By the provisions of Section 140 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as
amended), where an Election Tribunal or Court determines that a
candidate who obtained the highest votes WAS NOT QUALIFIED to contest the election, it shall not declare the candidate with the SECOND HIGHEST votes as elected, but it SHALL ORDER FOR A FRESH ELECTION.
the taraba tribunal rule dat PDP candidate didnt follow due process when it conducted primaries in Abuja hence contrary to d electoral act, hence not qualified to d taraba governorship election. Then by virture of the section above the tribunal shall have ordered for fresh elections to satisfy d condition of electoral act of 2010. But instead the Tribunal nulified d PDP candidate n smuggled APC candidate through d back door. This is real travesty of justice.
BTW, Section 140 of the Electoral act 2010 is still valid. The national assembly has power to make laws, hence any law not amended or abrogated by d national assemby still stands. Those saying FHC ruleout that section are lying.

drss:
By the provisions of Section 140 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as
amended), where an Election Tribunal or Court determines that a
candidate who obtained the highest votes WAS NOT QUALIFIED to contest the election, it shall not declare the candidate with the SECOND HIGHEST votes as elected, but it SHALL ORDER FOR A FRESH ELECTION.
the taraba tribunal rule dat PDP candidate didnt follow due process when it conducted primaries in Abuja hence contrary to d electoral act, hence not qualified to d taraba governorship election. Then by virture of the section above the tribunal shall have ordered for fresh elections to satisfy d condition of electoral act of 2010. But instead the Tribunal nulified d PDP candidate n smuggled APC candidate through d back door. This is real travesty of justice.
BTW, Section 140 of the Electoral act 2010 is still valid. The national assembly has power to make laws, hence any law not amended or abrogated by d national assemby still stands. Those saying FHC ruleout that section are lying.

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

The national assembly agreed has power to make laws while the judiciary tru the courts has power to interpret those laws and in this case according to the judgement , the FHC says the law is vague, unconstitutional and a deliberate attempt by the legislative arm of government to usurp powers of the judiciary. and until this judgement is appealed or reversed the decision subsists.

OP, If you were not ignorant, you would know that once a court rules on an existing ACT, it becomes the new ACT, until it's reviewed.

dustmalik:
OP, If you were not ignorant, you would know that once a court rules on an existing ACT, it becomes the new ACT, until it's reviewed.

Abeg help me tell am

kahal29:


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

The national assembly agreed has power to make laws while the judiciary tru the courts has power to interpret those laws and in this case according to the judgement , the FHC says the law is vague, unconstitutional and a deliberate attempt by the legislative arm of government to usurp powers of the judiciary. and until this judgement is appealed or reversed the decision subsists.

wait n see. D judicial rascality in taraba state tribunal will be reversed.