tuale4u:


The concept of substancial compliance can clearly differenciate lagos case and rivers state.
There was reasonable compliance to Card reader in lagos state. In lagos it was more than 60%. In rivers state it was less than 25%

The point is, no probative value can be attached to it because it is not recognised by the law. That is the position of the highest court of the land beyond which no appeal can lie.

0

kenny987:


The point is, no probative value can be attached to it because it is not recognised by the law. That is the position of the highest court of the land beyond which no appeal can lie.

The electoral act gave INEC power to make guidelines. The supreme court deliberately choose to overlook that part of the electoral act. On that basis it is probative.

Just like d post is trying explain, the leaning of d Judges decide how controversial issues are Judged. U cant completely say d so called "legalese" being claim is not a deliberate bias.

tuale4u:
0

The electoral act gave INEC power to make guidelines. The supreme court deliberately choose to overlook that part of the electoral act.

Again, it is the law that where guidelines and such other instructions deviate substantially from substantive law, the law supercedes such provisions/guidelines. They also did not countenance it in Lagos election petition.

tuale4u:
0

The electoral act gave INEC power to make guidelines. The supreme court deliberately choose to overlook that part of the electoral act. On that basis it is probative.

Just like d post is trying explain, the leaning of d Judges decide how controversial issues are Judged. U cant completely say d so called "legalese" being claim is not a deliberate bias.

And I still ask, why were they not biased in Lagos but u declare them so in Rivers and Akwa Ibom?

kenny987:


And I still ask, why were they not biased in Lagos but u declare them so in Rivers and Akwa Ibom?

because d constitution recognised substantial compliance. 100% compliance is not requirement by the constitution. Less than 25% conmpliance on a guideline cant be called substantial.

kenny987:

The point is, no probative value can be attached to it because it is not recognised by the law. That is the position of the highest court of the land beyond which no appeal can lie.

Ma'am,
Though, I'm not in the Legal profession but you just made my day with your concise and simple explanation.
Question: Did you study Law in Nigeria? Because you sound like somebody that knows

lanre80:


Ma'am,
Though, I'm not in the Legal profession but you just made my day with your concise and simple explanation.
Question: Did you study Law in Nigeria? Because you sound like somebody that knows

You are only satisfied because her opinion appeal to ur stand on d issue.

ZeroTolerance:
Rubbish. How do you guys even imagine APC won the election in Rivers or Akwa Ibom?

Appeal court judges do not make decisions based on personal convictions right?

Just imagine, i still don't believe we have dummies who believe APC could win elections in the SS. The same APC secretariat in rivers that looks like an abandoned poultry? These APC people amaze me honestly.

Sctests:
Just imagine, i still don't believe we have dummies who believe APC could win elections in the SS. The same APC secretariat in rivers that looks like an abandon poultry? These APC people amaze me honestly.

Abeg bro if you can take a picture of their poultry secretariat, please post and mention me.
Thanks in advance.

tuale4u:


because d constitution recognised substantial compliance. 100% compliance is not requirement by the constitution. Less than 25% conmpliance on a guideline cant be called substantial.

The court is not a Father Christmas and will not rule on prayers not brought before it. APC did not sufficiently discharge the burden of proof on it so the court cannot overreach itself to give favourable judgment just for effort. You are still hung up on guidelines which cannot supersede substantive law...

You must understand that guidelines emanate from and are rooted in substantive law. They do not stand on their own. Card readers are an innovation which must be rooted in the actual provisions of the law before guidelines regarding their usage can be entertained. In the event that they become a subject of dispute then the courts, having traced its roots to the law can then give effect to regulations flowing therefrom.

If it was not considered as a basis for judgment in Lagos, it cannot turn around and attach value to card reader reports or INEC guidelines that deviate from the law in the cases of Rivers and Akwa Ibom.

ZeroTolerance:
They didn't, but the tribunal and appeal court judges below them made their reputation based on legal excellence.
Hypocrites everywhere.

if you have dead relative among those killed by the PDP thugs, maybe you'll understand

anonimi:


Abeg bro if you can take a picture of their poultry secretariat, please post and mention me.
Thanks in advance.

I served in rivers but no longer resident there. I might tell a friend to help me do it. lol

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.

I need you to remember that the Supreme Court did not premise their judgment on just the issue of the card-readers because that was not the only point raised by the Plaintiffs/Respondents(Dakuku/APC). While you do have a point as regards the evidence act and the electoral act's non-acknowledgment of the card-readers, we must not forget that the same card-readers were a veritable tool in the conduct of the elections and ignoring or downplaying their importance because some antiquated statutes did not make provisions for it is a bit ridiculous. You must also take note that I speak, not as an APC member, but as an apathetic observer and if that was what the decision of the SC in the Ambode case was premised on, then I disagree too.

The Supreme court, inter alia, also stated that the respondents failed to prove their allegation of violence in Rivers state and this what I find most incredible. I mean, we were all there when several security officials who oversaw the elections testified that there were scores of electoral offences including snatching of ballot boxes at gun-point, wanton killing by political thugs and generally, disruption of peaceful conduction of the electoral process. I regret to say I didn't follow the testimonies and the cross-examinations very thoroughly but on the surface, it would seem to me that proving the massive violence that occurred in the Rivers state elections shouldn't come hard to anyone.
Lastly, the SC also claimed that Wike was denied fair hearing and that therefore it was one of the grounds of validating the appeal. I wouldn't talk much on this because even you refused to mention it so I presume you know how feeble that sounds. How do you uphold an election that was fraught with violence and retrogressive power-play because someone was denied of fair-hearing? Wow! Just wow! Whatever happened to ordering for a fresh tribunal? It's no doubt that the principle of fair-hearing as propounded by the Latin maxim "Audi alterem patem(hear both sides" is one of most important maxims in the determination of a case and jurisprudence generally, but it's no excuse to excuse the kind of blood-bath that passed for election in Rivers State.


God! Who gave me the strength and patience to type all that? I try o.

Sctests:
I served in rivers but no longer resident there. I might tell a friend to help me do it. lol

That would be great.
Cheers and happy Valentine Sunday

Law is always subject to interpretation. In dis case, d supreme court choose d side of injustice and decided to hide under technicality and lack of verbatim statement in d constitution in regard to card reader. In my opinion, as long as d constitution recognised d power of INEC to set guideline, that is more than enough to recognise card reader as a major tool in d election. No matter how we hide on under Jargons, truth is truth.

kenny987:


Nothing to say other than cancellation? Lol...

OneManLegion:

I need you to remember that the Supreme Court did not premise their judgment on just the issue of the card-readers because that was not the only point raised by the Plaintiffs/Respondents(Dakuku/APC). While you do have a point as regards the evidence act and the electoral act's non-acknowledgment of the card-readers, we must not forget that the same card-readers were a veritable tool in the conduct of the elections and ignoring or downplaying their importance because some antiquated statutes did not make provisions for it is a bit ridiculous. You must also take note that I speak, not as an APC member, but as an apathetic observer and if that was what the decision of the SC in the Ambode case was premised on, then I disagree too.

The Supreme court, inter alia, also stated that the respondents failed to prove their allegation of violence in Rivers state and this what I find most incredible. I mean, we were all there when several security officials who oversaw the elections testified that there were scores of electoral offences including snatching of ballot boxes at gun-point, wanton killing by political thugs and generally, disruption of peaceful conduction of the electoral process. I regret to say I didn't follow the testimonies and the cross-examinations very thoroughly but on the surface, it would seem to me that proving the massive violence that occurred in the Rivers state elections shouldn't come hard to anyone.
Lastly, the SC also claimed that Wike was denied fair hearing and that therefore it was one of the grounds of validating the appeal. I wouldn't talk much on this because even you refused to mention it so I presume you know how feeble that sounds. How do you uphold an election that was fraught with violence and retrogressive power-play because someone was denied of fair-hearing? Wow! Just wow! Whatever happened to ordering for a fresh tribunal? It's no doubt that the principle of fair-hearing as propounded by the Latin maxim "Audi alterem patem(hear both sides" is one of most important maxims in the determination of a case and jurisprudence generally, but it's no excuse to excuse the kind of blood-bath that passed for election in Rivers State.


God! Who gave me the strength and patience to type all that? I try o.

The aspect of fair hearing even makes a stronger case. The right to fair hearing is enshrined in the constitution and where it is successfully established that a petitioner was not granted a fair hearing by a lower court, the appellate court is duty bound to resolve issues in favor of the appellant.

Do not forget that electoral matters are even more peculiar because they have specific time limits provided by the Act within which a petitioner must approach a tribunal. The tribunal must hear and decide the matter within a specific time frame beyond which it ceases to exercise jurisdiction. There is no provision for extension of time and this applies all the way to the Supreme Court. This is done so that election petitions come to an end within a given time frame so that one who has wrongly assumed an office will not remain there in perpetuity, receiving benefits and carrying out activities he is not entitled to. Ordering a retrial will therefore amount to an exercise in futility because the tribunal will no longer have jurisdiction to entertain same and negate the need for timeous dispatch of such cases.

Following the cross examination would have served u really well because the testimonies of the security agents were discredited. They couldn't show anyone or any record of arrest for electoral offences. APC did not tender evidence of anyone ruled to have been killed due to election violence. Death certificates, autopsy reports for instance would have high persuasive value. They would also need to show that the perpetrators of the crime were actually PDP agents not just alleging same.

U and I can sit around and call politicians thieves but without substantial evidence or through shoddy prosecution, the alleged thief walks free and that is justice in the eyes of the law. That burden of proof must be discharged beyond reasonable doubt. Once a testimony or witness can be discredited under cross examination, such testimony cannot stand.

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.

Rightly served.

Nice.

alrahmanonline:
@ Op no matter how true your opinion may be, i wish to inform you that you've just earned yourself thorough Weekend bashing of life, So stay put while you have your helmet on... Cos you'll recieve a hell of attack from them... i no mention names o, Ehn ehn..

Your support for this shallow line of reasoning is ridiculed on the altar of wholesomeness. If it is true that the Supreme Court judgement on the subject matter was substantially biased to reflect the political party that appointed the judges, can same be said and established about the Appeal Court judges that gave your darling APC a clean bill? Let us try not to see things from our political inclination only.

Oz4realsss:
Your support for this shallow line of reasoning is ridiculed on the altar of wholesomeness. If it is true that the Supreme Court judgement on the subject matter was substantially biased to reflect the political party that appointed the judges, can same be said and established about the Appeal Court judges that gave your darling APC a clean bill? Let us try not to see things from our political inclination only.

inside your fair mind, you know that the rivers state election was terribly rigged and full of violence, forget about party and say the truth as it is for once..

alrahmanonline:

inside your fair mind, you know that the rivers state election was terribly rigged and full of violence, forget about party and say the truth as it is for once..

Show me the State whose election was not rigged. Is it the underage voting in the North or the non-valid vote recorded in Kano that is an epitome of free and fair elections?

Babacele:
how? abi u just like to call Tinubu's name? tell us how Tinubu is controlling Judiciary in Lagos.

Seems you're a JJC when it comes to Lagos politics


No offence meant

The problem with APC is that they want oil States by all means, but they will not have them. We hate APC. Brace yourselves for more losses in Edo and Rivers A.

ZeroTolerance:
Rubbish. How do you guys even imagine APC won the election in Rivers or Akwa Ibom?

Appeal court judges do not make decisions based on personal convictions right?

appeal judges aren't bias according to the sore looser who think they can scale through the Supreme Court via personal emotions..

thunderrider:


Seems you're a JJC when it comes to Lagos politics


No offence meant

yes I pref to b a JJC to a clueless educated folk. u all pretend to be educated n spew pedestrian urban legend sponsored by Nigeria's greatest enemy- PDP. Tell me how Tinubu controlls Lagos judiciary to answer na WAEC. is it difficult instances to support your claims? I tire for una o.

thunderrider:


Seems you're a JJC when it comes to Lagos politics


No offence meant

yes I pref to b a JJC to a clueless educated folk. u all pretend to be educated n spew pedestrian urban legend sponsored by Nigeria's greatest enemy- PDP. Tell me how Tinubu controls Lagos judiciary to answer na WAEC. is it difficult to give instances to support your claims? I tire for una o. Tinubu this, Tinubu that. mtcheeeew!

FlyboyZee:

1. This your ish is devoid of any form of altruistic reasoning. The process, way and manner of appointing Supreme Court judges in the US is very different from what obtains in Nigeria. So, there is absolutely no basis for your write up...

2. Are you inferring that the Judges of the Election Petitions Tribunal that were contradicting themselves were appointed by PMB to do APC's bidding?

3. Do you also know that all the Appeal Court judges that gave contradictory judgments against the PDP were appointed under PDP Governments? Thus, inferring that they did PDP's bidding by cancelling election results or annulling elections that favoured PDP and in son cases awarding it to the APC?

My dear, you need to sit down and think properly before you make any write-up. What I read in your post smirks of cretinic (sic) and myopic reasoning...

na cnn write am..not the OP..if you will bash someone ,bash cnn!!!!

FlyboyZee:

The problem with the Nigerian situation right now is just the attitude of the current FG, being led by the APC, who believes more in media trials and trying people in the Court of Public Opinion where Judges are people who know nothing or next to nothing on how law is being applied but are influenced by their persuasions, beliefs, opinions, bias, emotions, affections or hate to judge issues.

By so doing, the APC bring legal or judicial issues to the public domain and try to persuade or sway public opinions in their favour without recourse to the laws of the land and its applications. This gives a biased public opinion even before the Judges sit on the case, thereby making it look as if the Judges have been influenced to deliver judgements in favour of or against a certain party or parties even when they apply the law to the latter. Olisa Metuh's case comes to mind, where he has been arrested, convicted and even imprisoned before he actually appeared in Court to be set free and discharged of all charges against him...

he was granted bail...not free of all charges,there is a difference biko!!!