Pierocash:
If it was APC that were found in same situation,the court would have interpreted it differently.

But however, I still can't fathom the reason why a political party that is gunning for a very serious contest as Governorship election will fail to screen all the relevant sections of the law before embarking on such serious mission. Were they thinking that they could never win or what? Knowing fully well that even if you win, you can be removed by the court once the looser exploits that loopholes.

I see that as foolishness

You mean like Zamfara and Rivers state in 2019, where all their candidates were disqualified?

Emphasis should be placed on your 2nd paragraph. Judiciary is not our problem.

EjehDtiger:


Is it that you choose to be biased or do you simply have amnesia?
In 2019, APC had the same situation with Plateau in Zamfara, won the election but was thrown out by the court. In the same 2019, APC was denied participation in the governorship elections in Rivers state by the court. All this happened under the watch of former President MB, an APC man. Do not be emotional in your judgement so you won't be seen as biased.

you are the one not being truthful to yourself.

This is not Buhari's APC court, this is a different set of judicial rascals occupying that place now. Look at the whole court cases in the Governorship, which one has APC lost, or they didn't break laws too abi? Dey play

garfield1:


Pdp started this heist in bayelsa,apc are simply repaying them.
Sponsorship and nomination are all parts of qualification..for you to be qualified to contest ,you must be a party member and also sponsored by them.jegede ground was simply that gov buni held an executive post which is null and all acts therefore are void including aketi victory,it almost succeeded...they agreed with him partially but stated that gov buni should have been part of the suit in the spirit of Audi alterem partem.section 177 was never invoked
Section 177 of the constitution is all about qualifications.in subsection C,it talks about membership and sponsorship which is still part of qualifications.rhe apex court has been interpreting the membership in relation to the electoral act.lets see how they will interpret it in relation to the constitution,whether sub C is inferior to A,B and D.

Don't drive this discourse to the play ground. PDP didn't take Bayelsa but a disgraceful Supreme Court ruling denied the people of Bayelsa the social contract they signed with Lyon, same in Imo same in Zamfara. A post mortem of the last election in the above states show the electorates ain't totally in support of the decisions of courts thus the brigandage.

The returns for the incumbent Gov of Bayelsa in the 2023 election is lower than Lyon's performance in 2019 while the runner up did better the previous runner up. Imo was anarchical a departure from 2019, a caricature of an election. In Zamfara the man whom the court imposed on them was rejected. The law of social contract should apply, instead of the current system were minority votes are imposed on the majority.

The judiciary saved Akeredolu even if Jegede had joined Buni nothing would have come out of that case. If the APC constitution was followed to latter by the Judges, Akeredolu should have been removed as the party constitution was violated. Cases should be about the sanctity of the ballots and social contract.

Jegede Vs Akeredolu simplified matters. Parties are registered entities with one certificate of incorporation so the head of administration at Secretariat can forward names of candidates to INEC & not necessarily the party exco. This is why the party is one. But again Buni is not APC neither is he the national Secretariat, until any party is deregistered the issue of nomination & sponsorship is a no case, same also membership except where the party can prove that they didn't submit a candidate's name to INEC. In such a situation, litigation from an interloper challenging membership, nomination & sponsorship will succeed. But Nigerian judiciary dey look face.

Fiscus105:



Prejudice siphon your common sense.

When they asked about Ahmed Lawal obtaining two tickets against Naija constitution. Werey would still find constitution to defend nonsense.

I dont have time for whataboutism or childish rants. Stick to the topic the thread was created about. We can talk of Hamed Lawan or Lawal or whatever u call him when a there is a topic about him

garfield1:


I challenge you to quote a portion of the constitution that stops non party members from challenging section 177 c.the law imaginary as I think is clear to you not me.section 29-31 and 84 in the EA refers to pre election cases.nothing prevents a non party member from taking up a constitutional matter.
The court has stated severally esp in buhari vs yaradua that register isn't the only proof of membership even though register is the best.in Kano,apc went further to bring other evidences which shows Abba isn't an nnpp member legally.
Parties cannot hide flout their laws and the nation's laws and hide under the guise of internal affairs...section 177 is all about qualifications and it clearly mentioned sponsorship.are you better than the constitution?

I have asked what is qualification of a candidate? Because i understand the tricks of replacing one issue with other to advance the argument of qualification.

koboko69:


I dont have time for whataboutism or childish rants. Stick to the topic the thread was created about. We can talk of Hamed Lawan or Lawal or whatever u call him when a there is a topic about him

No, u must defend your uncles doing nonsense in courts oooo.


You people never ready for greatness in ur country ok.


If judges doing nonsense delivering political cases that would go viral like this, I imagine judgements between individuals that won't go public.


If retiring justice of supreme court could call out Naija judicial system and a serving senator gave a valendatory speech that several of his colleagues were in the senate courtesy of his wife that was "president of court of appeal" then, ....... how much less you unknown urchin saying trash to defence nonsense.


If this is how u behave in real life, I pity ur wife and people around u ok.

slivertongue:



I have asked what is qualification of a candidate? Because i understand the tricks of replacing one issue with other to advance the argument of qualification.

As i understand it, the difference here is that APC challenged the party not the individual.

When you challenge the individual's nomination, the law says it is none of your business as you are not a member of the party and you have no locus because you lost nothing. if the party did not give him the ticket they would have given someone else in the party and not you so you did not lose anything.

However when you challenge the party for sponsoring of a candidate who is not a member of the party, you can seek damages because it affects you because that candidate that did not comply with the law went on to contest against you so now it affects you.

a party's internal primary that produces a candidate is none of your business as an outsider, its also a pre election matter so the court will dismiss the case. however at the point when that nominee contests against your party, your party can now challenge the other party for fielding an unqualified candidate. unqualified candidates is a pre and post election matter.

Think of it this way, someone employs a driver who does not have a license and you go to court. The court will rightly tell you it is none of your business. The right place to go in such a situation is the police, the court is a place for remedy but as no harm has been done to you simply by another man employing an unqualified driver the court will dismiss your case as they have dismisse dother similar cases.

However once that unqualified driver hits you or your car, then you have been wronged and have suffered damages and at that point the court will entertain your case against the Employer for employing an unqualified driver.



Its brilliant lawyering!!!

cc: garfield1

Fiscus105:




No, u must defend your uncles doing nonsense in courts oooo.


You people never ready for greatness in ur country ok.


If judges doing nonsense delivering political cases that would go viral like this, I imagine judgements between individuals that won't go public.


If retiring justice of supreme court could call out Naija judicial system and a serving senator gave a valendatory speech that several of his colleagues were in the senate courtesy of his wife that was "president of court of appeal" then, ....... how much less you unknown urchin saying trash to defence nonsense.


If this is how u behave in real life, I pity ur wife and people around u ok.

Guy, i dont have time for your nonsense. You are not a lawyer and using sentiments and not ready to reason logically. APC lost all the sits in Zamfara from the same court, democracy was not in danger then, APC did not have a candidate in Rivers for governorship elections just because of the same issue the Plateau governor is facing. Court ordered that a primary should be conducted, they ignored and went ahead to contest the election without doing a primary, court said they have no candidate since no primary was conducted as ordered, same with what happened to APC in Rivers, democracy was not in danger then, a candidate was never a member of a political party and went ahead to contest an election, when the constitution clearly states you have to be a member of a party before you can contest any elections but your sentiments and emotions will never let you reason logically but blame the judiciary for doing their jobs then accuse the rulling party who exploited the loop holes like every other political party will do of influencing the judiciary. Take several sits backwards, like i said i dont have time for baby analysts who cant see beyond their nose.
You are a child and just repeating the jargons u read on social media. What as any member of my family got to do with this discussion. If I give u a response again, then I am really jobless. Run along boy! Go argue with your mates and people in the same intellectual level as u are.

casualobserver:


As i understand it, the difference here is that APC challenged the party not the individual.

When you challenge the individual's nomination, the law says it is none of your business as you are not a member of the party and you have no locus because you lost nothing. if the party did not give him the ticket they would have given someone else in the party and not you so you did not lose anything.

However when you challenge the party for sponsoring of a candidate who is not a member of the party, you can seek damages because it affects you because that candidate that did not comply with the law went on to contest against you so now it affects you.

a party's internal primary that produces a candidate is none of your business as an outsider, its also a pre election matter so the court will dismiss the case. however at the point when that nominee contests against your party, your party can now challenge the other party for fielding an unqualified candidate. unqualified candidates is a pre and post election matter.

Think of it this way, someone employs a driver who does not have a license and you go to court. The court will rightly tell you it is none of your business. The right place to go in such a situation is the police, the court is a place for remedy but as no harm has been done to you simply by another man employing an unqualified driver the court will dismiss your case as they have dismisse dother similar cases.

However once that unqualified driver hits you or your car, then you have been wronged and have suffered damages and at that point the court will entertain your case against the Employer for employing an unqualified driver.



Its brilliant lawyering!!!

cc: garfield1

I agree.

slivertongue:



I have asked what is qualification of a candidate? Because i understand the tricks of replacing one issue with other to advance the argument of qualification.

Oga,which part of the constitution says 177c is an internal matter? I am still waiting.obviously there's none so rest.
If the lawmakers wanted it to be an internal matter,it won't be in the constitution.it will only be in the electoral act or as a precedent.all provisions of section 177 are open to all contestants sir.any provision in the constitution is meant for all Nigerians and in the case of elections,all contestants

casualobserver:


As i understand it, the difference here is that APC challenged the party not the individual.

When you challenge the individual's nomination, the law says it is none of your business as you are not a member of the party and you have no locus because you lost nothing. if the party did not give him the ticket they would have given someone else in the party and not you so you did not lose anything.

However when you challenge the party for sponsoring of a candidate who is not a member of the party, you can seek damages because it affects you because that candidate that did not comply with the law went on to contest against you so now it affects you.

a party's internal primary that produces a candidate is none of your business as an outsider, its also a pre election matter so the court will dismiss the case. however at the point when that nominee contests against your party, your party can now challenge the other party for fielding an unqualified candidate. unqualified candidates is a pre and post election matter.

Think of it this way, someone employs a driver who does not have a license and you go to court. The court will rightly tell you it is none of your business. The right place to go in such a situation is the police, the court is a place for remedy but as no harm has been done to you simply by another man employing an unqualified driver the court will dismiss your case as they have dismisse dother similar cases.

However once that unqualified driver hits you or your car, then you have been wronged and have suffered damages and at that point the court will entertain your case against the Employer for employing an unqualified driver.



Its brilliant lawyering!!!

cc: garfield1

Another twist to a simple issue.

If u can't challenge a candidate then what is your locus with the choice of a party that you don't contribute to it's existence? challenging a candidate is challenging the party & challenging the party in our election is challenging the candidate. you can't septate the two if a party doesn't field a candidate it can't contest an election and if a candidate wants to contest an election he/she must use the banner of a party because independent candidacy doesn't exist as such the argument that a candidate won election without being sponsored by a party is petty &an attempt to rubbish INEC & obtain victory by trickery.

Separate membership, nomination & sponsorship from qualification. Most parties are litigating on qualification but are using membership, nomination and sponsorship to deliver their arguments. Even those using mundane terms such as 'structure' are using the same tricks.

garfield1:


Oga,which part of the constitution says 177c is an internal matter? I am still waiting.obviously there's none so rest.
If the lawmakers wanted it to be an internal matter,it won't be in the constitution.it will only be in the electoral act or as a precedent.all provisions of section 177 are open to all contestants sir.any provision in the constitution is meant for all Nigerians and in the case of elections,all contestants

am waiting for you to elucidate on what is qualification to candidates.

slivertongue:



Another twist to a simple issue.

If u can't challenge a candidate then what is your locus with the choice of a party that you don't contribute to it's existence? challenging a candidate is challenging the party & challenging the party in our election is challenging the candidate. you can't septate the two if a party doesn't field a candidate it can't contest an election and if a candidate wants to contest an election he/she must use the banner of a party because independent candidacy doesn't exist as such the argument that a candidate won election without being sponsored by a party is petty &an attempt to rubbish INEC & obtain victory by trickery.

Separate membership, nomination & sponsorship from qualification. Most parties are litigating on qualification but are using membership, nomination and sponsorship to deliver their arguments. Even those using mundane terms such as 'structure' are using the same tricks.

Section 177 c is that aspect of qualification talking about membership and sponsorship.so how can you separate it? You cannot add or subtract from the constitution.you must do it as it is

slivertongue:



Another twist to a simple issue.

If u can't challenge a candidate then what is your locus with the choice of a party that you don't contribute to it's existence? challenging a candidate is challenging the party & challenging the party in our election is challenging the candidate. you can't septate the two if a party doesn't field a candidate it can't contest an election and if a candidate wants to contest an election he/she must use the banner of a party because independent candidacy doesn't exist as such the argument that a candidate won election without being sponsored by a party is petty &an attempt to rubbish INEC & obtain victory by trickery.

Separate membership, nomination & sponsorship from qualification. Most parties are litigating on qualification but are using membership, nomination and sponsorship to deliver their arguments. Even those using mundane terms such as 'structure' are using the same tricks.

oga try and reason without emotion. if you do you will see the logic behind it, if not you will make the same mistake next time.

What you do in your house in not my business, at the point when you come out of your house AND INTERACT WITH ME it becomes my business.

The nomination of your flag bearer is not my business as an outsider. A party sponsoring a candidate that does not satisfy the rules becomes my business as a candiate/party, the minute he lines up against me for an election. Since the internal process for selecting or electing a flagbearer is none of my business, the part that is my business is what i can challenge in court. i.e that a political party sponsored a candidate in an election that was unqualified.

understand the difference. Previous cases failed because people challenged the nomination, whereas APC challenged the sponsorship of an unqualified candidate in an election...same with Plateau.

Nomination is not the business of an outsider, participation in an election is because now you are outside your house interacting with me.

the mistake others have made in the past is to challenge the nomination which is internal party affair and a pre election matter and not the sponsorship at the actual election as well as to focus on the candidate instead of the party.

"Your nomination is invalid" (against individual, pre election matter, none of my business because you didnt contest against me in the primaries) is different from "you sponsored an unqualified candidate" (against party, pre and post election matter see sect 184 (1) of elct act, my business because you contested against me in the election)

garfield1:


Section 177 c is that aspect of qualification talking about membership and sponsorship.so how can you separate it? You cannot add or subtract from the constitution.you must do it as it is

One of the litigated cases at the Appeal Court which succeed had same issue. They filed nomination & sponsorship when it failed at the tribunal, they modified it to qualification which wasn't mentioned in the tribunal case yet the argument is about issues within a political party. Issues which don't connect to election & which they can't litigate on. Am sure you read one of the grounds for dismissing Benue PDP's case. From there you can derive answers to your questions.

casualobserver:


oga try and reason without emotion. if you do you will see the logic behind it, if not you will make the same mistake next time.

What you do in your house in not my business, at the point when you come out of your house AND INTERACT WITH ME it becomes my business.

The nomination of your flag bearer is not my business as an outsider. A party sponsoring a candidate that does not satisfy the rules becomes my business as a candiate/party, the minute he lines up against me for an election. Since the internal process for selecting or electing a flagbearer is none of my business, the part that is my business is what i can challenge in court. i.e that a political party sponsored a candidate in an election that was unqualified.

understand the difference. Previous cases failed because people challenged the nomination, whereas APC challenged the sponsorship of an unqualified candidate in an election...same with Plateau.

Nomination is not the business of an outsider, participation in an election is because now you are outside your house interacting with me.

the mistake others have made in the past is to challenge the nomination which is internal party affair and a pre election matter and not the sponsorship at the actual election as well as to focus on the candidate instead of the party.

"Your nomination is invalid" (against individual, pre election matter, none of my business because you didnt contest against me in the primaries) is different from "you sponsored an unqualified candidate" (against party, pre and post election matter see sect 184 (1) of elct act, my business because you contested against me in the election)

Go and read the Appeal Court judgement on the Benue PDP candidate, the PDP HOR for Askira Uba etc, you will make an informed understanding.

The understanding of sponsor a candidate & what 'unqualified' means

slivertongue:




Go and read the Appeal Court judgement on the Benue PDP candidate, the PDP HOR for Askira Uba etc, you will make an informed understanding.

The understanding of sponsor a candidate & what 'unqualified' means

i have read it. you clearly still dont understand. i have tried to explain this like I would explain to my 10 yr old son. There is not much else I can say.

https://www.thecable.ng/appeal-court-affirms-election-of-pdps-balami-as-borno-rep

In Borno, APC challenged the nomination, its not their business to challenge nomination, it is pre election issue and its none of their business or the business of the court....how many times will i say this? Jesus wept!!!

In Plateau and Kano they challenged the sponsorship of an unqualified candidate.

the process by which your opponent became an unqualified candidate in another party is none of your business and a pre election matter. If aggrieved mmebers of that party do not bring the matter up pre election, no one else can challenge the nomination.

Presenting an unqualified candidate to run against me in an election is a different matter, I am not challenging the process by which he became an unqualified candidate or the candidate, I am challenging the party for presenting/sponsoring an unquialifed candidate. At this point 1) it becomes my business, it is a post election matter and the court has jurisdiction. see electoral act sect 184 (1)

The process and the outcome of a party's primaries is an internal affair and not the business of an outsider. it becomes an outsiders affair the minute a party presents a candidate who is not qualified to run against him. It is about what you seek in court, who it is you are suing and how you word your plea. That a candidate is not qualified to be a nominee is not your business and happens before the election. It is only when a party presents an unqualified candidate at the election that you can challenge it and your plea must be against the party and the sponsorhip of an unqualified candidate. it is at that point that you can challenge the nomination indirectly by challenging the party for presenting a candidate that isnt qualified. The court is a very precise arena. PDP had a good case in Ogun state but they lost because of the way they worded their appeal. They used the word "purported", a word which means rumour, you dont go to court based on a rumour, you go to court to plead facts and so the case was dismissed.


the mistake lawyers have been making in the past (like the Borno case you cited) is that they have been challenging the candidates for being unqualified instead of challenging the party for presenting an unqualified candidate.

Once party primaries are over, in terms of validity of membership, your problem is not with the candidate, your problem is with the party. big difference!!!!! ...and it only becomes your business when the present that person to run against you.

slivertongue:


One of the litigated cases at the Appeal Court which succeed had same issue. They filed nomination & sponsorship when it failed at the tribunal, they modified it to qualification which wasn't mentioned in the tribunal case yet the argument is about issues within a political party. Issues which don't connect to election & which they can't litigate on. Am sure you read one of the grounds for dismissing Benue PDP's case. From there you can derive answers to your questions.

Kano apc went directly through section 177,gave reasons to show that nnpp is not an nnpp member,showed that Kabir did not participate at all stages of the election which is another angle.via section 177,he isn't a party member...
Benue case it's different,it is about Sam ode presenting a forged certificate which is a constitutional issue and Alia not being on apc register via section 77

slivertongue:



am waiting for you to elucidate on what is qualification to candidates.

Qualification comprises everything contained in 177 a-d

casualobserver:


i have read it. you clearly still dont understand. i have tried to explain this like I would explain to my 10 yr old son. There is not much else I can say.

https://www.thecable.ng/appeal-court-affirms-election-of-pdps-balami-as-borno-rep

In Borno, APC challenged the nomination, its not their business to challenge nomination, it is pre election issue and its none of their business or the business of the court....how many times will i say this? Jesus wept!!!

In Plateau and Kano they challenged the sponsorship of an unqualified candidate.

the process by which your opponent became an unqualified candidate in another party is none of your business and a pre election matter. If aggrieved mmebers of that party do not bring the matter up pre election, no one else can challenge the nomination.

Presenting an unqualified candidate to run against me in an election is a different matter, I am not challenging the process by which he became an unqualified candidate or the candidate, I am challenging the party for presenting/sponsoring an unquialifed candidate. At this point 1) it becomes my business, it is a post election matter and the court has jurisdiction. see electoral act sect 184 (1)


My problem is not with the candidate, my problem is with the party. big difference!!!!!

Exactly.you are also challenging the membership of an unqualified member because it seems sponsorship was ok in Kano but membership is invalid while in plateau membership and sponsorship are ok but due to the false foundation and dissent for a court order,the entire nomination and qualifications process is dead

garfield1:


Exactly.you are also challenging the membership of an unqualified member because it seems sponsorship was ok in Kano but membership is invalid while in plateau membership and sponsorship are ok but due to the false foundation and dissent for a court order,the entire nomination and qualifications process is dead

thats not how i interprete it.

Plateau: Party did not hold proper congress as directed by court order .....therefore party structure does not exist in plateau..therefore what does not exist cannot sponsor candidates. The issue of membership and sponsorship is mute because there is no PDP in Plateau having not performed a congress as directed. if there is no party structure, there is no sponsorship.

Kano: Kano is precisely about sponsorship. Party structure exists but party sponsored a candidate who was not a member of the party in breach of the electoral act..therefore the party sponsored an unqualified candidate.

No outsider can challenge the membership of another party. you wait until they present that unqualified candidate (or non member) to run against you in an election (at which point it becomes post election) and then you focus on the party (not the candidate) for presenting a candidate who is not a member or otherwise unqualified.

casualobserver:


thats not how i interprete it.

Plateau: Party did not hold proper congress as directed by court order .....therefore party structure does not exist in plateau..therefore what does not exist cannot sponsor candidates. The issue of membership and sponsorship is mute because there is no PDP in Plateau having not performed a congress as directed. if there is no party structure, there is no sponsorship.

Kano: Kano is precisely about sponsorship. Party structure exists but party sponsored a candidate who was not a member of the party in breach of the electoral act..therefore the party sponsored an unqualified candidate.

No outsider can challenge the membership of another party. you wait until they present that unqualified candidate (or non member) to run against you in an election (at which point it becomes post election) and then you focus on the party (not the candidate) for presenting a candidate who is not a member or otherwise unqualified.

You are largely right but in plateau,what matters is not the nomination process because primaries and congresses are conducted by nwc.they can use special or adhoc delegates for primaries.pdp or any party exists without congresses but no leadership structure exists but membership exists. The court order which was disobeyed is what matters.

For Kano,I agree with you

garfield1:


You are largely right but in plateau,what matters is not the nomination process because primaries and congresses are conducted by nwc.they can use special or adhoc delegates for primaries.pdp or any party exists without congresses but no leadership structure exists but membership exists. The court order which was disobeyed is what matters.

For Kano,I agree with you

Hmmm, what was the court order, was it not to conduct a valid congress?

casualobserver:


Hmmm, what was the court order, was it not to conduct a valid congress?

Am exactly and it was partially obeyed

garfield1:

Am exactly and it was partially obeyed

But not fully! How do you partially conduct a congress? The purpose of the court order was to conduct a valid congress. It wasn’t done as such without a structure they cannot conduct sponsor candidates.

I just watched a replay of a video

https://www.youtube.com/live/aX8OEqvyPMA?si=hDnwF1ofvE2zL3Cy

Watch from 42:00. He clearly states it is not about nomination it is about sponsorship.

Bwala and PDP are trying to create their own narrative that this is about disobeying court order and trying to rope in Ebonyi. It is not. It is about the consequence of not obeying the court order. I.e. not conducting a congress. Without one you have no structure, without a structure you cannot sponsor. The case is about sponsorship.

casualobserver:


But not fully! How do you partially conduct a congress? The purpose of the court order was to conduct a valid congress. It wasn’t done as such without a structure they cannot conduct sponsor candidates.

I just watched a replay of a video

https://www.youtube.com/live/aX8OEqvyPMA?si=hDnwF1ofvE2zL3Cy

Watch from 42:00. He clearly states it is not about nomination it is about sponsorship.

Bwala and PDP are trying to create their own narrative that this is about disobeying court order and trying to rope in Ebonyi. It is not. It is about the consequence of not obeying the court order. I.e. not conducting a congress. Without one you have no structure, without a structure you cannot sponsor. The case is about sponsorship.

Exactly but I feel the apex court might rule either ways unlike kano

F U C K NAIJA JUDICIARY. S I C K ARSEHOLES!

Pierocash:
If it was APC that were found in same situation,the court would have interpreted it differently.

But however, I still can't fathom the reason why a political party that is gunning for a very serious contest as Governorship election will fail to screen all the relevant sections of the law before embarking on such serious mission. Were they thinking that they could never win or what? Knowing fully well that even if you win, you can be removed by the court once the looser exploits that loopholes.

I see that as foolishness

Did the man in Charge screen relevant laws when he contested elections even when he was a bagman