Legal maestro and civil rights defender, Mike Ozekhome on our breakfast show, Sunrise daily, has slammed the Taraba state tribunal for its judgement, of awarding a certificate of return to the APC Taraba state gubernatorial candidate, Aisha Alhassan, after nullifying the elections that saw the PDP candidate Darius Ishiaku emerge victorious. The Tribunal nullified the elections, on the grounds that the said candidate was not a legal representative of the PDP at the election, and so the PDP fielded no candidate, and so therefore, the results of the election is null and void. The tribunal went on to order INEC to award a certificate of return to the APC candidate. But according to our guest, Mike Ozekhome, by the dictates of the constitution, INEC should have called for a fresh elections and not declare the APC candidate, who was the runner up, as the winner.

Ok

Mike Ozrkhome is a PDP lawyer, so no surprises here. He has always supported criminality. The courts will decide, not a criminal lawyer

dustmalik:
Mike Ozrkhome is a PDP lawyer, so no surprises here. He has always supported criminality. The courts will decide, not a criminal lawyer

Notwithstanding, he makes a valid case, if we go by the Nigerian constitution

Teryfik Sdindan Roob chukkiephil ChappyChase Ishiamu gunuvi Truckpusher Rozayx5 bomsilaga, erunz dunsman Nigerianvenom PRYCE Phockphockman, nwadiuko1, ibokUtoroh, Koded, iPrinz20 Aprokoman, OcheJoseph, Dearpreye, Firefire, Tomakint Francizy, Temitemi1, Hinwazaka, Dumkem21 Biafranqueen, Mogidi, IsraeliAirforce, Candyrain, Ambivert, Rose2014, Opiaoku, Anonimi, Engineerboat, Talktimi, ahaika23,
coolestrogue APCSucks Emperortj93 Mizmycoli DebateNigeria Chukwudi44 and all patriots

People kept saying that clause in the electoral act was rejected by the court but the question is, was it expunged from the ACT?? The courts cannot dictate to the HOA what laws to make and not to make!

Why didn't Mike address the issue of where PDP held the so-called primaries and the fact that PDP didn't meet the stipulated time by the electoral laws for primaries?

Just a matter of time, the COA would surely throw the tribunal's verdict where it belongs>>>>in the dustbin.

PRYCE:
People kept saying that clause in the electoral act was rejected by the court but the question is, was it expunged from the ACT?? The courts cannot dictate to the HOA what laws to make and not to make!

It doesn't need to be expunged until the electoral laws are reviewed. But once the court overrides an existing ACT, that becomes the new ACT.

dustmalik:
Why didn't Mike address the issue of where PDP held the so-called primaries and the fact that PDP didn't meet the stipulated time by the electoral laws for primaries?

He did. He didn't challenge the judgement of the court in regards to the nullification. He only raised objections to the fact that, according to the constitution, a fresh elections should have been ordered by the tribunal.

dustmalik:
Why didn't Mike address the issue of where PDP held the so-called primaries and the fact that PDP didn't meet the stipulated time by the electoral laws for primaries?

Bros he said order a re-run!! Cant you understand simple english? Why are you guys suddenly scared of a re-run?

MizMyColi:
The reason they cannot order a rerun election is simple.

Aisha Alhassan and APC cannot win Taraba State Fairly and Squarely.

APC surely knows that fact,that is why the useless tribunal declared her outright winner!! However she can only rule Taraba in her dreams!!!

This 'barrister of noise' don come again? They will soon kidnap the garrulous _twat again!

Will rerun reduce the price of petrol? Let the parties concerned if in doubt approach the appeal court.

MizMyColi:
The reason they cannot order a rerun election is simple.

Aisha Alhassan and APC cannot win Taraba State Fairly and Squarely.

Finito!

chukwudi44:


Bros he said order a re-run!! Cant you understand simple english? Why are you guys suddenly scared of a re-run?

It's you who has refused to come to terms with the reality of the judgement. The PDP, according to the judgement, didn't have a candidate in that election. So why would the tribunal order a rerun? When, in fact, the only eligible candidate with the highest number of votes was Aisha Alhassan.

maupe:

He did. He didn't challenge the judgement of the court in regards to the nullification. He only raised objections to the fact that, according to the constitution, a fresh elections should have been ordered by the tribunal.

The PDP, according to the judgement, didn't have a candidate in that election. So why would the tribunal order a rerun? When, in fact, the only eligible candidate with the highest number of votes was Aisha Alhassan.

There won't be a rerun, plain and simple

dustmalik:

The PDP, according to the judgement, didn't have a candidate in that election. So why would the tribunal order a rerun? When, in fact, the only eligible candidate with the highest number of votes was Aisha Alhassan.

There won't be a rerun, plain and simple

You need to read the constitution. According to the constitution, such a scenario suggests that a rerun should have been ordered

maupe:

You need to read the constitution. According to the constitution, such a scenario suggests that a rerun should have been ordered

What on earth are you even going on about? Go and read the judgement and stop arguing. There is no where in the constitution where it says, if a candidate or party doesn't meet the electoral laws requirement, a rerun is required. That is nonsense.

dustmalik:

What on earth are you even going on about? Go and read the judgement and stop arguing. There is no where in the constitution where it says, if a candidate or party doesn't meet the electoral laws requirement, a rerun is required. That is nonsense.

Browse through the pics I put beside my writeup.

Ok

Mike Ozekhome now live on Ray Power's 100.5 fm , The Political platform

This "anywhere belle face lawyer", pdp did not present the wrong candidate. They just didn't present any candidate at all by virtue of holding the primaries in Abuja. So aisha has no one to contest with. In omehia's case, he was the wrong candidate and since pdp won, the right candidate Ameachi's was installed. In Taraba, pdp presented no candidate or aptly put no pdp aspirant was qualified. The Window for fielding in candidate has long closed. Sorry Ozekhome.

Justice must be rooted in confidence: and this is destroyed when right-minded people go away thinking: ‘The judge was biased"

maupe:

Browse through the pics I put beside my writeup.

That section of the electoral act was rejected at the Federal high court, so it's a nullity. Read here

http://www.vanguardngr.com/2011/07/court-rejects-sections-of-2010-electoral-act/


By the way, Once the court overrules an existing ACT, that becomes the new ACT, until it's reviewed.

"Operation Relocate to Abuja and Nullify"

Even where it's obvious that APC Lost, let's just label PDP Primaries as satanic and nullify

The Judiciary under GMB has removed its veil
It now takes steps to see if its APC that is involved.
If it's APC, Relocate and Nullify!

maupe:
Legal maestro and civil rights defender, Mike Ozekhome on our breakfast show, Sunrise daily, has slammed the Taraba state tribunal for its judgement, of awarding a certificate of return to the APC Taraba state gubernatorial candidate, Aisha Alhassan, after nullifying the elections that saw the PDP candidate Darius Ishiaku emerge victorious. The Tribunal nullified the elections, on the grounds that the said candidate was not a legal representative of the PDP at the election, and so the PDP fielded no candidate, and so therefore, the results of the election is null and void. The tribunal went on to order INEC to award a certificate of return to the APC candidate. But according to our guest, Mike Ozekhome, by the dictates of the constitution, INEC should have called for a fresh elections and not declare the APC candidate, who was the runner up, as the winner.

Is a pity that a SAN in the person of Mike is not aware of a subsisting FHC judgement delivered by Justice Gabriel Kolawole on the 22nd July, 2011 where he ordered election petition tribunals sitting across the federation to ignore provisions of section 140(2) and 141 of Electoral Act 2010, saying it was vague, unconstitutional and a deliberate attempt by the legislative arm of government to usurp powers of the judiciary.

Nullifying the two sections, the high court equally gave election tribunals nod to declare a candidate winner of any disputed election process brought before it, stressing that provisions of the aforementioned sections were inconsistent with both section 239 and 285 of the 1999 Constitution as amended.

dustmalik:

That section of the electoral act was rejected at the Federal high court, so it's a nullity. Read here

http://www.vanguardngr.com/2011/07/court-rejects-sections-of-2010-electoral-act/


By the way, Once the court overrules an existing ACT, that becomes the new ACT, until it's reviewed.

Stop misleading people with this. The section still stands and has in no way been expunged from the act. The court for its own personal reasons chose to ignore that and rule otherwise

ok

maupe:

Stop misleading people with this. The section still stands and has in no way been expunged from the act. The court for its own personal reasons chose to ignore that and rule otherwise

You are the one misleading yourself. When did court judgement become personal affairs?