Mr Femi Falana
A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana, has reacted to the judgment of the Supreme Courtroom on the governorship election in Bayelsa State.
In an unique with Channels Tv, he stated the apex courtroom made a mistake when it handled a pre-election matter as a post-election case.
“What their Lordships must have accomplished was to ask the legal professionals, ‘can you address us with respect to our jurisdiction?’
“As a result of Part 133 of the Electoral Act stipulates that upon the conclusion of an election and as soon as candidates are declared, any problem of the conduct of the election, of the qualification of the candidates shall be heard and decided by an Election Petition Tribunal,” Falana acknowledged.
On February 13, a five-man panel of the Supreme Courtroom led by Justice Mary Peter-Odili sacked David Lyon and Biobarakuma Degi-Eremieoyo of the All Progressives Congress (APC) because the winners of the November 16, 2019 governorship ballot.
The courtroom then ordered the Impartial Nationwide Electoral Fee (INEC) to withdraw the Certificates of Return issued to the APC candidates and subject contemporary certificates to the candidate of the occasion with the subsequent highest votes, and with the required constitutional unfold of votes within the outcomes of the election.
It disqualified Degi-Eremieoyo as a candidate within the election for submitting cast certificates to INEC, stressing that the deputy-governorship candidate had contaminated the joint ticket with which he and Lyon ran for and gained the election.
This led to the declaration of Senator Douye Diri and Senator Lawrence Ewhrudjakpo of the Peoples Democratic Celebration (PDP) because the winners of the election and subsequent swearing-in because the governor and deputy governors of Bayelsa State.
The management of the APC and Degi-Eremieoyo have individually requested the apex courtroom to evaluate its judgement on the election.
In his response, Falana who has disagreed with the APC led authorities on many points insisted that the apex courtroom made a mistake.
He pressured that the courtroom lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the matter, saying it ought to have gone earlier than the Election Petition Tribunal.
Forward of the evaluate of the judgment by the Supreme Courtroom, the senior advocate was hopeful that the chance would additional develop and strengthen the nation’s legal guidelines.
He stated, “The election was held on the basis of the judgement of the Court of Appeal which was to the fact that yes! Degi-Eremieoyo changed his name many times, not that he forged any of his certificates; there was no such proof. Therefore, he can contest the election.”
“On the idea of that judgement, the individuals voted; which suggests by that judgement, the election was legitimate and authorized.
“As of that date, there was no pending attraction earlier than the Supreme Courtroom whereby INEC might be accused of getting violated the doctrines of lis pendens i.e. ‘because you knew a case was in courtroom, why did you maintain election? As was the case of Peter Obi and INEC,” he added.
Falana acknowledged that it was after the conclusion of the election that the PDP filed an attraction within the Supreme Courtroom.
He pressured, “With profound respect, the attention of the Supreme Court was not drawn to the legality of that appeal; the case had become spent.”