psucc:
This judgement has been overtaken by events. And so cannot be enforced. The primaries was conducted in February while the judgement came in August, hence its enforcement is statute barred.

Yes but sonething on illegality cannot stand.

What does it mean when court pronounced that the election that brought you in was done illegally and that those people must be allowed to vote as the authentic candidates.

The only thing you want to hear before you understand is when court use the word 'void'. If PDP like, let them continue with Asue. It is as good as not feeding anybody.

senatordave1:
In Agi vs pdp 2016,the apex court said internal matters are the business of the parties but the court will intervene if the party disregards or violates it's own laws...pdp has violated its own constitution.duly elected ward delegates were clearly excluded and illegally substituted birthing an illegal , fraudulent primary...
While the court did not mention delegates expressly,it didn't exclude them.by the principle of Ubi Jus ubi remedium,they have rights as contemplated under section 82.

I recall that in the same Agi v PDP: the judgement by Rhodes-Vivour JSC (as he then was) on page 460;

a party is supreme over its own affairs……A party is like a club. A voluntary association. It has its rules, regulations, guidelines and Constitution. Members join the party on their own free will. By joining they have freely given their consent to be bound by the rules, regulations, guidelines and Constitution of the party. These rules of the party must be obeyed by all members of the Party, as the party’s decision is final over its own affairs. Members of a Party would do well to understand and appreciate the finality of a party’s decision over its domestic or internal affairs. The Court would only interfere where the party has violated its own rules...MMembers of a party would do well to understand and appreciate the finality of a party’s decision over its domestic or internal affairs.

In that same Agi v PDP, the judgement by Clara Bata Ogunbiyi JSC (another member on that panel)..... Hear her;

"As I earlier said, a political party is a voluntary association and its decision is binding on its members, even if it is deemed unreasonable.
The decision of the party on issue like this is final. The court will not substitute its will with that of the voluntary association, whether it is reasonable or unreasonable.”



In Ifengwu v PDP 2023, the appellant alleged there was no notice and proper conduct of the adhoc ward delegates;
The Appeal Court unanimously held:

"The question of whether ward congresses were conducted according to the Party’s Guidelines or at all, before the “election” or selection of the 3rd Respondent by the 1st Respondent, can thus not be entertained by the Courts, I hold, but is within the internal affairs of the 1st Respondent. It is accordingly not a live issue for this or the lower Court to determine whether the lower Court considered the evidence before it or whether requisite notices were given for the holding of ward congresses, as these have been rendered academic, the Court having been divested of jurisdiction to entertain the Appellant’s claim." (Adefope-Okojie JCA)

fergie001:

I recall that in the same Agi v PDP: the judgement by Rhodes-Vivour JSC (as he then was) on page 460;

a party is supreme over its own affairs……A party is like a club. A voluntary association. It has its rules, regulations, guidelines and Constitution. Members join the party on their own free will. By joining they have freely given their consent to be bound by the rules, regulations, guidelines and Constitution of the party. These rules of the party must be obeyed by all members of the Party, as the party’s decision is final over its own affairs. Members of a Party would do well to understand and appreciate the finality of a party’s decision over its domestic or internal affairs. The Court would only interfere where the party has violated its own rules...MMembers of a party would do well to understand and appreciate the finality of a party’s decision over its domestic or internal affairs.

In that same Agi v PDP, the judgement by Clara Bata Ogunbiyi JSC (another member on that panel)..... Hear her;

"As I earlier said, a political party is a voluntary association and its decision is binding on its members, even if it is deemed unreasonable.
The decision of the party on issue like this is final. The court will not substitute its will with that of the voluntary association, whether it is reasonable or unreasonable.”



In Ifengwu v PDP 2023, the appellant alleged there was no notice and proper conduct of the adhoc ward delegates;
The Appeal Court unanimously held:

"The question of whether ward congresses were conducted according to the Party’s Guidelines or at all, before the “election” or selection of the 3rd Respondent by the 1st Respondent, can thus not be entertained by the Courts, I hold, but is within the internal affairs of the 1st Respondent. It is accordingly not a live issue for this or the lower Court to determine whether the lower Court considered the evidence before it or whether requisite notices were given for the holding of ward congresses, as these have been rendered academic, the Court having been divested of jurisdiction to entertain the Appellant’s claim." (Adefope-Okojie JCA)

Ifengwu vs pdp was by the appeal court.like I said in that Agi vs pdp,a court will interfere only if the party violates its own rules.as far as a party follows it's rules to an extent,largely or partially,it is fine and members are bound by it.but when the violation is grievous and also touches on the extant laws,the court will intervene an in Edo

senatordave1:


Ifengwu vs pdp was by the appeal court.like I said in that Agi vs pdp,a court will interfere only if the party violates its own rules.as far as a party follows it's rules to an extent,largely or partially,it is fine and members are bound by it.but when the violation is grievous and also touches on the extant laws,the court will intervene an in Edo

Does the appeal court not supercede the High Court?
Is the internal party matter not also referenced by the Supreme Court?

Clara Ogunbiyi was on the panel of the Supreme Court in the same Agi v PDP.

nelsonose:


Oh, it is very important that PDP challenges this judgement otherwise, it can form the basis upon which APC can institute a case to nullify the PDP primary.

It mean the judgment did not favor PFP

fergie001:

The motto of the Boys Scout is Be Prepared.

it mean the judgment did not favor PDP

Great2017:

Your last paragraph already shows the side you are speaking for and therefore made all your analysis subjective.

So what? Who needs ur validation? Everyone here knows where I stand on the edo election. I repeat, asue will be battered from every corner in the election.

fergie001:

Does the appeal court not supercede the High Court?
Is the internal party matter not also referenced by the Supreme Court?

Clara Ogunbiyi was on the panel of the Supreme Court in the same Agi v PDP.

She consented but the main judgment was by onnoghen...while Asue will likely win,anything can still happen esp as oshiomhole visited the villa yesterday and the apex court can still open a window
My governor,nwifuru or uzodinma will likely head Edo council

fergie001:

Again, let me stress that the Courts have no business to adjudicate on the selection or nomination of candidates for political parties, however, the Court has limited Jurisdiction when it comes to Parties obeying its own rules.

The Ward delegateship election is a process culminating in the choosing of a candidate in a primary election. Hence, you cannot divorce Sections 82 from 84 of the EA 2022.

The Courts have stressed many times that only an aspirant has the locus standi to challenge such a suit, it is non-justicable because it falls within the domestic affairs of a political party.

See these: Dalhatu v Turaki, Ayogu Eze v PDP and most recently in the same Edo in Enoghama v PDP. (see link): https://www.nairaland.com/7359275/edo-pdp-supreme-court-affirms#117134104

I have repeated this many times that the Court has no business in imposing an adhoc delegate on a Party. I also repeat you CANNOT DIVORCE THE WARD DELEGATES ELECTION FROM THE PRIMARY PF THAT PARTY.

I also re-emphasise that the intervention of the Courts in the process of selecting or nominating a candidate is very narrow and can only confidently come under Section 84(14), that is to filed by an aspirant.

https://www.thecable.ng/edo-pdp-congress-scourt-dismisses-suit-by-orbihs-faction-says-its-a-party-affair/amp/ (Please check whether this suit is different from the particular one discussed).

for indispensable85

1. INEC has published her final list for Edo.
https://inecnigeria.org/?page_id=13150

2. Let him fight it on 21/Sept but I am looking at the suit proper proper for now.

3. Section 82 talks about duly elected delegates participating in the process.

4. I never said Ighodalo wasn't affected. I have carefully confined myself on whether the PDP Primary was nullified or not. The topic is clear that the primary was not nullified in the sense that it never came up in the suit ab initio.

For Tareq1105
1. If Ighodalo doesn't appeal, his name will still be on the ballot because the judge never made any pronouncement on any consequential order that touches on his validity.

However, if nothing happens as Kelvin Mohammed and others want it to be, they will approach another Court for enforcement which will be granted, and that can be latched on at the tribunal because either the Candidate or the Party refused to appeal.

For Christistruth00
1. How were the "delegates" prevented from participating in the Congress?
Were they restrained? Was there any police report or court order that ensured they did not attend?

They didn't participate in the Congress, they have to show why!

In your number 4 submission you agreed that the issue in contest wasn't the primary, that's the reason the court agreed that they have locus. It's about participation and that's section 82. The primary results couldn't have been an issue before the court because it wasn't even conducted as at the time the case was filed, so it wasn't an issue of section 84 which is more of challenging the outcome of a primary.

Their names were unlawfully removed and substituted on the delegates for the primary at Samuel Ogbemudia stadium. How do you want them to have participated when their names have been removed from the list of delegates? I want to see this case get to the Supreme Court. It will help us clarify certain things further.

senatordave1:

She consented but the main judgment was by onnoghen...while Asue will likely win,anything can still happen esp as oshiomhole visited the villa yesterday and the apex court can still open a window
My governor,nwifuru or uzodinma will likely head Edo council

Onnoghen was not on the panel in Agi v PDP.
Rhodes-Vivour, Dattijo Muhammad, Clara Ogunbiyi, Centus Nweze & Amiru Sanusi were judges on that panel.

Ogunbiyi read the lead Judgement.

fergie001:

Onnoghen was not on the panel in Agi v PDP.
Rhodes-Vivour, Dattijo Muhammad, Clara Ogunbiyi, Centus Nweze & Amiru Sanusi were judges on that panel.

Ogunbiyi read the lead Judgement.

Whoever read or wrote the leading judgment clearly said the court can intervene if parties violate their rules.even kekere last year said there's a narrow pathway for the court to intervene in internal matters and with the growing pressure,something will give in

senatordave1:


Whoever read or wrote the leading judgment clearly said the court can intervene if parties violate their rules.even kekere last year said there's a narrow pathway for the court to intervene in internal matters and with the growing pressure,something will give in

Hahaha, growing pressure from where!

Anyways, you know it's Asue v Okpehbolo.... All these ones we are doing is to fine-tune our legal skills.

frog12:


Mr lawyer. no be the court say the process was fraudulent? wetin that mean?

No where inside the Judgement stated that the process was fraudulent..


That's it.

Cc..
Fergie001

fergie001:

Hahaha, growing pressure from where!

Anyways, you know it's Asue v Okpehbolo.... All these ones we are doing is to fine-tune our legal skills.

Like I told you,Asue will likely win the case.i am a realist though it's good to be idealistic at times.Akpata will also play a role mainly to harm asue

Oh, thank God I am "Lawyer". Lols.

We wait on the Appeal Court's take on this. Nigeria, must produce one problem or the other to keep us engaged. Somehow, we tend to forget the hunger sufferings in the land.

senatordave1:


Yes but sonething on illegality cannot stand.

psucc:
Oh, thank God I am "Lawyer". Lols.

We wait on the Appeal Court's take on this. Nigeria, must produce one problem or the other to keep us engaged. Somehow, we tend to forget the hunger sufferings in the land.

We wait though I feel pdp will win this but I pray not

Obaseki don foolishly kill PDP in Edo.

The battle is between LP and APC......

And Shuibu will work against PDP. .

AntiChristian:
So wetin happen now?

People Duping People!

Nothing happen All Promise Cansel.

fergie001:

Number One: How will they enforce it?
They are not aspirants hence cannot challenge anything that happened on 22/2/2024.

Even though Ighodalo must appeal.

They are not Aspirants..
(Yess.. Agreed)

But the events of that day directly affected them.
And they are seeking for redress.

THEY WERE THE ONES THAT WERE EXCLUDED.

They were directly affected by the mess of the PDP,, and they proved it.
Now, what would the next action should be,, so that justice can be done..??

WHAT SHOULD BE THE NEXT THING.??

adioolayi:
The order says they MUST participate as delegates and participate in PDP Governorship primaries..


As the primary don come and gone and they were excluded from the primaries..

What happens

Fergie001..
About this particular order.,, what should be done??

lovinhubby2wife:
False hope

This is about what should be happening in future primaries..

You guys are always so much fixated in the things of the past.

We would be discussing issues with a very broad mind,, yet you guys will be discussing like as if there is a prize tagged at the end of the discussion.

Christistruth00:



You cannot confuse us
The Recognized Delegates not on Obaseki's side were deliberately prevented from voting because Obaseki wanted to impose Asue by all means

It is not hard to understand

Yess..
We know.
But the judgement shows that the law doesn't know about that.

So, what happens next.??

psucc:
This judgement has been overtaken by events. And so cannot be enforced. The primaries was conducted in February while the judgement came in August, hence its enforcement is statute barred.

Is this what it means.??

Then,, does that mean that the Primaries was not even supposed to have been held in the first place.??

There is need for the Plaintiffs to go back to the court..
That's all I can say for now.

Cc..
Fergie001.

senatordave1:


Must November reach before you know APC has Ondo

Hahahahaaaahahaaaa..

Until November too.!!

Indispensable85:




So what? Who needs ur validation? Everyone here knows where I stand on the edo election. I repeat, asue will be battered from every corner in the election.

And who cares about your warped opinion?

adioolayi:
The order says they MUST participate as delegates and participate in PDP Governorship primaries..


As the primary don come and gone and they were excluded from the primaries..

What happens

..abi.. confusing court judgement 🙄

Thanks barrister fergie001 for enlightened the general public on the court judgement

Let this court, judges be straight forward and give a clear understandable judgement so one can understand their final judgement about the issue whether the primaries that produced the winner of the Edo PDP governorship primaries was illegal or not

Indispensable85:
In your number 4 submission you agreed that the issue in contest wasn't the primary, that's the reason the court agreed that they have locus. It's about participation and that's section 82. The primary results couldn't have been an issue before the court because it wasn't even conducted as at the time the case was filed, so it wasn't an issue of section 84 which is more of challenging the outcome of a primary.

That means we both agreed that the PDP Primary was neither nullified nor invalidated.

Their names were unlawfully removed and substituted on the delegates for the primary at Samuel Ogbemudia stadium. How do you want them to have participated when their names have been removed from the list of delegates? I want to see this case get to the Supreme Court. It will help us clarify certain things further.

Unlawful exclusion is a strange term in our EA and CFRN, because it is not found there.

What do you mean by they were excluded. The Party obtained names from a process conducted by her Representatives and worked on it. It is not unusual that they will get many other lists but they will depend on those they sent to give them results.

The protagonists of this suit rightly said there was an election but it did not follow due process. They also claimed that the National HQs of the Party sent different persons under the RO, Ndubuisi Mbah whose results forecloses finality.

Again, like I have said many times, this case is non-justicable.

The first question that comes to mind is:
1. Who announced the winners?
2. Who is the RO of the election?
3. Who appoints persons to oversee the election.
4. On whose platform, logo and motto are the supposed winners expected to represent.

If these questions are to be answered ... It is clear that one.
1. Mbah submits the list of winners to the party.
2. Mbah is the RO
3. The PDP
4. PDP

Again, what should aggrieved persons do, firstly file appeals at the Disciplinary Committee raised by the party to hear their grievances but what do they do.... They went to the court on a matger that should otherwise be within its own voluntary organisation they willingly joined.

PDP have said Mr A and Mr B from our results won ... It is not the responsibility of the Court to begin an inquisition on the matters that are otherwise domestic affairs of the Party.

Don't forget in this case, INEC didn't file any process. They opted to stay completely neutral.

See examples are too numerous:.Jimi Lawal v Adebutu last year
Olabode v PDP

Kekere-Ekun was emphatic that she sympathises with the ward delegates but they weren't aspirants, and had no legal rights to file same.

You will see how the higher Courts will lash on Ekwo. He knows what he is doing .....

Indispensable85:
...I want to see this case get to the Supreme Court. It will help us clarify certain things further...

Same thing with me.
I go like this case to reach Supreme Court.