By Dapo Oke
Sections 139 and 140 of the electoral act is not ambiguous. Kindly read and interprete the provisions attached below.
And to those who have been peddling wrong judicial precedence in the ensuing social media arguments , it should be noted that the reference to Supreme court judgement in Ameachi vs Omehia does not have same substance as in the case being mentioned here. Ameachi and Omehia were both aspirants in PDP , Ameachi won the primaries before his name was substituted for Omehia, how can this be used as a precedence referential in this matter. It is therefore obvious that the people had been describing two situations that are different in contents and relevance
Again, the constitution of PDP empowers the NWC of the party to nominate its candidate for the election, if the other aspirants in the party primaries had not challenged the outcome of the primaries in a competent court of jurisdiction as witnessed in Ameachi and Omehia matter I don’t see how that could mean non-compliance with the electoral Act to warrant nullification of the elections and outright declaration of the candidate of another party with second highest votes as being duly elected once the issue in reference did not affect number of valid votes declared in the elections.
The question in the appelate and Supreme courts therefore would be, subject to section 139 (1)of the Act , how has the story of non compliance in PDP primaries substantially affected the outcome of the elections to warrant nullification of the elections and outright declaration of the APC Madam (***see section 139 (1 )below)
The electoral Act is still our guide and not APC Logics.
