ZAWs:
Supreme court don't originate cases.
But in this case, nonsense mary odili gave a verdict on an election matter that was never existed anywhere.
Mary Odili was given a little test, but she didn't only failed woefully, but also exhibited her devilish attitude.
I'm not taking sides with anyone.
But person of such profile should have examined such case thoroughly regardless of the party she supports.

gunuvi:

Are you aware there was a case on the name before the election?

ZAWs:
Supreme court don't originate cases.
But in this case, nonsense mary odili gave a verdict on an election matter that was never existed anywhere.
Mary Odili was given a little test, but she didn't only failed woefully, but also exhibited her devilish attitude.

yarimo:
it shall never be well with justice ODILI by the grace of God

gunuvi:

Are you aware there was a case on the name before the election?

mushystuff:
I wonder though whether Falana averted his mind to the fact that after the conclusion of a case there is a right of appeal which must be exercised within a certain timeframe after which the principle of effluxion of time comes into play.

A pre-election matter doesn't suddenly become a post-election matter just because an election has taken place when the appellant party still has a cause of action and has not run out of time to file an appeal. The law does not say that the court of appeal is the court of final judgement rather it is the Supreme court on pre-election issues.

The mere conduct of an election does not override the right of appeal of any party.

mushystuff:
When people ignorantly call Mary Odili and cast aspersions at her I just wonder! She did not author or read the lead judgement; she is one out of 5 judges; she was only the presiding judge by reason of rank ie seniority. What is wrong with some of you?

Dansuqi:
Bayelsa Election: Falana Says Supreme Court Is Wrong, Lacks Jurisdiction
Adeshola Soyele and Akinola Ajibola
Updated February 22, 2020
961

Mr Femi Falana




A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana, has reacted to the judgment of the Supreme Court on the governorship election in Bayelsa State.

In an exclusive with Channels Television, he said the apex court made a mistake when it treated a pre-election matter as a post-election case.

“What their Lordships ought to have done was to ask the lawyers, ‘can you address us with respect to our jurisdiction?’

“Because Section 133 of the Electoral Act stipulates that upon the conclusion of an election and once candidates are declared, any challenge of the conduct of the election, of the qualification of the candidates shall be heard and determined by an Election Petition Tribunal,” Falana stated.

On February 13, a five-man panel of the Supreme Court led by Justice Mary Peter-Odili sacked David Lyon and Biobarakuma Degi-Eremieoyo of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as the winners of the November 16, 2019 governorship poll.

The court then ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to withdraw the Certificate of Return issued to the APC candidates and issue fresh certificates to the candidate of the party with the next highest votes, and with the required constitutional spread of votes in the results of the election.

It disqualified Degi-Eremieoyo as a candidate in the election for submitting forged certificates to INEC, stressing that the deputy-governorship candidate had infected the joint ticket with which he and Lyon ran for and won the election.

This led to the declaration of Senator Douye Diri and Senator Lawrence Ewhrudjakpo of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) as the winners of the election and subsequent swearing-in as the governor and deputy governors of Bayelsa State.

The leadership of the APC and Degi-Eremieoyo have separately asked the apex court to review its judgement on the election.

In his reaction, Falana who has disagreed with the APC led government on many issues insisted that the apex court made a mistake.

He stressed that the court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the matter, saying it should have gone before the Election Petition Tribunal.

Ahead of the review of the judgment by the Supreme Court, the senior advocate was hopeful that the opportunity would further develop and strengthen the country’s laws.

He said, “The election was held on the basis of the judgement of the Court of Appeal which was to the fact that yes! Degi-Eremieoyo changed his name many times, not that he forged any of his certificates; there was no such proof. Therefore, he can contest the election.”

“On the basis of that judgement, the people voted; which means by that judgement, the election was valid and legal.

“As of that date, there was no pending appeal before the Supreme Court whereby INEC could be accused of having violated the doctrines of lis pendens i.e. ‘since you knew a case was in court, why did you hold election? As was the case of Peter Obi and INEC,” he added.

Falana stated that it was after the conclusion of the election that the PDP filed an appeal in the Supreme Court.

He stressed, “With profound respect, the attention of the Supreme Court was not drawn to the legality of that appeal; the case had become spent.”
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.channelstv.com/2020/02/22/bayelsa-election-falana-says-supreme-court-is-wrong-lacks-jurisdiction/&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjf-Mb6i-bnAhWxzIUKHQhFCm4QFjAAegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw3uIm2sDUoY1PNi7hEly6mT

Mynd44
Kahal
Ejimatic
Fergie
Obuksbayelsa
Bayelsa owei
AaaWhen
Meleszenawi
Racoon
Duwdu
Otuekong
Helinues

ejimatic:
. When did The forgery case start? Answer :Before election. what iare the duties of the Election Tribunal? answer : consideration of grievances arising from the Conduct of the election..Forgery may be concluded ..........However since it is a case of forgery arising from irregularities of name it is a preelection matter. and can be entertained by a federal high court. So forgery is not restricted to the tribunal alone.

Dansuqi:

He is saying that at the conclusion of elections,it must be litigated at the tribunal not a civil court

ejimatic:
. Forgery is a criminal act and its conviction affects a person participation and qualification in an election. The case in question started before election and concluded after it .So it is still in order. The federal high court to the supreme court can hear it before or after election. It is not restricted to the tribunal.

mushystuff:
I wonder though whether Falana averted his mind to the fact that after the conclusion of a case there is a right of appeal which must be exercised within a certain timeframe after which the principle of effluxion of time comes into play.

A pre-election matter doesn't suddenly become a post-election matter just because an election has taken place when the appellant party still has a cause of action and has not run out of time to file an appeal. The law does not say that the court of appeal is the court of final judgement rather it is the Supreme court on pre-election issues.

The mere conduct of an election does not override the right of appeal of any party.

Dansuqi:

Section 133 places restrictions

Dansuqi:
Bayelsa Election: Falana Says Supreme Court Is Wrong, Lacks Jurisdiction
Adeshola Soyele and Akinola Ajibola
Updated February 22, 2020
961

Mr Femi Falana. Mr Femi Falana may be travelled to the moon when supreme court delivered its Judgment on Imo gubber.He is back to now to fault appex court judgment on bayesa.It is good to be sophisticated.uh




A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana, has reacted to the judgment of the Supreme Court on the governorship election in Bayelsa State.

In an exclusive with Channels Television, he said the apex court made a mistake when it treated a pre-election matter as a post-election case.

“What their Lordships ought to have done was to ask the lawyers, ‘can you address us with respect to our jurisdiction?’

“Because Section 133 of the Electoral Act stipulates that upon the conclusion of an election and once candidates are declared, any challenge of the conduct of the election, of the qualification of the candidates shall be heard and determined by an Election Petition Tribunal,” Falana stated.

On February 13, a five-man panel of the Supreme Court led by Justice Mary Peter-Odili sacked David Lyon and Biobarakuma Degi-Eremieoyo of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as the winners of the November 16, 2019 governorship poll.

The court then ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to withdraw the Certificate of Return issued to the APC candidates and issue fresh certificates to the candidate of the party with the next highest votes, and with the required constitutional spread of votes in the results of the election.

It disqualified Degi-Eremieoyo as a candidate in the election for submitting forged certificates to INEC, stressing that the deputy-governorship candidate had infected the joint ticket with which he and Lyon ran for and won the election.

This led to the declaration of Senator Douye Diri and Senator Lawrence Ewhrudjakpo of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) as the winners of the election and subsequent swearing-in as the governor and deputy governors of Bayelsa State.

The leadership of the APC and Degi-Eremieoyo have separately asked the apex court to review its judgement on the election.

In his reaction, Falana who has disagreed with the APC led government on many issues insisted that the apex court made a mistake.

He stressed that the court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the matter, saying it should have gone before the Election Petition Tribunal.

Ahead of the review of the judgment by the Supreme Court, the senior advocate was hopeful that the opportunity would further develop and strengthen the country’s laws.

He said, “The election was held on the basis of the judgement of the Court of Appeal which was to the fact that yes! Degi-Eremieoyo changed his name many times, not that he forged any of his certificates; there was no such proof. Therefore, he can contest the election.”

“On the basis of that judgement, the people voted; which means by that judgement, the election was valid and legal.

“As of that date, there was no pending appeal before the Supreme Court whereby INEC could be accused of having violated the doctrines of lis pendens i.e. ‘since you knew a case was in court, why did you hold election? As was the case of Peter Obi and INEC,” he added.

Falana stated that it was after the conclusion of the election that the PDP filed an appeal in the Supreme Court.

He stressed, “With profound respect, the attention of the Supreme Court was not drawn to the legality of that appeal; the case had become spent.”
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.channelstv.com/2020/02/22/bayelsa-election-falana-says-supreme-court-is-wrong-lacks-jurisdiction/&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjf-Mb6i-bnAhWxzIUKHQhFCm4QFjAAegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw3uIm2sDUoY1PNi7hEly6mT

Mynd44
Kahal
Ejimatic
Fergie
Obuksbayelsa
Bayelsa owei
Aaa
Meleszenawi
Racoon
Duwdu
Otuekong
Helinues