inforesource:
After reading through the judgement I came to the conclusion that the Supreme Court actually agreed that the case brought before her was a valid case, however, since the PDP has no locus standi in the case, that is to say they do not have the right to bring up the case to the court since the case is APC's. The case was dismissed.

OK, so for me, the lesson in this case is that, if, assuming, a husband kills his wife and the family of the wife refuses to take the case to court, it means that outsider can not take the case to court to seek justice. Is this the precedence the Supreme Court is setting?

I really need a little schooling here. Maybe I should go back and study the electoral laws.

inforesource:
After reading through the judgement I came to the conclusion that the Supreme Court actually agreed that the case brought before her was a valid case, however, since the PDP has no locus standi in the case, that is to say they do not have the right to bring up the case to the court since the case is APC's. The case was dismissed.

OK, so for me, the lesson in this case is that, if, assuming, a husband kills his wife and the family of the wife refuses to take the case to court, it means that outsider can not take the case to court to seek justice. Is this the precedence the Supreme Court is setting?

I really need a little schooling here. Maybe I should go back and study the electoral laws.

inforesource:
After reading through the judgement I came to the conclusion that the Supreme Court actually agreed that the case brought before her was a valid case, however, since the PDP has no locus standi in the case, that is to say they do not have the right to bring up the case to the court since the case is APC's. The case was dismissed.

OK, so for me, the lesson in this case is that, if, assuming, a husband kills his wife and the family of the wife refuses to take the case to court, it means that outsider can not take the case to court to seek justice. Is this the precedence the Supreme Court is setting?

I really need a little schooling here. Maybe I should go back and study the electoral laws.

inforesource:
After reading through the judgement I came to the conclusion that the Supreme Court actually agreed that the case brought before her was a valid case, however, since the PDP has no locus standi in the case, that is to say they do not have the right to bring up the case to the court since the case is APC's. The case was dismissed.

OK, so for me, the lesson in this case is that, if, assuming, a husband kills his wife and the family of the wife refuses to take the case to court, it means that outsider can not take the case to court to seek justice. Is this the precedence the Supreme Court is setting?

I really need a little schooling here. Maybe I should go back and study the electoral laws.

tesppidd:
The analogy shouldn't be that serious.

A better analogy would be,

"If a man cheats on his wife, another man in another family has no right to carry the matter to the village chief priest"

😁

inforesource:
After reading through the judgement I came to the conclusion that the Supreme Court actually agreed that the case brought before her was a valid case, however, since the PDP has no locus standi in the case, that is to say they do not have the right to bring up the case to the court since the case is APC's. The case was dismissed.

OK, so for me, the lesson in this case is that, if, assuming, a husband kills his wife and the family of the wife refuses to take the case to court, it means that outsider can not take the case to court to seek justice. Is this the precedence the Supreme Court is setting?

I really need a little schooling here. Maybe I should go back and study the electoral laws.

femisplash:
Using an example of a murder case is taking it too far. Double nomination is like taking two meats from the pot, if none of your family member has no problem about it, what is the business of your next neighbor to come inside your house to accuse you?

inforesource:


OK, so for me, the lesson in this case is that, if, assuming, a husband kills his wife and the family of the wife refuses to take the case to court, it means that outsider can not take the case to court to seek justice. Is this the precedence the Supreme Court is setting?

femisplash:
Using an example of a murder case is taking it too far. Double nomination is like taking two meats from the pot, if none of your family member has no problem about it, what is the business of your next neighbor to come inside your house to accuse you?

tesppidd:
The analogy shouldn't be that serious.

A better analogy would be,

"If a man cheats on his wife, another man in another family has no right to carry the matter to the village chief priest"

😁


I do understand the position of the Supreme Court.


But in Uche Nwosu's case, it wasn't any of the two parties he contested with, that took him to court.

So what's the double standard by the SP?

Mjshexy:
But all parties are expected to work under the same electoral law, therefore if an electoral malpractice was committed by APC and the party is trying to cover it up but another party presents it before the SC (who is supposed to be unbiased), why is the SC turning deaf ears & blind eyes to the glaring evidences presented before her and behaving as a stooge of APC

seanfer:


Uche Nwosu’s case was settled with Electoral Act 2010. This new one was signed into law last year and it overrides the one used to judge Nwosu.

seanfer:


Attached is a ruling of the Appeal Court in Favour of PDP. This is January 2023

Mjshexy:
But all parties are expected to work under the same electoral law, therefore if an electoral malpractice was committed by APC and the party is trying to cover it up but another party presents it before the SC (who is supposed to be unbiased), why is the SC turning deaf ears & blind eyes to the glaring evidences presented before her and behaving as a stooge of APC

inforesource:
After reading through the judgement I came to the conclusion that the Supreme Court actually agreed that the case brought before her was a valid case, however, since the PDP has no locus standi in the case, that is to say they do not have the right to bring up the case to the court since the case is APC's. The case was dismissed.

OK, so for me, the lesson in this case is that, if, assuming, a husband kills his wife and the family of the wife refuses to take the case to court, it means that outsider can not take the case to court to seek justice. Is this the precedence the Supreme Court is setting?

I really need a little schooling here. Maybe I should go back and study the electoral laws.

inforesource:
After reading through the judgement I came to the conclusion that the Supreme Court actually agreed that the case brought before her was a valid case, however, since the PDP has no locus standi in the case, that is to say they do not have the right to bring up the case to the court since the case is APC's. The case was dismissed.

OK, so for me, the lesson in this case is that, if, assuming, a husband kills his wife and the family of the wife refuses to take the case to court, it means that outsider can not take the case to court to seek justice. Is this the precedence the Supreme Court is setting?

I really need a little schooling here. Maybe I should go back and study the electoral laws.

femisplash:
It is called pre-election matters and strictly an internal affair of a party, only a party member can sue. Tambuwal contested the presidential primaries and after steping down for Atiku,he collected another form for senate but it's not the business of APC. PDP did not take Tambuwal to court but are coming for Shettima. Obi was not a LP member 30days before the register was submited to INEC yet no other party is fuming about it.

tesppidd:
The analogy shouldn't be that serious.

A better analogy would be,

"If a man cheats on his wife, another man in another family has no right to carry the matter to the village chief priest"

😁


I do understand the position of the Supreme Court.


But in Uche Nwosu's case, it wasn't any of the two parties he contested with, that took him to court.

So what's the double standard by the SP?

Mjshexy:
But all parties are expected to work under the same electoral law, therefore if an electoral malpractice was committed by APC and the party is trying to cover it up but another party presents it before the SC (who is supposed to be unbiased), why is the SC turning deaf ears & blind eyes to the glaring evidences presented before her and behaving as a stooge of APC

tesppidd:
The analogy shouldn't be that serious.

A better analogy would be,

"If a man cheats on his wife, another man in another family has no right to carry the matter to the village chief priest"

😁


I do understand the position of the Supreme Court.


But in Uche Nwosu's case, it wasn't any of the two parties he contested with, that took him to court.

So what's the double standard by the SP?

seanfer:


The Electoral Act 2022 stipulates that only a party member who participated in the primary can sue the party on how nomination was done.
Your example of husband killing his wife is not same as this section of electoral act, criminal act is different.
As it stands today LP and PDP just lost one of their prayers in their petition about double nomination, reason been that they don’t have locus standi and it is pre-election matter.

socialmediaman:

femisplash:
Using an example of a murder case is taking it too far. Double nomination is like taking two meats from the pot, if none of your family member has no problem about it, what is the business of your next neighbor to come inside your house to accuse you?

Kyase:


You read through the judgement and this what comes out from your Brian

"So you didn't hear that Supreme Court agreed that evidence before them showed he dropped his senatorial nomination on the 6th of July 2022?"