TheNewsGuru

Tag: Supreme Court

  • Atiku, PDP ask Supreme Court to grant them access to INEC server

    Atiku, PDP ask Supreme Court to grant them access to INEC server

    Presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the last general elections, Atiku Abubakar and his party have approached the Supreme Court to grant them access to a supposed server purportedly used to transmit election results by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

    The Presidential Election Petition Tribunal (PEPT) in a ruling on June 24, 2019 had rejected a similar request they made in a motion on notice that was dismissed, a decision Atiku and the PDP have now appealed before the Supreme Court via a notice of appeal filed on June 26, 2019.

    Atiku and his party want the Supreme Court to allow their appeal and set aside the June 24, 2019 ruling of the PEPT.

    In rejecting the application, the PEPT had held, among others that granting their request would amount to pre-judging the issue in the substantive case, which is whether or not INEC has a central server, which it deployed for the purpose of transmitting results during the last presidential election.

    The PEPT was of the view that granting the reliefs sought by Atiku and the PDP at the pre-hearing stage, when parties have joined issues on the dispute over the existence and use of a central server, would amount to agreeing with the petitioners (Atiku and the PDP) that a INEC had a central server which it deployed to transmit results during the election.

    The preponderance of the claim by Atiku and his party is to the effect that they won the last presidential election going by the results they claimed to have got from the said central server allegedly owned and deployed for the election by INEC.

    In the notice of appeal , Atiku and the PDP are attacking the tribunal’s ruling on four grounds, the first being that the PEPT was in error when “contrary to the provisions of Section 151 (l) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) they refused to grant the application of the Appellants on the ground that it will amount to pre-judging the issue in the substantive case.”

    They argued that their application was legitimately brought within the confines of Section 151(1) of the Electoral Act,’2010 (as amended), which allows for an order for an inspection of a polling document or any other packet in the custody of the Chief National Electoral Commissioner or any other Officer of the commission for purpose of, inter alia, maintaining the election petition.

    The appellants argued that their request was simply to be allowed to access and inspect “the information stored in the database packets in the 1st respondent’s (INEC’s) central server, such that all the parties were to be given an opportunity to participate in the inspection.”

    On the second ground, they argued that the tribunal was in error when it failed to exercise its discretion in their favour despite placing sufficient materials placed before it.

    They added that the Justices of the tribunal did not exercise their discretion judicially and judiciously on the basis of the materials they (Atiku and the PDP) placed before them.

    On the third ground, Atiku and the PDP faulted the tribunal for allegedly denying them “fair hearing in gross violation of Section 36(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), by declining to grant the application of the appellants for access to information in the 1st respondent’s custody thereby undermining the maintenance of the petition.”

    On the fourth ground, the appellants argued that the Justices of the tribunal “erred in law when they failed to consider the uncontroverted evidence of the appellants contained in their further affidavit in support of their application for access and inspection of information in the custody of the 1st respondent.”

  • We are ready to challenge INEC on Supreme Court ruling in Zamfara – APC

    The All Progressives Congress (APC) in Zamfara said it will challenge the Independent National Electoral Commission over some elective posts gifted to the Peoples Democratic Party, following the Supreme Court ruling on the APC primaries.

    The state Chairman of the party, Alhaji Lawali Liman, disclosed this at a press briefing held at the party’s state Secretariat in Gusau, on Wednesday.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that all elective positions from the 2019 general elections in the state were earlier declared for the APC until a Supreme Court ruling nullified them all.

    The court declared the parties with the second highest votes in the elections as winners.

    “We held a meeting recently with the party’s National Chairman in Abuja who informed me that our party has a window to challenge the action of the INEC following the Supreme Court ruling that nullified our election in the state.

    “Since the matter taken to the court centred on irregularities of primaries, we had 13 candidates for the state House of Assembly, three for the Senate and two for the House of Representatives”

    “These were those who contested unopposed and the primaries did not affect them.

    “INEC was too hasty to declare the party with the second highest votes because the exact directive of the Supreme Court was that the next party with the ‘requisite spread should be declared and by these, our issues were not taken into consideration,” he said.

    Liman said that the APC was looking into the matter with a view to seeking redress.

  • Osun election dispute: Await S’Court verdict with prayers, Adeleke tells supporters

    Osun election dispute: Await S’Court verdict with prayers, Adeleke tells supporters

    The People’s Democratic Party’s candidate for September 22, 2018 governorship election, Senator Ademola Adeleke, has called on his supporters to prayerfully and peacefully await verdict of the Supreme Court on the governorship tussle.

    A statement by his media consultant, Olumide Lawal, said as a man at peace with himself, he would want his teeming supporters to remain calm and hold the progress of Osun-State dear to their hearts.

    Expressing hope, he said that by the special grace of God and judicial process, economic prosperity beckons on Osun-State.

    Adeleke also enjoined the people of Osun State to be rest sure that he will not disappoint them “when eventually, through the grace of god and instrumentally of the judiciary” emerge victorious after the Supreme Court judgement scheduled for July 5.

    He advised his supporters to discountenance the utterances of the opposition “in their bid to whip up sentiments and lower their spirits.”

    According to him, he had passed through the crucible and fire and came out untainted, saying “this has prepared me solidly for the task of serving humanity without bias, ill-wind or grudge towards anybody as a God-fearing man, brought up in total humility and milk of human kindness in his veins to serve the less-privileged and physically disadvantaged people in the society.”

  • Supreme Court sacks APC senator, declares opponent winner

    Supreme Court sacks APC senator, declares opponent winner

    The Supreme Court on Friday declared Mohammed Sani Musa the winner of the last election for the Senate held in the Niger-East Senatorial District of Niger State.

    The court set aside the April 8, 2019 judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja, which declared Senator David Umaru, ex-Chairman, Senate Committee Chairman on Justice, Human Rights and Legal Matters, the valid candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), who won the election.

    In a unanimous judgment on Friday, The Nation reports that a five-man panel of the Supreme Court, led by Justice Ibrahim Muhammad, upheld arguments by Musa’s legal team, led by Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) to the effect that Musa won the primary of the APC for the election and was the actual candidate for the election.

    The apex court allowed the appeal filed by Musa marked: SC/405/2019 and affirmed the February 7, 2019 judgment by Justice Folashade Giwa-Ogunbanjo of the Federal High Court, Abuja, which declared Musa the validly nominated candidate of the APC for the election

  • Ayanruoh support Sagay’s comment on Supreme Court verdict on Rivers, Zamfara

    Mr. Felix Ayanruoh, a United States and Nigeria licensed attorney and recipient of the United States Congress, Congressional Recognition Award has put his weight behind Prof. Sagay’s comment on the apex courts recent decision on Rivers and Zamfara.

    In a recent telephone call from New York he said the purpose of democracy is to preserve and promote personal liberty including the right to vote, be voted for and the said vote count.

    Ayanruoh stated that he is aligning his constitutional philosophy with the learned SAN – he argued that the court should prioritize the protection of voting rights so that Nigerians themselves can decide at the ballot box who should lead them instead of judges or justices.

    In light of Prof Sagay’s mirroring critiques, what account for the staying power of democracy and justice? The answer I think is the fact that Nigeria from independence, excluding military regimes is built on representative democracy.

    Democracy also known as a Representative Government is an electoral system where citizens vote to elect people to represent their interests and concerns. Those elected meet to debate and make laws on behalf of the whole community or society, instead of the people voting directly on laws and other debates.

    The fact that the constitution central value is democratic participation is non sequitur – all of the words of our constitution are used to set the ground rules for democracy.

    The core of our system of government appears to consist of both the central value of our constitution as democratic and participatory and therefore in searching to the limits on how to interprete the open-ended provisions of the constitution and our electoral laws, judges should be guided by the principle of democratic principles and participation

    There is logical inconsistency between establishing a basically democratic system with substantial side constraints where constraints is to be found in guardians (judges) as against millions, but if overtime the guardians, pursuant to their ostensibly unlimited role of enforcing the side constraints, increasingly remove the most vital right from the domain of the voters and their representatives, then the point of the constitution’s democratic provisions will be lost and accordingly we ought to reject it at the outset an interpretation of the open ended provisions that authorize the guardians to proceed down that part

    The Supreme Court’s decision in Rivers and Zamfara are certainly interventionist decisions that must be reversed for democracy and justice to stay supreme.

  • ECOWAS Court upholds sack of three Supreme Court justices

    The Community Court of the Economic Community of West African State (ECOWAS) has upheld the sack of three Justices of the Supreme Court of Ghana.

    The Justices – Paul Uuter Dery, Mustapha Habib Logoh and Gilbert Ayisi Addo – were among over 30 judges secretly filmed while allegedly accepting bribes in an undercover investigation carried in 2015 by journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas,

    In a judgment on Monday, a three-man panel of the ECOWAS Court dismissed the suit, marked: ECW/CCJ/APP/42/16 filed by the Justices and held that it was unmeritorious.

    In the judgment read by Justice Dupe Atoki, the court held that the applicants failed to prove that their rights were violated in process leading to the disciplinary actions taken against them by Ghana Judicial Council.

    It held that although the secret filing of the Justices in their offices, done without their consent, amounted to interference with their right to privacy, the interference was justifiable as it was meant to expose unlawful conduct by public officers.

    The court upheld the argument by the state of Ghana, to the effect that the secret filming of the Justices was supported by Article 1(1)(b) of the Whistle Blower Act of Ghana and Section 61 of the Data Protection Act of Ghana.

    It found that the applicants’ right to privacy was interfered with by the secret filming of their activities by Anas, but went further to hold that the interference, being premised on national legislation, is in compliance with the law.

    The court noted that as Justices, who did not deny knowledge or ignorance of the law, they ought to know that their conduct would be subjected to scrutiny as public officers.

    It further agreed with the state of Ghana that, in engaging in the alleged act of accepting bribe, the applicants ought to know that they would be opened to secret investigation.

    The court held that the interference with the applicants’ right to privacy, aimed at exposing of the commission of a crime, was justified and necessary in a democratic society.

    It said the applicants, by their position as judge’s, are public officers, who receive public funds are, in that capacity, accountable to the public and could be subjected to investigation, where there is reasonable suspicion of their involvement in the commission of a crime.

    “The secret recording of the applicants is necessary in a democratic society. The claim to violation of the right to privacy fails,” the court said.

    The court also held that the applicants failed to prove their claim that the respondent violated their rights to fair hearing, non-discrimination/equality before the law and right to work.

    The court noted that, while two of the applicants failed to respond to the query handed them by the Chief Justice, they challenged their suspension and investigation up to the Supreme Court and lost in all the six cases they filed.

    It said, having rightly exercised their right to access the court up to the highest court in Ghana, the applicants cannot claimed to have been denied fair hearing.

    The Justices were suspended in 2016 by the Ghana Judicial Council while a committee set up by the Chief Justice, Justice Sophia Akuffo investigated a petition written against them by Anas and his company, Tiger Eye PI Limited.

    While on suspension, they were placed on half salaries, and at the conclusion of its investigation, the committee recommended their removal, which the Ghanaian President approved in December 2018.

    In the suit they filed at the ECOWAS Court in 2016, through their lawyer, Nii Kpakpo Samoa Addo, the applicants alleged the violation of their fundamental human rights by the government of Ghana following the suspension of some of their allowances and the payment of half of their salary, because of an ongoing disciplinary procedure against them initiated by the country’s Judicial Council.

    The applicants stated that the state of Ghana violated their rights to fair hearing and administrative justice, equality before the law and freedom from discrimination, privacy and work, including the action of the council, in paying them half of their monthly salaries, the suspension of their allowances and the constitution of a panel to investigate them.

    They argued that these actions constituted an attempt by the state of Ghana to unlawfully and unfairly deprive them of their employment and right to work.

     

  • Supreme Court affirms nomination of Fayemi as APC Governorship Candidate

    Supreme Court affirms nomination of Fayemi as APC Governorship Candidate

    The Supreme Court, on Thursday affirmed Kayode Fayemi’s nomination as the Candidate of All Progressive Congress (APC) in the July 14, 2018, governorship election in Ekiti State.

    Justice Amiru Sanusi held that the appeal had become status barred as the suit was caught up by Section 285 of the 1999 Constitution.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the above provision of the constitution makes it mandatory for all pre-election cases to be filed within 14 days after the issue in dispute occurred.

    The judge explained that the records showed that Oni filed his case at the trial court 42 days after the cause of action.

    Sanusi therefore noted that the appellant was clearly in breach of the provision, adding that the suit became incompetent the moment the rule was not observed.

    Oni, a former governor of the state had failed to clinch the gubernatorial ticket of the party after coming second behind the incumbent governor.

    Oni, however expressed dissatisfaction with the process as he argued that the governor was not legally qualified to take part in the contest having not resigned his position as Minister during the primary.

    Oni submitted that Fayemi participated in the party’s primary on May 12, 2018, before he officially resigned in May 30, 2018.

    Oni, argued that the constitution had mandated public office holders to resign their positions at least 30 days before contesting elective position.

    According to him, Fayemi’s action is in gross violation of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, as well as APC guidelines.

    NAN reports that both the High Court in Ekiti State and the Court of Appeal Abuja had earlier dismissed Oni’s suit for lacking in merit.

  • Rivers APC primaries: Supreme Court strikes out Magnus Abe’s case

    Rivers APC primaries: Supreme Court strikes out Magnus Abe’s case

    The Supreme Court on Monday in Abuja struck out an appeal filed by Sen. Magnus Abe, challenging the primary election conducted by the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Rivers state.

    Abe had prayed the court to make a pronouncement on the direct and indirect primary elections conducted by the APC for the nomination of its candidates for the 2019 general elections.

    The apex court struck out the appeal on the grounds that the notice of appeal filed by the Senator was defective and not in compliance with the order of the court.

    The acting Chief Justice, Ibrahim Muhammad held that the notice of appeal offended section 285 of the 1999 constitution.

    Muhammad said amendment cannot be done to the notice of appeal in view of the fact that the 14 days required by the law to file the appeal had expired.

    Abe had approached the court asking it to make clarification on which of the two primary elections was authentic in the eyes of the law.

    However, the APC through its counsel, Mr Jibrin Okutekpa(SAN) objected to hearing of the appeal arguing that names of persons affected by the suit were not listed on the notice of the appeal.

    Okutekpa said this made the appeal incompetent and incurably defective.

    The court rejected the plea by Abe’s counsel, Henry Bello that the omission he erroneously made should not be visited on his client.

    He added that the notice of appeal could not be refilled because the 14 days allowed by the law had expired.

  • Rivers APC primaries: S’Court fixes April 8, 11 to hear Abe, Tonye Cole, others appeals

    The Supreme Court on Thursday adjourned hearing in the four appeals on Rivers State All Progressive Congress(APC) primary election, for nomination of candidates for 2019 general election, until April 8 and 11.

    The apex court adjourned hearing in the matter for various reasons, but mainly for the absence of the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) counsel.

    The appeals are; those of Sen. Magnus Abe against INEC and others, Mr Tonye Cole against Sen. Abe.

    Others are the APC against the Peoples Democratic Party(PDP) and the APC seeking for consolidation on all the pending appeals.

    Abe in his appeal, is praying the apex court to make a pronouncement on the authenticity of the direct and indirect primary elections by the APC, on Rivers nomination of candidates.

    The appellant specifically wants the court to determine which of the two appeals is known to law and to be recognised by the INEC.

    However, when the matter came up, Abe’s counsel, Mr Henry Bello, informed the court of his motion seeking to amend his appeal.

    But the matter was stalled, due to the absence of the INEC’s counsel who was the first respondent.

    Bello sought for order to stand down the matter to enable the arrival of the INEC’s counsel but the acting Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Mohammed Bello declined.

    The acting CJN who presided over the matter ruled that the apex court does not stand down matters for anybody or group.

    This therefore, prompted the CJN to adjourn hearing until April 8, for the parties to present their cases.

    In the two other appeals by Mr Tonye Cole, a factional governorship candidate and APC, Mohammed adjourned hearing until April 11 to enable parties to file and exchange their processes.

    The acting CJN who led a seven-man panel of the apex court also abridged time for the parties to file and exchange papers since pre-election matters are time bound.

    In the fourth appeal by the APC seeking a consolidation of all existing appeals, relating to the primary election, the court adjourned hearing indefinitely for the party to regularise their processes.

  • Jerry Gana reacts to S’Court ruling affirming Donald Duke as SDP presidential candidate

    Jerry Gana reacts to S’Court ruling affirming Donald Duke as SDP presidential candidate

    Presidential aspirant under the platform of the Social Democratic Party, SDP, Prof. Jerry Gana, has said he was disappointed by the Supreme Court’s judgment that declared a former governor of Cross River State, Donald Duke, the authentic presidential candidate of the Social Democratic Party.

    While Duke emerged the candidate of the party, a lower court nullified his nomination and declared a former Minister of Information, Prof Jerry Gana, as the candidate.

    Not satisfied with the judgement, Duke approached the Court of Appeal which upturned the lower court’s judgement and declared him the candidate.

    Also not satisfied, Gana approached the Supreme Court.

    The apex court, however, on Friday upheld the appellate court’s decision and declared Duke the party’s candidate.

    The Director-General of Gana’s campaign team, Dr Ike Neliaku, in a statement on Sunday titled “Before the Curtain Draws” said the apex court was not supreme because it was infallible but only because it was the final court in the country.

    According to him, time would reveal the consequences of the judgment.

    He said members of the team would continue to uphold their collective principles for the emergence of a new and credible political order in Nigeria.

    He said although the beginning might have been tough, victory was assured.

    The statement read, “As disappointed as we may all feel, it is important to remind ourselves of the saying that the Supreme Court is not supreme because it is infallible but only because it is the final court of the land.

    “It is only time that will reveal the grave consequences and implications of that judgment.

    “We wish to most sincerely acknowledge the support, solidarity, goodwill and faithfulness demonstrated by numerous party members, friends and associates across the nation, for standing with us throughout this journey. It is deeply encouraging to find many men and women committed to the ideals of integrity in politics and governance.

    “We salute the courage and bravery of these distinguished compatriots. We will continue to invest in these virtues, insisting that, contrary to the majority opinion of today’s men, the end does not necessarily, and must not, justify the means.

    “By God’s grace, within this period, we have grown and bonded into one big and formidable political family, with structures across the country. We shall continue to march on and flourish, under the leadership of Prof Jerry Gana, CON.

    “Together, we will continue to resolutely uphold our collective principles and vision for the emergence of a new and credible political order in Nigeria. The beginning may have been tough, but with tenacity of heart and sincerity of purpose, victory is assured.

    “We are grateful to God for giving us the strength, grace and courage to have come this far. As in the proverbial saying, ‘weeping may endure for a night but joy comes in the morning.’

    “We hope to soon convene a consultative meeting to jointly review and decide our collective future.”