0 evaluări0% au considerat acest document util (0 voturi)
216 vizualizări6 pagini
Obi vs. INEC is a case in the Nigerian Legal System which has set every high standard of legal justice in Nigeria. The case has made it that Anambara State would not have the same governorship electoral calendar or dates as other states. Obi went to court to get him an injunction to stop Andy Uba from being sworn in as governor of Anambara State. The Supreme Court assured him that there was no need for rush and he should be silent and allow Andy
Obi vs. INEC is a case in the Nigerian Legal System which has set every high standard of legal justice in Nigeria. The case has made it that Anambara State would not have the same governorship electoral calendar or dates as other states. Obi went to court to get him an injunction to stop Andy Uba from being sworn in as governor of Anambara State. The Supreme Court assured him that there was no need for rush and he should be silent and allow Andy
Drepturi de autor:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Formate disponibile
Descărcați ca DOCX, PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
Obi vs. INEC is a case in the Nigerian Legal System which has set every high standard of legal justice in Nigeria. The case has made it that Anambara State would not have the same governorship electoral calendar or dates as other states. Obi went to court to get him an injunction to stop Andy Uba from being sworn in as governor of Anambara State. The Supreme Court assured him that there was no need for rush and he should be silent and allow Andy
Drepturi de autor:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Formate disponibile
Descărcați ca DOCX, PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
Obi vs. INEC is a case in the Nigerian Legal System which has set every high standard of legal justice in Nigeria; more so, it has made the judiciary a hope for the hopeless and a very helping place to the oppressed. He is of the opinion that this is a Locus Classicus case in the judicial law making in Nigeria because this was a man who had lost the hope of becoming a Governor in his life because of the powers that be. Like it was decided in Amaechi vs. INEC, Fayose vs. AD, Oni vs. Agagu and Ararume vs. PDP (un- rptd). The present case he said is like a ratio- decidendi, which means that it must be binding to most future and present cases in judicial law making in Nigeria as it relates electoral cases. This case has made it that Anambara state would not have the same governorship electoral calendar or dates as other states in Nigeria. According to Barr. Mbalaso, the major issue of the case, Peter Obi vs. INEC, deals with judicial interpretation of statute. For him a law is no law until pronounced upon by the court. He also said that Obi vs. INEC was a post election case that was why there were so many controversies unlike the issue of Gov. T.A Orji and his entanglement with Okija matters which was dismissed because it was a pre-election matter. In the view of Barr. Chris Ezem, Peter Obi went to court to get him an injunction to stop Andy Uba from being sworn in as governor of Anambara State. The Supreme Court assured him that there was no need for rush and he should be silent and allow Andy Uba to be sworn in. After he (Andy) was sworn in, lawyers went to the Supreme Court for them to interpret the tenure of office of a Governor. The Supreme Court held that there was no vacancy in the first place so; the election was null and void. Therefore the Supreme Court ordered Andy Uba out. In his words, “Obi’s case laid down a principle which has to do with when the tenure of office of a Governor should start”. However, he says, there is a more interesting case which calls for judicial attention in line with Peter Obi vs. INEC’s case. There are the cases of Liyel Imoke of Cross River State, Idris Abubakar of Kogi State, Oyilola Olausoye of Osun State and two more governors involved. In the case of Liyel Imoke, the present Governor of Cross River State, he was sworn in on May 29th, 2007. After he served two years in office, there where contentions from adverse parties as regards the election of 2007. Liyel Imoke lost in the first tribunal and there was an appeal. There was an order for a re-run. He had to step aside for a 90-day re-run. The speaker of the State House of Assembly took over office according to the provision of section 191(2) of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which states thus: - Where any vacancy occurs in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (1) of this during a period when the office of the Deputy Governor of the state is also vacant, the Speaker of the House of Assembly of the state shall hold the office of the Governor of the state for a period of not more than 3 months, during which there shall be an election of a new Governor of the state who shall hold office for the unexpired term of the last holder of the office. After the re-run of the election, Liyel Imoke won and was sworn in a second time. Now, the controversy is, “where should his tenure be counted from? Is it from the first swearing in or the second?” As a legal mind, he says, he would like to make it known that an oath is an oath. The same person took the first and the second oath not a different person. If he is asked to start a fresh tenure because of the second oath, he would serve for six years which would be a “summersault” on the constitution or a mess to the constitution. A Governor should serve only for four years and nothing more than that. There was a gap in the judgment of the Supreme Court by asking Liyel Imoke to be sworn in a second time. That is why it is not good to leave a gap in judgment because the judgment of the Supreme Court on issues of tenure has become law. According to him, properly speaking, in line with the definition of an oath, an oath need not be taken twice. For example, an accused person who is charged before a magistrate court probably has the same case brought before a higher court, the court would say, “let the accused person stand on the existing base.” Therefore, extending his (Liyel Imoke’s) tenure would defeat the constitution and remember, the constitution supersedes all other laws. Former Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Sampson Uwaifo, faulted the verdict of the Supreme Court that ordered Mr. Peter Obi to complete his full four year tenure from the day he was sworn in as Governor of Anambara State. According to him, democracy still remains a very controversial concept. Even going by the common notion that democracy is the popular control of government by the will of the majority, in practice, no one can vouch for true attainment of this idealism. For him the judiciary played a very endearing role in several litigations prior to the 2007 elections. Some of the notable ones reported so far were: - INEC vs. Action Congress (2007) 6 NWLR (pt 1029) 142 decided by the Court of Appeal but overruled by the Supreme Court; - A.G.Federation vs. Abubakar (2007) 8 NWLR (pt 1035)117 also a decision by the Court of Appeal affirmed by the Supreme Court. The governorship election of 003 in Anambara State in which Dr. Chris Ngige of the PDP was declared winner was successfully challenged by Mr. Peter Obi of the APGA. It took nearly three years before the petition was decided. Mr. Peter Obi then took the oath of allegiance and oath of office only on March 2006. As the 2007 election was approaching, Mr. Peter Obi (Governor of Anambara State) took out an originating summons against the Independent National Electorate Commission at the Federal High Court Enugu on the 12th of February, 2007for certain reliefs. Justice Uwaifo went ahead to say what happened at the Supreme Court. As he said, the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court on June 14th, 2007, the Supreme Court reversed the two lower courts. Before then, elections had taken place and Dr. Andy Uba was declared winner and sworn in as Governor of Anambara State on May 29th, 2007.