dunkem21:
..After two lines, I know it can't be Barcanista ..

SeverusSnape:
Another barcanista wannabe.

SeverusSnape:

Chai!... Sense you no get. So you believe this is the REAL barcanista

sunnyb0b0:


No sir, he has the right to run to another court to seek protection.

Jesusloveyou:
can't u understand a common analysis? He can seek protection by appealing against d ruling of cct, u can only seek protection from a higher ground

modath:


They didnt

rhames:



Sentimentally, the Yoruba lawyers feel they are superior to other lawyers when they speak. The highest disregard for any judge is to call him incompetent.

T0nyeBarcanista:
Many SANs, including Saraki's lawyers have critically complained about the CCT's disregard for the authority of the Federal High Court.

Let us ignore the fact that they later shot themselves in the feet when they realised their mistake and ran back to institute exactly the same matter at the Court of Appeal.

Apparently, Saraki's lawyers did not realise the following and may need to be schooled further on why their action at the Federal High Court was a nullity:

1. When you are charged to a court....any court at all....and you wish to challenge it's jurisdiction, you do so right in that same court.

2. If the CCT ignores your application and rules that it has jurisdiction, then you appeal its ruling.

3. The constitution has already clarified which court is capable of reviewing the Ruling of the CCT.

4. No where in jurisprudence, is a plaintiff permitted to sue a court as a party to the case, the only provision is to appeal its ruling.

5. The CCT is a specialized court similar to the Election petition Tribunals. Appeals from them go directly to the Court of Appeal. These tribunal panels comprise high court judges of coordinate jurisdiction.

6. An invitation of the high court judge to both parties, asking for them to show reason why they feel the high court should not issue an interlocutory injunction stopping CCT is no way an Interlocutory Injunction already.

7. Saraki's disregard of a substantive court summon in the absence of an Interlocutory Injunction was a direct request for a bench warrant.

While it is very clear that the CCT has given Saraki and his lawyers utmost respect and regard by withholding the bench warrant, believing that as a responsible citizen, he will honour the summons on Tuesday, let no one be in doubt about the CCT's utmost power to arrest, detain and lock behind bars, any accused person who shows open brigandage and disregard for the court's authority, no matter how highly placed.

T0nyeBarcanista:
According to the constitution...."The question of whether or not such protocol as mentioned above has been followed shall not be asked"


The constitution already took care of that.

Notwithstanding, if a defendant has any complains about the writ of summons, he can only table it before the trial judge as he honours the summons. Just like challenging jurisdictions, challenging the technicality of the case is a matter of jurisprudence very well recognised.

Many cases have been struck out on technical grounds alone.

He was wrong to file that challenge in a different court, treating the trial court with utter disregard.

Burger01:
Tonyebarcanista, you make sense on this one. Seems you don dey turn green leaf small small

Jesusloveyou:
can chief wailer make sense?

T0nyeBarcanista:
Many SANs, including Saraki's lawyers have critically complained about the CCT's disregard for the authority of the Federal High Court.

Let us ignore the fact that they later shot themselves in the feet when they realised their mistake and ran back to institute exactly the same matter at the Court of Appeal.

Apparently, Saraki's lawyers did not realise the following and may need to be schooled further on why their action at the Federal High Court was a nullity:

1. When you are charged to a court....any court at all....and you wish to challenge it's jurisdiction, you do so right in that same court.

2. If the CCT ignores your application and rules that it has jurisdiction, then you appeal its ruling.

3. The constitution has already clarified which court is capable of reviewing the Ruling of the CCT.

4. No where in jurisprudence, is a plaintiff permitted to sue a court as a party to the case, the only provision is to appeal its ruling.

5. The CCT is a specialized court similar to the Election petition Tribunals. Appeals from them go directly to the Court of Appeal. These tribunal panels comprise high court judges of coordinate jurisdiction.

6. An invitation of the high court judge to both parties, asking for them to show reason why they feel the high court should not issue an interlocutory injunction stopping CCT is no way an Interlocutory Injunction already.

7. Saraki's disregard of a substantive court summon in the absence of an Interlocutory Injunction was a direct request for a bench warrant.

While it is very clear that the CCT has given Saraki and his lawyers utmost respect and regard by withholding the bench warrant, believing that as a responsible citizen, he will honour the summons on Tuesday, let no one be in doubt about the CCT's utmost power to arrest, detain and lock behind bars, any accused person who shows open brigandage and disregard for the court's authority, no matter how highly placed.

capip120:
Guy change your moniker to who you are supposed to be and stop trying to be who you are not. Dim-witted ass nigga
We only no Tonyebarcanista
Which one be T0nyebarcanista
I bet you will soon get tired of posting with this fake moniker.

kopite:
Seun please decimate dis chinko barcanista. People should get real n stop creating chaos in d nairaland server. Stop d confusion!!!

midolian:
This guy is so on point.

8.) You don't call a judge that presides over your case "incompetent". I am sure joseph Daudu will regret ever calling a hausa/fulani Judge "incompetent".

The same "incompetent" Justice Danladi Umar will be the one he and his paymaster(Saraki) will face tomorrow.

MISSNORA:
barcanista can be truthful sometimes

T0nyeBarcanista:
According to the constitution...."The question of whether or not such protocol as mentioned above has been followed shall not be asked"


The constitution already took care of that.

Notwithstanding, if a defendant has any complains about the writ of summons, he can only table it before the trial judge as he honours the summons. Just like challenging jurisdictions, challenging the technicality of the case is a matter of jurisprudence very well recognised.

Many cases have been struck out on technical grounds alone.

He was wrong to file that challenge in a different court, treating the trial court with utter disregard.

Burger01:
Na temporary sense he get. He will revert back to status quo soon

soonest:

Madam, wetin u dey do here.