₦airaland Forum

BABAKABIRU301:
REMEMBER THAT LABOUR & ACCORD PARTY IS FOR GEJ

And your point is

ahaika23:
It's official, INEC will not be making use of the verification device. Soruce AIT news @4

I watched this fake news yesterday on that saTANist station.


The devil is a liar

Adufetohposh:
nao listen girl feel free to compare me with anything/anybody but plz dnt ever in ur life tag me with that clueless dunce in aso rock! *on my knees* I take God beg u

LOL

[size=20pt] FAKE SOURCE [/size]

before nko?


[size=20pt]… RIP PDP [/size]

melodrama

holatin:
U no know nta has been privaterised to gbagbo ebele jonathan gej

Gbam

Allegation of perjury:

This allegation is founded upon an affidavit deposed to by the candidate to the effect that copies of his documents relating to his educational qualifications were with the Secretary, Military Board but that the military, subsequent to the making of the affidavit, denied that allegation of fact in relation to one particular document, the West African School Certificate (WASC). What in law amounts to perjury is defined in Sections 117 and 156 of the Criminal Code and Penal Code respectively.

The relevant portion of the first, which is applicable in the Southern part of the country only, goes like this:
“S.117. Any person who, in any judicial proceeding, or for the purposes of instituting any judicial proceeding, knowingly gives false testimony touching any matter which is material to any question then pending in that proceeding, or intended to be raised in that proceeding, is guilty of an offence, which is called perjury”.

The second which is applicable in the Northern part only, including, the FCT states:
“S.156. Whoever, being legally bound by oath or by any express provision of law to state the truth or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement,verbally or otherwise, which is false in a material particular and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, is said to give false statement”.

As can be gleaned from S.117 of the criminal code quoted above, the false statement must be one made in a pending or impending judicial proceeding and touching on a material fact in the matter of the proceeding but that element is absent in the offence under the penal code.

Bearing in mind the fact we are told the affidavit in question was deposed to in Abuja, the provision in the penal code shall be our guide.

In the foregoing regard, the following points are germane and therefore worthy of consideration: the impact, if any, the denial by the military of the facts deposed to as they touch on the WASC, had on the deposition, objectively speaking; whether the candidate, in his deposition, opened and closed the list or category of documents in question by way of serialization or itemization or in any other manner of classification;
whether the candidate, in his deposition, opened and closed the list or category of documents in question by way of serialization or itemization or in any other manner of classification; whether at the time he deposed to the affidavit, any documents of his touching on and relating to the subject matter of the affidavit, ie candidacy in the Presidential race, not necessarily the vexed WASC, were with the Secretary, Military Board or where he deposed they were; and whether it has yet been proved who between the candidate and the military spokesman spoke the truth in their respective claims on the matter.

It is quite convenient to take the first three points in one fell swoop because of their interwoven nature. It must be noted, as threshold but howbeit crucial in consideration of them that the vexed question here is whether the candidate possesses WASC and whether a copy thereof was with the Secretary, Military Board at the material time? The importance of this question stems from the claim that the candidate had deposed to such fact but that subsequently, the military denied it.

According to media reports, the candidate’s deposition in the said affidavit was couched inter alia as follows: “my documents are with the Secretary of the Military Board” or something to that effect. What is of paramount importance here is the phrase “my documents”. The important point it clearly underscores is that the deposition complained of contains a blanket reference to “my documents” as distinct from specific documents. It follows therefore that the list of
documents was not made open and close in the affidavit nor was any, including the much vaunted WASC, therein specifically named.

An important follow-up question is whether at the material time, copy/copies of any document/documents of the candidate, other than WASC, was/were with the Secretary, Military Board? If none was with him, then the perjury allegation, all other things be equal, could be said to be well founded and properly situated with desired consequences. This is as far as the offence as defined in the Penal is concerned under which the factor of judicial proceeding is not an element.

More here : http://www.leadership.ng/news/411967/alleged-non-qualificationperjury-case-against-buhari-cannot-stand

Conclusion:


Given the analysis made above of the relevant materials touching on this matter, therefore, the conclusion is inevitable that the three allegations made against the candidate and as clearly adumbrated at the beginning of this paper fall squarely to be resolved in his favour. Anyone who is desirous of having him disqualified from running for the office of President of Nigeria in the forthcoming elections and in order to succeed in his quest, may therefore have to seek some other premise and certainly not on the basis of those so far flaunted.

– Justice Amaize is a retired judge of Edo State High Court.

http://www.leadership.ng/news/411967/alleged-non-qualificationperjury-case-against-buhari-cannot-stand

The allegations rolled out against Gen. Mohammadu Buhari, the candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the forthcoming Presidential election (hereinafter referred to simply as the candidate) are three in substance and are that:- contrary to the relevant provision in the Electoral Act, 2010, the candidate failed to observe the rule on concurrent submission ofbhis completed application form and the documents in support of it to the Independent National Electoral Commission (hereinafter referred to by its acronym INEC) as implied by the relevant provision of the Act.

The candidate lied on oath when he deposed in an affidavit submitted to INEC that his documents or copies thereof were with the Secretary, Military Board which fact, it was further alleged, was denied by an Army spokesman subsequent to the making of the said affidavit; and the candidate does not possess the educational qualification set forth in the extant Constitution to vie for the nation’s number one position.

Alleged infraction of the Electoral Act, supra in the submission of form: This allegation, as espoused in the various media reports (prints and electronics alike), is premised on what his traducers called his failure to attach copies of his documents,educational and the likes, to the form/affidavit he submitted to INEC and that such omission ran foul of the relevant statute and therefore fatal to his candidacy. The law on the subject is Section 31 of the Electoral Act, supra and the relevant subsections are (2) and (3) which I proceed to, for the avoidance of any shadow of doubt, replicate hereunder as follows: “(2) The list or information submitted by each candidate shall be accompanied by an affidavit sworn to by the candidate at the Federal High Court, High Court of a State or the FCT, indicating that he has fulfilled all the constitutional requirements for election into that office.” “(3) The Commission (this refers to INEC) shall, within 7 days of the receipt of the personal particulars of the candidate, publish same in the constituency where the candidate intends to contest the election.”

In my opinion, the catching phrase in subsection (2), regard being had to the allegation made, is “the list or information submitted”. To remind ourselves, the allegation which is in two facets bothered on:- failure to attach copies of his documents to his completed application form/affidavit. That is, there was no contemporaneous submission of the application form/documents, and lying on oath when he claimed copies of his documents were with the Secretary, Military Board.

It was therefore thought that given the scenario as above painted the candidate stands disqualified to run. Even some of the more vociferous amongst the critics have gone a step further in calling for criminal charges to be filed against him and prosecuted.

It is instructive to note that the Constitution as the nation’s organic law is required to contain only provisions on matters of general policy and that is exactly what Section 131 of it, which will be fully examined subsequently in this write-up, has done. It is not ordinarily expected to contain provisions on matters of less importance such, as in the instant situation, the mode by which a candidate vying for an elective position is to transmit his documents to INEC. The Electoral Act has however made provision for this, thus filling whatever lacunae that would have otherwise arisen. It is to enable other statutes to fill in such gaps in the organic law, amongst other things,that the Constitution, under Section 4, donates powers to the Legislative Arm of government to enact laws, where necessary,on such matters, amongst other things.

Section 131 of the Constitution reads:- “131. A person shall be qualified for election to the office of President, if:- he is a citizen of Nigeria by birth; he has attained the age of forty years; he is a member of a political party and is sponsored by the political party; and he has been educated up to at least School Certificate or its equivalent”.

The requirements set out in paragraphs (a) – (c) are too plain and clear to admit of any controversy. The same opinion goes for the requirement set out in the first part of paragraph (d) which closes with the word “level”. It is however very doubtful if the same opinion can easily and readily be expressed on the second part of paragraph (d) containing the phrase “or its equivalent”. The apparent difficulty associated with that part notwithstanding, it however poses no problem because of the in-built mechanism in the Constitution for resolving such difficulty if and when it arises. This is Section 318, the provision dealing with the interpretations. It is therein explained what is meant by the phraseology “School Certificate or its equivalent” when it provides thus:- “318. ‘School Certificate or its equivalent’ means a Secondary School Certificate or its equivalent, or Grade II Teacher’s Certificate, the City and Guilds Certificate; or education up to Secondary School Certificate level; or Primary Six School Leaving Certificate or its equivalent and service in the public or private sector in the Federation in any capacity acceptable to the Independent National Electoral Commission for minimum of ten years, and attendance at courses and trainings in such institutions as may be acceptable to the Independent National Electoral Commission for periods totaling up to a maximum of one year, and the ability to read, write, understand and communicate in the English language to the satisfaction of the
Independent National Electoral Commission, and any other qualification acceptable by the Independent National Electoral Commission”.

The apparent but not real lacunae in the organic law on the mode for furnishing particulars to INEC by a candidate but for which the Electoral Act has made provision may appear to signpost a window of opportunity for the uninitiated to assume the presence of a conflict between the Act and the Constitution on the point resolvable in favour of the latter.

This is by having recourse to and placing reliance on the principle of supremacy of the Constitution as enshrined in Section 1 thereof, thereby rendering the position in the Act inoperative.

It is however not intended to canvass such ridiculous view in this paper bearing in mind our earlier postulation that other statutory enactments (the Electoral Act not excepted), inter alia, play the important role of providing for details on subject matters on which the Constitution deals but for which the latter may not ordinarily provide. It could have been a different ball-game if what the Act sought to do included attempt to elongate or otherwise circumscribe the qualifying factors provided for by the Constitution and listed in Section 131 thereof. In such case, it would have amounted to an consistency and/or a conflict resolvable in favour of the Constitution by virtue of Section 1, leading to an outright invalidation of the prescription in the Act only however to the extent of such inconsistency. Such was what played itself out in the case of Independent National Electoral Commission & Anor Vs Alhaji Abdulkadir Balarabe Musa & 4 Ors (2003)3NWLR (Pt. 806) p.72.

Nevertheless, having in the instant situation given space to a concession that there is no conflict on the point between the two, there now arises this all-important question: should a candidate who is otherwise proved to have met the requirements stipulated in Section 131 of the Constitution and as partly defined in Section 318 be held liable for disqualification on ground but no other that he failed to comply with some procedural steps, especially when such allegation appears erected on quick sand?

Differently put, if presumably the Constitution did not find it expedient to make provision for such procedural steps through expanding S.131 to include it or accord it a place in a separate section altogether for which reason it could be argued that the Constitution deems it mundane, could it have been intended by its framers, while providing for the relevant qualifications for the office that a particular mode and no other must be adopted in furnishing the qualification documents to INEC?

Is the fact of the mode of getting the required qualifications to INEC more expedient than the fact that they have been received by it? Is there anything in the relevant subsections of S.31 of the Act which expressly forbids non- lcontemporaneous submission of the documents? Is there anything in Section 31 to suggest any time-frame within which to commence and conclude submission of all requirements or that they must all be submitted once?

Now the questions posed above easily lend themselves to be answered in the negative for two principal reasons viz:- a contrary answer to any of them will be an invitation to sacrifice abrule of substantive at the altar of a rule on procedure – a situation that has no place in our judicature, and there is nothing in S.31 of the Act commanding contemporaneous submission of a candidate’s application form/affidavit and copies of documents.

All of the foregoing relate to subsection (2) of
section 31 of the Act. With regard to subsection (3) the law has not set forth a particular period within which a candidate is to produce his particulars nor has it placed a bar on the number of times INEC is to publish the information a candidate has made available to it.

I must hasten to make this important clarification if one must avoid the doubt thebomission to make it may engender. It is that in asking the last of the above series of questions, one is not oblivious of the mention of time-frame of 7 days in s.31(3) of the Act even as no time-frame of whatever description is enshrined in subsection (2). That which is mentioned in subsection (3) (here lies my clarification) has nothing to do with submission of information required in subsection (2) by a candidate to INEC but rather with the matter of publication of information received by INEC from a candidate by virtue of subsection (2).

Consequently, where a candidate is, for whatever reason, unable to carry out a contemporaneous submission of his form/affidavit and documents (ie a one-time submission of all) in the discharge of his obligation under subsection (2), he is not for that reason to be foreclosed. It only means that in such a situation, INEC’s obligation to publish the information does not arise unless and until the last information comes in. In that case, the 7 days time-frame mentioned in subsection (2) will begin to run from the date the last information was received. In the absence of any law, including the relevant provisions of the Electoral Act, expressly prohibiting such manner of submission and receipt of a candidate’s information,it follows that the submission is good and valid in law. Such approach, rather than tie the hands of the Electoral body, it in fact gives it a discretion and latitude, which discretion no one,including the Courts, can take away.

Bearing the foregoing in mind and guided thereby, even if the candidate in the instant case had omitted, as we were told, to attach his documents to his form/affidavit but subsequently made them available to and were received by INEC, such receipt and use by the latter very well meet the legal requirement for which the step is unimpeachable, provided INEC carried out the publication of the candidate’s information within 7 days of receipt of the last piece of information.
In the circumstance of the foregoing analysis, therefore, the allegation of improper submission of relevant information by the candidate to INEC on no ground other than that he did not attach his documents thereto, is baseless and ought to be ignored.

lazsnaira:
Sahara Reporters as your source is the same as APC being your source! Please can we have another story?

Here is the video link https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=977453398934376&id=410835422262846&_rdr

[size=13pt] PDP is an assemblage of anencephalous imps who wish to turn Nigeria into a dystopia [/size]

Taylor86:
PDPPPPPPPPP............power APCCCCCCCC....... shame....b4 I 4get i dey for dream last night buhari die...dnt get it twisted my dreams always come tru... buhari RIP In advance

SMDH

And if one say your father will die, you will be crying foul ?

Seun lalasticlala FP abeggg


PDP = Party ofDeath and PAins

[size=15pt] For those who are still doubting the OP, here is the video link...

VIDEO: Ayo Fayose Admits to # EkitiGate Tape: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=977453398934376&id=410835422262846&_rdr [/size]

temitemi1:
Apc, the assembly of mad pple . GEJ till 2019!!!

You always sound like a slowpoke, have you seen what your pdpigzz did https://www.nairaland.com/2148621/photos-how-pdp-thugs-attacked

PastorKun:
I have gone through the thread above and what you wrote there is quite encouraging but how do you reconcile the verses you quoted there and the ones the extremists use from the same quran to wreck havoc on others? is it that the quran is contradicting itself could you shed more light on this?

I've explained this to you on a thread like that, do I need to repeat myself again?

johnydon22:
This is exactly what i expect Rilwayne001 to say.

Yes, I'm in support of that statement, its definitely against what islam stands for as well.

Surah Al-Mumtahina, Verse 8:
As for such [of the unbelievers] as do not fight against you on account of [your] faith, and neither drive you forth from your homelands, God does not forbid you to show them kindness and to behave towards them with full equity: for, verily, God loves those who act equitably.

PastorKun:
Ok, can you suggest or proffer a solution to the problem then?

Education/enlightement.. I believe after reading this https://www.nairaland.com/1943131/good-manners-islam you will agree with me that Islam is not a religion portrayed by these fanatic individual.

johnydon22:
Common dude since you clearly against the terrorism why dont you just condemn it simply.

like i pointed out earlier to you the confusion in christianity is their own cup of tea, it doesnt constitute any global nuisance..

I understand ur sentimental conviction to protect islam, and yes we know not all muslims do it but dont you think comments as urs are responsible for making people think otherwise?
Just condemn it and the people that do it cus it is not good... did anybody here call you a terrorist?
when we say terrorist am sure we all know exactly the people we are referring to.

And who told you I that I didnt condemn their act? did you bother to open the link up dere?

My point is we shouldnt judge islam by the actions of some fanatics people that call themselve muslim, praying 5times a day doesnt make one a true muslim.

PastorKun:
So are you saying that we should leave this 8% muslims who are busy causing havoc all over the world and let them continue killing as they like are you tacitly endorsing their actions Are you saying it's not in order to try and proffer a solution to this global problem? Or are you afraid Islam may be indicted in trying to find a solution to the problem?

No No No.

Rich4god:
The poster above me is the reason islam isnt making sense... Pple are tryn to discuss abt d destruction caused by some of your brothers in faith and you are here point fingers to another person's quarrel. I cant remember the last time christian denominations bombed and killed each other ... But the sunni and the shia have been killing one another since ages... SMH

smh

johnydon22:
Dude we are talking terrorism here, blood shed and barbarism.
I think it is more of a threat to this world than any confusion in christianity.

The confusions in christianity is their own cup of tea and i dont see them killing anybody for it, But the killings, barbarism, savagery and terrorism these islamic sects have unleashed on the world is a global problem that threatens the very peaceful existence of humans on this planet.

They should profer solution to that first before pointing fingers at us, the number of ignorant muslims that engages in all that you listed above do not constitute up to 8% of the world muslim population. this should help https://www.nairaland.com/1943131/good-manners-islam

https://www.nairaland.com/1864482/saudi-top-cleric-blasts-al-qaeda

@Pastorkun.

Why don't you first channel your energy to the confusion in xtianity? Remember most of your brother on this forum share different views on who jesus is, bible theology, bible and other things like that, and remember what jesus said:

Mattew 12:25 Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand.

According to Paul:

1Co 1:10 I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.

Are christians really doing the above^^?

Contrary to other christians views on this section, you pastorkun don't belive in Paul, do you? why don't you bother yourself in engaging your brothers by preaching to them the reason why you don't believe paul? Most you remain being hypocrate?

On the topic I will urge to read this: https://www.nairaland.com/1943131/good-manners-islam

The Nigerian politics is getting much more interesting than African Magic

Baba kontinu giving Jona headache.

AllNaijaBlogger:
Op's pain about child pregnancy/marriage resonates with sensible individuals. We know to well tht too many underage girls are se.xed up and abused in Nigeria.

[b] Of course, but he has no basis to relate it to islam, we have cases of underaged girls been raped by an adult, we also have a lot of case whereby little girls engages in sex with their boyfriends which usually leads to unwanted pregnancy. The OP ought to have look into this before concluding that it has to do with islam thereby bashing the muslims.

We have xtians little girls who got pregnant out of wedlock, do we then relate it to christianity? you see, the world has turn into something else, little girls engages in illegal sex with their alleged boyfriends without giving a second thought.

Imagine the valentine they did today, all i see today are little girls between the age of 14-16 dressed half naked goin all about in the name of Val day.

We are not advocating for the marriage of underage girls, the world has change especially our side here. but calling islam the religion of pedophile according to the OP (because you allegedly saw a young girl which you guessed her age to be 13 years who wore Hijab thereby makes her a muslim and then concluded that she was married off my her parent and she got pregnant and her husband subjected her to be hawking pure water around) is not reasonable to me because there are lot of unanswered question in the OP's shenanigans. [/b]