₦airaland Forum

tuale4u:
I agree with you 100%. That is why i made this post. To let people know supreme court Judgements are not water tight but influence by thier ideologies. For those defending d recent electoral Judgements as pure law, should have a rethink.
PDP supreme court Judges made thier Judgement to prevent PDP rapid extinction.

tuale4u:
This we can clearly see in Nigeria with the recent Judgements by PDP appointed Supreme court Judges. None of d Judges in d Supreme court is appointed by APC or Buhari. We can clearly see why PMB is saying Judiciary is his headache. Because most of the Judges were appointed under pro corruption ideology.

If who appoint Judges matter in such an advance democracy and rich country like US, then u can imagine d impact in a poor country like Nigeria.

PDP supreme court Judges made thier Judgement to prevent PDP rapid extinction. They only just returned d favour done to them by PDP.

tuale4u:
Are u saying Nigeria Judiciary or supreme court are more objective than that of United State! Please can u clearly defend that?

tuale4u:
Are u saying Nigeria Judiciary or supreme court are more objective than that of United State! Please can u clearly defend that?

kenny987:
I wonder how people arrive at these opinions especially with this PDP/APC lens through which people view things on the national scene nowadays.

The personality of the judge over any matter is not in doubt but his training confines him and in fact binds him to the letters n spirit of the law. If the op is conversant with a little bit of our legislation as far as evidence is concerned then he may be aware that until 2011, when the Evidence Act was amended, the courts could not countenance digital evidence therefore things like emails, text messages, call records and so on would have no probative value attached to them by the courts. On this alone, if evidence before the court was only of this nature in support of one's case, the courts would not identify or accept them because they were not provided for in the law.

This is the same position on the Electoral Act. At the time this was passed into law in 2010, the card readers were not envisaged and therefore not made part of the electoral process by law. Therefore, the courts as evidenced in the reasoning of the Supreme Court, will not attach value to it over and above the Voters Register which is clearly provided for by the Act.

Judges are not makers of law. They interprete them and there are laid down rules of interpretation. The most a court can do in its judgment or ruling is suggest an action be taken in the context of making legislation. That is why it has directed INEC to see to the inclusion of the card readers in subsequent Electoral legislations. It is circumstances like these not previously envisaged that enrich our jurisprudence.

Coming now to state that the SC justices passed their judgements because they were appointed by the PDP is myopic at this time and this is me being charitable. If I am not mistaken, the current administration has not appointed any new federal judges at the Court of Appeal either so how then were judgments made in favour of the APC?

The same Supreme Court gave judgment in favour of APC in Lagos and a few others still based on the card reader and its inadmissibility so why the outcry over Akwa Ibom and Rivers?

On the issues of violence and killings, those were all based on hearsay. He who alleges must prove and hearsay is not evidence in the eyes of the law. The security officials who testified could not point to anyone arrested neither did petitioners present evidence that people were killed. The courts are also not bound to attach value to the opinions of electoral observers if they do testify especially when their testimony is discredited on cross-examination.
The Courts/Judges are trained to be dispassionate and follow the law as it is. None of the reasons for their decisions were taken without relevant provisions of the law guiding them. Substantive law takes precedence over guidelines so even the INEC guidelines will not supersede the extant Electoral Act.

Please do not disparage the laws and our institutions just because of political inclinations. Attacking the personality of the judges is also uncalled for. They have done their jobs and justice has been served.

FlyboyZee:
You are trying to divert attention here.

I didn't make any reference to the objectivity of any court. All I said is that, the procedures and processes observed or undergone in appointing Supreme Court Judges is not the same in Nigeria and in the US. My say was on the selection process as the Nation Newspaper (your source) pointed out and not the objectivity of the courts. That can be a discussion for another thread, not this one...

In Nigeria, unlike the US, the President of the Federal Republic has little or no influence officially in the selection process of Judges to either High Court, Appeal Court or Supreme Court. The Nigerian Judiciary has a way of selecting its own judges devoid of external interference, this does not mean the Executive (President) cannot have underhand or underground dealings in trying to influence the decision of the selection process. If this is done, it is often done discretely and in secrecy so that people would not know what has happened.

This brings the case of Rotimi Amaechi to mind, when he tried to meddle in the appointment of the Rivers State Chief Judge. He couldn't have his way as he was met with stiff opposition because it is not within his powers to select whoever the selection process brings up for subsequent appointment.

thunderrider:
Just as if what Tinubu and his cohort are doing in Lagos with the Judiciary is in anyway different

tuale4u:
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/13/politics/antonin-scalia-supreme-court-replacement/index.html

The death of US supreme court Judge and fight over who should nominate his successor in d US clearly prove that Supreme court Judges dont just follow law verbatim but interprete it base on thier conviction,ideology and personalities. In the US, we can see the effect of Obama appointed Supreme court Judges in appriving gay marriage and forcing it on US federation.

[s]This we can clearly see in Nigeria with the recent Judgements by PDP appointed Supreme court Judges. None of d Judges in d Supreme court is appointed by APC or Buhari. We can clearly see why PMB is saying Judiciary is his headache. Because most of the Judges were appointed under pro corruption ideology.

If who appoint Judges matter in such an advance democracy and rich country like US, then u can imagine d impact in a poor country like Nigeria.

PDP supreme court Judges made thier Judgement to prevent PDP rapid extinction. They only just returned d favour done to them by PDP.

For those who will make reference to Supreme court upholding Lagos APC election to Justify Supreme Court Judgement on Rivers Election e should have rethink. You can not claim Justice when you set a guilty man free because u set an innocent man free. Justice is defending d innocent and punishing d guilty.

FlyboyZee:
You are trying to divert attention here.

I didn't make any reference to the objectivity of any court. All I said is that, the procedures and processes observed or undergone in appointing Supreme Court Judges is not the same in Nigeria and in the US. My say was on the selection process as the Nation Newspaper (your source) pointed out and not the objectivity of the courts. That can be a discussion for another thread, not this one...

In Nigeria, unlike the US, the President of the Federal Republic has little or no influence officially in the selection process of Judges to either High Court, Appeal Court or Supreme Court. The Nigerian Judiciary has a way of selecting its own judges devoid of external interference, this does not mean the Executive (President) cannot have underhand or underground dealings in trying to influence the decision of the selection process. If this is done, it is often done discretely and in secrecy so that people would not know what has happened.

This brings the case of Rotimi Amaechi to mind, when he tried to meddle in the appointment of the Rivers State Chief Judge. He couldn't have his way as he was met with stiff opposition because it is not within his powers to select whoever the selection process brings up for subsequent appointment.

tuale4u:
Did i say it was different ?

CyberWolf:
OP, why are you afraid of quoting Kenny987? .. You don't want her to take you to the cleaners this morning. Agbaya hypocrite

kenny987:
Nna hapu onye ahu biko. I hate the fact that people who don't even have the first idea of how the legal n judicial system works just throw in some dead opinions miked with their political inclinations and then come out to attack the personality and judgment of the judges just because it went against their party.

Even without clear understanding it should be clear that their judgements didn't just favour only d PDP...the APC has also enjoyed judgements in their favour so why the noise and attacks which they cannot defend if called upon to do so.

It is just because judges by their training cannot be involved in such or respond to such brazen allegations of bias and favouritism on the pages of the newspaper that is why these ones just feel free to say what they can. Even Justice Mary Odili had to recuse herself from the panel to avoid any allegation of bias still they will not rest.

tuale4u:
I agree with you 100%. That is why i made this post. To let people know supreme court Judgements are not water tight but influence by thier ideologies. For those defending d recent electoral Judgements as pure law, should have a rethink.
PDP supreme court Judges made thier Judgement to prevent PDP rapid extinction.

CyberWolf:
My dear, I'm not surprised at all. And if you watch closely, most of all these noise are coming from SW axis.. Sometimes I asked myself, what is Yoruba people's business in the affairs of Rivers and AkwaIbom? Nawa ooo.. Seeing what is happening now, I wonder what will happen if APC looses presidential election?

tuale4u:
Mtcheeww

CyberWolf:
My dear, I'm not surprised at all. And if you watch closely, most of all these noise are coming from SW axis.. Sometimes I asked myself, what is Yoruba people's business in the affairs of Rivers and AkwaIbom? Nawa ooo.. Seeing what is happening now, I wonder what will happen if APC looses presidential election?

ZeroTolerance:
The fool thinks he is dealing with kids.

oduastates:
Ad incompetence.
How many of them made their reputation based on legal excellence?

kenny987:
I wonder how people arrive at these opinions especially with this PDP/APC lens through which people view things on the national scene nowadays.

The personality of the judge over any matter is not in doubt but his training confines him and in fact binds him to the letters n spirit of the law. If the op is conversant with a little bit of our legislation as far as evidence is concerned then he may be aware that until 2011, when the Evidence Act was amended, the courts could not countenance digital evidence therefore things like emails, text messages, call records and so on would have no probative value attached to them by the courts. On this alone, if evidence before the court was only of this nature in support of one's case, the courts would not identify or accept them because they were not provided for in the law.

This is the same position on the Electoral Act. At the time this was passed into law in 2010, the card readers were not envisaged and therefore not made part of the electoral process by law. Therefore, the courts as evidenced in the reasoning of the Supreme Court, will not attach value to it over and above the Voters Register which is clearly provided for by the Act.

Judges are not makers of law. They interprete them and there are laid down rules of interpretation. The most a court can do in its judgment or ruling is suggest an action be taken in the context of making legislation. That is why it has directed INEC to see to the inclusion of the card readers in subsequent Electoral legislations. It is circumstances like these not previously envisaged that enrich our jurisprudence.

Coming now to state that the SC justices passed their judgements because they were appointed by the PDP is myopic at this time and this is me being charitable. If I am not mistaken, the current administration has not appointed any new federal judges at the Court of Appeal either so how then were judgments made in favour of the APC?

The same Supreme Court gave judgment in favour of APC in Lagos and a few others still based on the card reader and its inadmissibility so why the outcry over Akwa Ibom and Rivers?

On the issues of violence and killings, those were all based on hearsay. He who alleges must prove and hearsay is not evidence in the eyes of the law. The security officials who testified could not point to anyone arrested neither did petitioners present evidence that people were killed. The courts are also not bound to attach value to the opinions of electoral observers if they do testify especially when their testimony is discredited on cross-examination.
The Courts/Judges are trained to be dispassionate and follow the law as it is. None of the reasons for their decisions were taken without relevant provisions of the law guiding them. Substantive law takes precedence over guidelines so even the INEC guidelines will not supersede the extant Electoral Act.

Please do not disparage the laws and our institutions just because of political inclinations. Attacking the personality of the judges is also uncalled for. They have done their jobs and justice has been served.

CyberWolf:
you are a criminal looking for oil money.. Keep whining ..fool

OneManLegion:
Justice has not been served.
The courts are given sizeable discretionary powers in the interpretation of statutes because the legislators are aware that no statute can possibly foresee and take care of all possible loopholes in a statutory provisiom. This explains why there are several rules of interpretation of statutes allowed the courts by law among which we have
The direct rule

The golden rule

The mischief rule; and

The Ejusdem Generis rule.

The justices deliberately refused to employ the right rule of interpretation because of whatever reasons. You don't bungle justice on the altar of legalese.

You seem to be in the legal field, now ask yourself, "Is this what Lord Denning M.R would have decided?"

kenny987:
[s]I wonder how people arrive at these opinions especially with this PDP/APC lens through which people view things on the national scene nowadays.

The personality of the judge over any matter is not in doubt but his training confines him and in fact binds him to the letters n spirit of the law. If the op is conversant with a little bit of our legislation as far as evidence is concerned then he may be aware that until 2011, when the Evidence Act was amended, the courts could not countenance digital evidence therefore things like emails, text messages, call records and so on would have no probative value attached to them by the courts. On this alone, if evidence before the court was only of this nature in support of one's case, the courts would not identify or accept them because they were not provided for in the law.

This is the same position on the Electoral Act. At the time this was passed into law in 2010, the card readers were not envisaged and therefore not made part of the electoral process by law. Therefore, the courts as evidenced in the reasoning of the Supreme Court, will not attach value to it over and above the Voters Register which is clearly provided for by the Act.

Judges are not makers of law. They interprete them and there are laid down rules of interpretation. The most a court can do in its judgment or ruling is suggest an action be taken in the context of making legislation. That is why it has directed INEC to see to the inclusion of the card readers in subsequent Electoral legislations. It is circumstances like these not previously envisaged that enrich our jurisprudence.

Coming now to state that the SC justices passed their judgements because they were appointed by the PDP is myopic at this time and this is me being charitable. If I am not mistaken, the current administration has not appointed any new federal judges at the Court of Appeal either so how then were judgments made in favour of the APC?

The same Supreme Court gave judgment in favour of APC in Lagos and a few others still based on the card reader and its inadmissibility so why the outcry over Akwa Ibom and Rivers?

On the issues of violence and killings, those were all based on hearsay. He who alleges must prove and hearsay is not evidence in the eyes of the law. The security officials who testified could not point to anyone arrested neither did petitioners present evidence that people were killed. The courts are also not bound to attach value to the opinions of electoral observers if they do testify especially when their testimony is discredited on cross-examination.
The Courts/Judges are trained to be dispassionate and follow the law as it is. None of the reasons for their decisions were taken without relevant provisions of the law guiding them. Substantive law takes precedence over guidelines so even the INEC guidelines will not supersede the extant Electoral Act.

Please do not disparage the laws and our institutions just because of political inclinations. Attacking the personality of the judges is also uncalled for. They have done their jobs and justice has been served. [/s]

Nbote:
Some of una sef. Wetin concern agbero with overload? ?? The Nigerian supreme court hasn't given it's judgement but some of u just don't want to get over it. U want to go to any length to give urselves d satisfaction of proving a bias in d said judgement. If dis judgement had favoured d APC and other people opposed the rulings and came up with some of these theories, most of u would have dubbed dem "IPOD/IPOB" or "WAILERS" as d case may b. U all need to stop chasing shadows and start seeing the realities of a flawed electoral act which is long due for amendments in line with new and current trend in electioneering. Our lazy ass lawmakers ought to quickly get to work so that INEC on their own would know their stance on whether to go ahead with the card readers and try to fix its flaws and d many challenges it faced or to look for another innovation.

OneManLegion:
Justice has not been served.
The courts are given sizeable discretionary powers in the interpretation of statutes because the legislators are aware that no statute can possibly foresee and take care of all possible loopholes in a statutory provisiom. This explains why there are several rules of interpretation of statutes allowed the courts by law among which we have
The direct rule

The golden rule

The mischief rule; and

The Ejusdem Generis rule.

The justices deliberately refused to employ the right rule of interpretation because of whatever reasons. You don't bungle justice on the altar of legalese.

You seem to be in the legal field, now ask yourself, "Is this what Lord Denning M.R would have decided?"

kenny987:
The rules of evidence are not ambiguous in any way so they are not subject to just any interpretation. Precedents have been set as far as these are concerned. The electoral act as well, does not recognise the card readers for now. The literal rule of interpretation is the primary rule to be employed and then in the event of established ambiguity, the courts may then employ the golden or mischief rules as required. There are laid down procedures for these things.

I still ask, is it justice for Ambode to be declared winner on the same basis but it isn't same for Rivers and Akwa Ibom? What do people really want? Will the courts now compromise their neutrality by descending into the arena of dispute or do the job of the petitioner? If a petitioner does not discharge the burden of proof laid on him, then the court must resolve issues in favour of the defendants. It is as simple as that.