Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Elongation of tenure: elections are held in the Delta Court Rules
 |
| Delta State Governor, Dr. Emmnauel Eweta Uduaghan |
The determination by the Delta State Governor, Dr. Emmnauel EWETA Uduaghan, to stay in power beyond May 29, 2011 suffered a setback yesterday when a Federal High Court sitting in Asaba, ordered that elections for the post governor must keep in the state in April 2011, Justice Ibrahim Buba, who delivered the ruling, held that Uduaghan could not stay in office as governor of Delta State beyond May 29, 2011 that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had a duty to conduct a new election for governor of the state.
Uduaghan had to court to determine whether its mandate would end in 2015 viture that it has taken a new oath of office on Januray 10, 2011 after winning a new election is properly conducted by INEC, following cancellation, November 9, 2010 its first election and oath of office taken in 2007 by the Court of Appeal, Benin City.
But the judge in his trial Buba said, "I hold that the plaintiff (Uduaghan) is not entitled to four years old as regards the amendment of section 180 (2A), ultimately he is not entitled to her again asked, then the relief sought declaratory and injunctive relief may be granted if the applicant (Uduaghan) fails and the case is dismissed. "
Buba further stated that the election of 6 January 2011 and the Oath of January 10, 2011 is determined by section 180 (2A), adding that "therefore I tend to agree with the presentation of the accused (INEC) that the constitution does not provide a situation where the governor serve in office for seven years instead of four years. "
He said: "I am of opinion that the mandate of a governor is with the electorate and does not in the yard under a thinly disguised way of judicial interpretation on cases that do inconsonance not with this case. Ultimately, I conclude that section 180 (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria can not be read in isolation when the claimant to avoid in his presentation to the determination. "
Buba also found that: "In this case, if the court is to give effect to the constitution and the generation unborn, we must interpret section 180 (2) to reach the evil, with which it intends to heal, "adding that" what is so wrong, to have a government de jure not de facto government, it is also clear that elections will be held in the fields of election and not by the courts, the courts must decide electoral disputes, this is not the duty of courts to create stand at the election office or performs the interpretation of the law.
"The constitution interprets the typical four years, neither more nor less, the plaintiff argued that he should be content prospectively, that is true if the oath of office was taken before the law was adopted as in the case of Adamawa, Kogi, Cross River and Bayelsa. On the facts of this case, I am more than convinced that the case for example is different from other cases cited, teleological interpretation is that the insult Article 180 (2a) and the state of the case for example is not automatic, given the start date of July 16, 2010 Act amending the notification 19 November 2010 and the holding of new elections Jan. 6, 2011 and the oath Jan. 10, 2011, "pragmatic document made for Nigerians by Nigerians and the constitution process decision that should have integrated the experience of that country under the previous constitution and provide as much as possible the gains of the past, "saying," this country has a long and unfortunate people who have never as a common interest of our constitution. "
INEC counsel, Dr. Onyeachi Ikpeazu (SAN), while reacting to the decision, said. "We welcome the court for the clarity that went into the question" He described the decision as "wise and erudite , "saying" you were on the part of the story. " Meanwhile, the lawyer Uduaghan, Alex Izioyon (SAN), which was represented by Ayo Asala, said they were still studying the decision to know the next line of action against the stop.
Other defendants in the case are, Big Chief Ogboru, Democratic People's Party (DPP) and Chief Ovie Omo-Agege, the Action Congress of Nigeria (CAN)
Uduaghan had to court to determine whether its mandate would end in 2015 viture that it has taken a new oath of office on Januray 10, 2011 after winning a new election is properly conducted by INEC, following cancellation, November 9, 2010 its first election and oath of office taken in 2007 by the Court of Appeal, Benin City.
But the judge in his trial Buba said, "I hold that the plaintiff (Uduaghan) is not entitled to four years old as regards the amendment of section 180 (2A), ultimately he is not entitled to her again asked, then the relief sought declaratory and injunctive relief may be granted if the applicant (Uduaghan) fails and the case is dismissed. "
Buba further stated that the election of 6 January 2011 and the Oath of January 10, 2011 is determined by section 180 (2A), adding that "therefore I tend to agree with the presentation of the accused (INEC) that the constitution does not provide a situation where the governor serve in office for seven years instead of four years. "
He said: "I am of opinion that the mandate of a governor is with the electorate and does not in the yard under a thinly disguised way of judicial interpretation on cases that do inconsonance not with this case. Ultimately, I conclude that section 180 (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria can not be read in isolation when the claimant to avoid in his presentation to the determination. "
Buba also found that: "In this case, if the court is to give effect to the constitution and the generation unborn, we must interpret section 180 (2) to reach the evil, with which it intends to heal, "adding that" what is so wrong, to have a government de jure not de facto government, it is also clear that elections will be held in the fields of election and not by the courts, the courts must decide electoral disputes, this is not the duty of courts to create stand at the election office or performs the interpretation of the law.
"The constitution interprets the typical four years, neither more nor less, the plaintiff argued that he should be content prospectively, that is true if the oath of office was taken before the law was adopted as in the case of Adamawa, Kogi, Cross River and Bayelsa. On the facts of this case, I am more than convinced that the case for example is different from other cases cited, teleological interpretation is that the insult Article 180 (2a) and the state of the case for example is not automatic, given the start date of July 16, 2010 Act amending the notification 19 November 2010 and the holding of new elections Jan. 6, 2011 and the oath Jan. 10, 2011, "pragmatic document made for Nigerians by Nigerians and the constitution process decision that should have integrated the experience of that country under the previous constitution and provide as much as possible the gains of the past, "saying," this country has a long and unfortunate people who have never as a common interest of our constitution. "
INEC counsel, Dr. Onyeachi Ikpeazu (SAN), while reacting to the decision, said. "We welcome the court for the clarity that went into the question" He described the decision as "wise and erudite , "saying" you were on the part of the story. " Meanwhile, the lawyer Uduaghan, Alex Izioyon (SAN), which was represented by Ayo Asala, said they were still studying the decision to know the next line of action against the stop.
Other defendants in the case are, Big Chief Ogboru, Democratic People's Party (DPP) and Chief Ovie Omo-Agege, the Action Congress of Nigeria (CAN)
