ONUESOKE FUMES OVER NULLIFICATION OF SECTION 84 (12). .... "It Will Undermine Principles Of Free and Fair Election."

Sunny Onuesoke

"What the court did was to undermine the authority of the President, the Senate and masses." Onuesoke fumes.

"This is an Act that passed through the Legislature to the President with a lot of scrutiny before it was passed and signed into law. If there is to be any amendment or nullification of any clause, I expect that it passes through the same channel. Rather it was done through the judiciary with fiat."

The nullification of Section 84 (12) of the Amended Electoral Act through court process, will undermine the principle of free and fair election which provide equal playing ground for all participants.

This was the assertion of a prominent chieftain of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP as he faulted the judgment of the Federal High Court Umuahia, in the nullification of Section 84 (12) of Electoral Act.

Onuesoke, a one time gubernatorial aspirant in Delta State, reiterated that, allowing those in political offices to contest election while still active in office, is unjustified hence, they will use their positions in that office to influence the election, at the expense of inopportune candidates.

The PDP chieftain therefire called on the National Assembly, political parties and NGOS to appeal against the judgment as interested parties.

"Why do you want to hold on to your office as a political appointee and at the same time be a candidate in an election? He wondered.

He faulted the action of nullification of the Electoral Act with a fiat from the judiciary which had already been approved by the President and signed into law by the legislatures. 

"Such an Act would have been channel through the normal source of which it was approved before nullification." He further argued.

“What the court did was to undermine the authority of the President, the Senate and masses. This is an Act that passed through the Legislature to the President with a lot of scrutiny before it was passed and signed into law. If there is to be any amendment or nullification of any clause, I expect that it passes through the same channel. Rather it was done through the judiciary with fiat,” he disclosed.

While faulting the judgement further, he  argued that "political appointees are not included in the list of persons employed in the public service."

While quoting Femi Falana (SAN), the PDP Chieftain argues, “With respect, the learned trial judge fell into a great error. Sections 66 (1) (f), 107(1) (f), 137 (1) (f) and 182 (1) (f) of the Constitution relied upon by his lordship require persons employed in the public service of either the federal government or state governments.

“Specifically, each of the aforesaid sections provides that “No person shall be qualified for election into the Senate or House of Reps if: (f) he is a person employed in the public service of the Federation or of any State and has not resigned, withdrawn or retired from such employment 30 days before the date of election.”

Onuesoke argued that if the above explanation by Falana is anything to go by, it means either the judge erred in delivering his judgment or was not aware of the above section which differentiate political appointees from civil servants as stated in the clause.

“Pointedly, interpretative ability is the crux of the matter here or a deliberate effort of miscarriage of justice. However , it’s mind bending to note that a judicial officer with the array of researchers at his disposal to parochially dish out interpretations that offend established positions of the constitution smack gross ineptitude – the bane of our judiciary,“ he stated.