₦airaland Forum

TonyeBarcanista:
INEC never said APC had primaries for Benue state. They were completely SILENT on it because they understand that they can't prove that primary election was held. The tribunal judges fraudulently left the argument to ask the petitioner to prove in a glaring case. Or did they say same for APC in Taraba? Not even INEC proved that primary election was held in Benue APC.

It is glaring that there is a grand conspiracy by the Presidency, APC, INEC and the Election Tribunal to subvert the will of the people in favor of APC. This is purely Judicial Terrorism.

Firefire:
Continue your gloating...The future of Nigeria democracy is at stake.

Shalom!

SweetSoup:
It wasn't at stake when 16 was greater than 19? when 5 lawmakers was allowed to impeach a speaker in a house of 21 in Ekiti state? Thank God we saw the back of that govt, give this govt at least 2years b4 you criticise.

SweetSoup:
It wasn't at stake when 16 was greater than 19? when 5 lawmakers was allowed to impeach a speaker in a house of 21 in Ekiti state? Thank God we saw the back of that govt, give this govt at least 2years b4 you criticise.

NgeneUkwenu:
Firefire, is becoming a
! Ignore him.

NgeneUkwenu:
While some mischievous and aggrieved parties are now on full throttles trying to deliberately misinform the public, sway public opinion and malign the ruling party and the President of Federal Republic Of Nigeria as having influence on the recent judgments emanating from the Tribunals For the Benue and Taraba States governorship elections.

It behooves on some of us who are widely knowledgeable not to allow this fifth columnist (who are yet to recover from the devastating defeat suffered by their hero in the hands of Nigerians) now masquerading as opinion writers and born again lovers of Rule Of Law to further drag the Sacred institution of Law into the mud.

Let me for the sake of emphasis, relay albeit briefly, the prayers and ground of petitions filled by the two candidates in the two contentious states vis a vis the rulings by the tribunals on the cases for Nigerians to compare and contrast.

Benue State: (Trazoon Vs Ortom)
Let us look at the addresses of the two Learned Men representing the Petitioner(Trazoon) and the Defendant (Ortom)

Adenipekun said it was a settled law that the appropriate place to ventilate the issue of qualification is the election petitions tribunal.

The lawyer said the first respondent was not sponsored by the APC and was not a member of the party at the time of the election.

He said the APC did not hold a valid governorship primary, adding that the court should allow his petition.

But the Counsel to INEC, Prof Tony Ijohor, urged the court to dismiss the petition.

According to him, there are no facts to support grounds two and three of the petition, hence the petitioner cannot seek solace under the canopy of severance of pleadings without a formal application.

Prof Ijohor cited Gundiri v Nyako, 2NWLR Part 1931 P. 211 at 284 and 285, decided by the Supreme Court.

The law expert urged the court to invoke the presumption regularity with respect to the nomination of Ortom by virtue of sections 167 and 168 of the Evidence Ac.

http://thenationonlineng.net/tarzoor-v-ortom-tribunal-reserves-judgment/

The Tribunal Verdict:

Justice Elizabeth Karatu in her ruling dismissing the petition stated thus:
Section 177 and 138(1)(c) of the 1999 Constitution as amended and held that Governor Ortom met all the criteria for being recognized as the validly elected candidate of the APC.

She went further to point out that the petitioner failed to provide valid evidences to show that the APC did not hold its primaries as required by law.

According to her, the petitioners witness (one) made mockery of the Tribunal by presenting to it a report of the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, on the APC primaries which was not written on an INEC letter headed paper nor signed by the relevant persons.
http://www.vanguardngr.com/2015/09/benue-petition-tribunal-upholds-ortoms-election/.

Now To Taraba State: Aisha VS Dairus)

The petitioners prayed the tribunal to void the governorship poll for corrupt practices and substantial non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2010, as amended.

They also urged the tribunal to disqualify the 1st respondent, Ishaku, and hold that all votes credited to him during the election were “wasted and thrown away votes”.

The petitioners through their lead counsel, Mr. Abiodun Owonikoko, SAN, told the tribunal: “Contrary to the provisions of Section 85 of the Electoral Act, which requires the service of at least 21 days to INEC before the holding of congress for the conduct of primary election, the 2nd respondent (PDP) only delivered their notice to INEC on December 11, 2014, at exactly 6:04pm and held the purported primaries on the same day. This was apparently after they have conducted the said primary.

“That in defiance of the requirement of Section 87 of the Electoral Act, the 2nd respondent held the purported primary at Abuja as against Jalingo, Taraba State capital.
At the hearing, counsel to the petitioners Mr. Abiodun Owonikoko (SAN) adopted his final written addresses and urged the tribunal to return the 1st petitioner, Alhassan, as the elected governor of the state. However, counsel to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents in their unanimous submissions prayed the court to dismiss the petition, describing it as lacking in merit.

In his closing argument, counsel to the PDP, Solomon Akuna (SAN), also prayed that the petition be dismissed because the petitioners have not proved their case.

The Tribunal Verdict:
In the unanimous judgment that lasted about three hours, the tribunal Chairman, Musa Danladi Abubakar held that the purported nomination of the sacked governor by PDP breached section 85 of the Electoral Act 2010.

The tribunal held that it was a fundamental law in Nigeria that a candidate for an elective position must be duly nominated and sponsored by a registered political party before the candidature of such candidate can be legally valid.

In the instant case, the tribunal said that there was overwhelming evidence that PDP in Taraba State did not do any primary election that could have led to emergence of anybody as a sponsored candidate.

The tribunal recalled the evidence of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) on subpoena during the hearing of the petition when the Commission claimed that it has no record of any primary election by PDP in Taraba State whereas Section 85 of the Electoral Act made it mandatory that INEC must be given 21 days notice of a convention or a primary where candidates are to be nominated for election.

The tribunal therefore said that since Darius Ishaku was not sponsored by any known registered political party, he cannot lay claim to votes cast for any political party and cannot as well claim to be an independent candidate in the election.
http://abusidiqu.com/how-tribunal-sacked-taraba-gov-ishaku-to-declare-apcs-aisha-alhassan-nigerias-first-female-govits-a-political-judgment-fayose/

Let us now analyze the similarities of the two cases:

#Fact 1: The two petitioners lost an election(which they believed was unfair) and approached the tribunals for redress.

#Fact 2: The two approached the different tribunals with similar prayer, which was:
That the primaries elections that brought their opponent were conducted in breach of the relevant sections of the constitution and electoral acts(as amended)

#Fact 3: The Tribunals asked them to bring evidence to support their claims.

#Fact 4: The two argued their cases within the abilities of their counsels.

So as you can see from th above: The two cases are similar in contents and arguments.

Firefire:
If you justify stupidity with another stupidity' then where is the promised CHANGE ?

NgeneUkwenu:
lalasticlala oya come and balance the threads!

smemud:
Learn to read and comprehend.And my friend Nigeria democracy is not at stake.

Firefire:
If you justify stupidity with another stupidity' then where is the promised CHANGE ?

Jesusloveyou:
did u believe in change? So Let us enjoy d change by ourselves, while u saTANist wil keep on wailing

TonyeBarcanista:
INEC never said APC had primaries for Benue state. They were completely SILENT on it because they understand that they can't prove that primary election was held. The tribunal judges fraudulently left the argument to ask the petitioner to prove in a glaring case. Or did they say same for APC in Taraba? Not even INEC proved that primary election was held in Benue APC.

It is glaring that there is a grand conspiracy by the Presidency, APC, INEC and the Election Tribunal to subvert the will of the people in favor of APC. This is purely Judicial Terrorism.

seunmsg:
So, who is to blame for PDP'S inability to subpoenaed INEC to give evidence on the legitimacy of APC's candidate in Benue? Inec can decide to be silent cos they have nothing to lose. It's the responsibility of the petitioner to ask the tribunal to compel them to give evidence. PDP should employ competent lawyers to argue their case in the future instead of blaming the courts for their woes.

TonyeBarcanista:
We hope our candidate present strong case at the Appellate Court

TonyeBarcanista:
We hope our candidate present strong case at the Appellate Court

dustmalik:
Stop posting trash. That section of the electoral act was rejected at the Federal high court, so it's a nullity. Read here

http://www.vanguardngr.com/2011/07/court-rejects-sections-of-2010-electoral-act/

PDP is a genuine loser as far as Taraba is concerned, and there is nothing the appellate or supreme court can do about it.

TonyeBarcanista:
We hope our candidate present strong case at the Appellate Court

seunmsg:
Unfortunately for PDP, they can't call in new witnesses before the appelate court. INEC will still be silent and the facts as presented before the tribunal won't change. I wish PDP the best all the same.

NgeneUkwenu:
That's what should be concerned about, instead of inciting your zombie followers against the government of President Buhari.

lalasticlala, what's up?