PDP's use of our constitution to protect its political thievery bites the dust. By the way all those goggles you see in the piece below were supposed to be 8 ). So section 87(  is actually 87( 8 ) 
Friday, 01 July 2011 00:00 From Lawrence Njoku (Enugu), Kelvin Ebiri (Yenagoa), and Bertram Nwannekanma (Lagos) News - National
*Another declines jurisdiction over resource control suit
TWO courts in Lagos and Bayelsa states yesterday have resolved some controversial aspects of the 2010 Electoral Act. One of the courts dismissed a suit asking for 90 per cent resource control for states in the Niger Delta.
In the first case, Justice Okechukwu Okeke of the Federal High Court, Lagos set aside section 140(2) of the Act as amended by the National Assembly in the heat of the preparations for the 2011 general elections. The legislature had removed from the court or tribunal to declare the winner of any election. The lawmakers limited the power of the court to ordering for a re-run instead an outright declaration of a winner.
But yesterday, Justice Okeke ruled that the court or tribunal has power to declare a candidate a winner in an election.
Ruling in a suit filed by the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) against the National Assembly on the amended Act, Okeke declared the action of the legislature as “unconstitutional, null, and void.”
Federal High Court in Yenagoa, Bayelsa State, has dismissed a suit by Niger Delta indigenes seeking for 90 per cent of the total revenue accruable from oil and gas resources to be paid to oil producing states.
But the plaintiffs on the platform of the Niger Delta Project Group, who filed the suit No. FHC/YNG/CS/7/2010, expressed dismay over the judgment and said they would appeal against it.
The trial judge, Justice R.M. Aikawa, said under the 1999 Constitution, a Federal High Court lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate on matters of revenue allocation.
The Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), the Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives were joined as defendants by applicants Idaye C. Opi, Owupele Philemon, Ilamina Agada, Samuel Effik, Patrick Ederi and Emeka Dite Ojoko for themselves and on behalf of the peoples of the Niger Delta.
Justice Aikawa, who read the objections raised by the parties in course of the trial, said his court lacks power to grant the prayers of the plaintiffs to order the Federal Government to pay not less than 90 per cent of oil and gas revenue to Niger Delta states.
He noted that the plaintiffs filed the suit in pursuant to Section 1 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act; Order 2 Rule 1 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009, as the same affect the wealth and natural resources of the peoples of the Niger Delta.
In section 140(2) as amended by the National Assembly, stopped the court or the tribunal from declaring any candidate as a winner in an election without going through an election.
In fact, under the section as amended, the court or tribunal is only empowered to declare for a re-run of an election and not a straight winner.
The court however left section 141 of the Act as amended earlier conceded by the plaintiff (ACN) and section 87( for being constitutional.
The court in its ruling said section 141 remained valid and should stay in an agreement with the positions of parties because according to him, whoever that does not participate in party primaries or does not take part in an election cannot be declared as the winner.
On section 87( of the Electoral Act, Justice Okeke held that if election must be free and fair, all parties must be in the same level playing ground, as such, the section is relevant.
He said: “It is my humble view that section 87( is a valid provision in the interest of peace so that all contestants will be on equal footing.
The ACN had urged the court to strike out section 87( of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended for being inconsistent with section 40 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended and is accordingly “inoperative, null and void.”
The party also urged the court to declare that the enactment of section 140(2) of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended is ultra vires the powers of the National Assembly by virtue of sections 1(3), 4(, 6(1)&(2), 6(6)(a)&(b), 239(1), 246 and 285 of the Constitution
The National Assembly through its counsel, Sebastine Hon (SAN) urged the court to dismiss the suit on the ground that the public concern on the two identified issues informed the promulgation of section 87(, 141 and other relevant provisions of the Electoral Act 2010, as amended.
Hon, who questioned the locus standi of the party to institute the suit, argued that while he agrees that any Act of the National Assembly that is in conflict with any provision of the constitution is null and void, he, however, disagreed that the National Assembly has no constitutional competence to enact section 140(2) of the Electoral Act 2010.
According to him, the Constitution has in section 4(1) and (2) and item 2 of the Exclusive Legislative list granted the National Assembly powers to enact sections 141 and 87( of the Electoral Act and that these provisions are in no way in conflict with the Constitution.
He urged the court to reject the claims of the plaintiff that the two sections be struck down as the enactment of section 87( and 141 of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended are regular, valid and constitutional.
But Justice Aikawa in the resource control suit declared that reference to “peoples” in the said Charter is not a reference to a particular locality, class of people, or a section of Nigeria. According to him, the word “people” under the charter refers to the citizens of Nigeria.
The government had contented in the suit that the Niger Delta is not a signatory to the treaty that gave rise to the African Charter, but Nigeria as an entity.
Based on these grounds, Justice Aikawa dismissed the suit, which started early last year.
But counsel to the plaintiffs, Idaye Opi told The Guardian that the judgment would be appealed after his clients had studied the judgement.
|
The judicial arm is impinging on the rights of the legislative too much. Does it mean that the national can no longer make take advantage of the prerogative, due to checks and balance. For all i know that electoral act was to the interest of the masses. This judge is creating a room, whereby, the politicians relie on them instead of the electorate. I cant plumb the phanthom separation of powers running in this our country. |
