendant (LP) to submit her membership register to the 2nd defendant (INEC) 30 days prior to the Primaries of the Party.

Section 77(3) of the Electoral Act reads: Each political party shall make such register available to the Commission not later than 30 days before the date fixed for the party primaries, congresses or Convention.

With Otti as a case study, the Abia Gov-Elect resigned from the APC on May 28 and won the Party Primary conducted on June 09, 2022.

However, I believe this judgement was delivered per incuriam.

Elections have been won and lost not only in Abia State but all over the Country, hence it is only through the elections petition tribunal that reliefs (if any) can be sought as of now.

It is trite law that jurisdiction is the life-blood and existence of any suit. No matter how finely delivered, the suit becomes null and void if the Court has no jurisdiction. Lokpobiri v. Ogola per Onnoghen JSC (as he then was).

The Court does not determine the membership of a Political Party. The Party determines her members.

Mr Haruna, the plaintiff, had deposed his OS on 11th May, 2023 well over one month after the election for a suit whose cause of action was June 2022. It is clearly statute-barred, divesting the court of jurisdiction to have entertained same. He ought to have come under Section 285 of the 1999 CFRN and filed 14 days after the course of action for it to be heard.

It is clear that the Federal High Court (Pre-Election) Practice 2022, Nos 3 & 4 were obviously not judiciously followed by the court.

The question that comes to my mind is:
- does the plaintiff even possess the locus to file this suit?

Section 84(14) of the Electoral Act reads:
Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act or rules of a political party, an aspirant who complains that any of the provisions of this Act and the guidelines of a political party have not been complied with in the selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election, may apply to the Federal High Court for redress.

Was Mr Haruna a candidate of the Labour Party in Abia State? The certain answer is NO. He had no locus, no business with the issues having not participated in the Primaries of the Party in that State.

Again, what comes to my mind is that relevant and interested parties were not joined.

Whilst non-joinder does not necessarily invalidate the proceedings of Court, the absence of a proper or necessary party before the Court renders the entire suit an exercise in futility, as a Court cannot validly make an order or decision which will affect a stranger to the suit, who was never heard nor given an opportunity to defend himself. (Katami v. Katami 2018) per Oho JCA

The proper thing was for the Judge to have allowed a window for necessary parties to be properly joined thereof, at worse.

The plaintiff did not bring himself to show cause why he should be taken seriously neither had he shown the injury he will suffer in Abia State if his suit isn't adjudicated upon.

Again, Can Section 77(3) of the Electoral Act override the Constitutional eligibility requirements of these Candidates in Abia and/or Kano?

Still on the disqualifications issue in APM v. Mr. Peter Obi: The Appeal Court per Anthony Ugochukwu Ogakwu JCA, held that Mr Peter Obi cannot be disqualified by Section 77(3) supra having satisfied the conditions of Sections 131 and 137 of the 1999 CFRN.

Sections 131 and 137 are direct and copious to Sections 177 and 182 (for Governors).

The plaintiff's apparent lack of locus standi should have deprived the trial court of the jurisdiction to grant the relief sought by the plaintiff in his OS.

When the plaintiff has been found not to have the standing to sue, the question whether other issues in the case had been properly decided or not does not arise. The position of the law is to dismiss same (Maxi Okwu & Anor v. INEC & Ors) per Okoro JSC

Interestingly, Justice M N Yunusa contradicted himself when he held that:

"... the candidates that participated in the Abia election are not parties before the court, he lacks the jurisdiction to make an order on the issuance of certificate of return."

Then again

“....That the failure of the 1st Defendant (Labour Party) to submit its register of members in Kano state and Abia state is in crass breach of the provisions of section 77(3) of the Electoral Act, 2022 and the purported primary elections of the 1st defendant is invalid, null and void and of no effect,”

Whilst Justice Yunusa invalidated the Primaries that produced Otti, he had neither restrained nor asked INEC to withdraw the Certificate of Returns issued to the Gov-Elect/NASS Candidates. In lay terms, he made no consequential orders.

This should normally not stop the inauguration for NASS Candidates and/or Otti, however, it has to be vacated or appealed as the judgement is valid and subsisting.

It is wholesomely clear that this suit have no scintilla of merit and will not survive the scrutiny of higher Courts.

. As to the interest of the plaintiff ,I think as long as he is a arty member and a decider in the LP primaries he can institute the case. A non party member can never be a party in the siut.

Raskimonojendor:
The date hmmm.

so labour party don't have presidential candidate?

fergie001:
In law, once there is no jurisdiction it is null and void.

There is a world of difference between jurisdiction and technicality.

The case of Nwajiuba v. Tinubu & Atiku was struck out on jurisdiction. The case of PDP v Shettima met same fate.

Jurisdiction can be raised for the first time even when it is before the Supreme Court. It has happened before (see Ohakim v Rochas Okorocha)

Technicality in law are minute details that seem unfair but forces the Court to make tough calls. An example is Jegede v Akeredolu.

However, jurisdiction is the foundation, the bedrock of which any case rests on.

meaning federal hight court Kano has jurisdiction to preside over Abia matters

favor914:
What jurisdiction, LP did not field a legitimate presidential candidate, he was not on the register of members, a month prior to the primaries, so he could not have been sponsored by the party, if you like, quote all the case laws.

A nullity ab initio never existed, has no jurisdiction, Labor, pikin Mumu party, they done go enter 1 chance.

I wrote about this before that labour party has no presidential candidate

ejimatic:
. As to the interest of the plaintiff ,I think as long as he is a arty member and a decider in the LP primaries he can institute the case. A non party member can never be a party in the siut.

He cannot because he is not an aspirant.
In the Electoral Act 2010, yes maybe he could but with this one now, no he can't. It is the National leadership of the Party that can tell who their members are.

The Court has no business with who is a member of the Party, it is the Party that decides.

In a February Supreme Court judgement between Ita Enang v. Akanimo Udofia... the SC was clear about that.

Udofia bought the PDP Guber form, was screened and defected to APC 2 nights before the APC Primary, after that of PDP had been conducted.

He had a waiver from the Party and the APC duly acknowledged they gave it to him and the SC said no P then.

In Agi v. PDP.... PDP gave Ayade the ticket but when the Court case started, down to the SC they denied Ayade isn't/wasn't an up-to-date member. He proved to the Court he was and was affirmed.

The SC said fine... You cannot clear this man, say he is your member, he wins an election, then you come to the SC and say he is not your member.

Jones4190:
meaning federal hight court Kano has jurisdiction to preside over Abia matters

This new Practice direction has stopped it.

theophorus:
But I think say una don talk say na Kangaroo court say make anybody no bother dem self about the Judgement.

Well, if una no find better court go obtain better Judgement, Otti will just add Lo and become Otilo.

It's gone...😅😅😅😅😅😅😅