Thread by @AbdulMahmud01

Here's my response to the decision which nullified S.84(12) of the Electoral Act (2022 Amendment). Straight off, it is a wrong judgment, which erroneously interpreted the said section as being in conflict with Ss. 66 (1); 107 (1) (f); 137 (1) (g); 142(2); 182 and 187(2) CFRN 1999

Two things I find offensive with the judgment, besides the wrong interpretation of the law, are:
1. That it was sinister for whoever filed the suit in FHC Umuahia not have brought NASS which passed the Electoral Bill as a party to the suit;
2. There are provisions in the Rules

which provide that suits may be brought against defendants in jurisdictions where they carry out their ordinary businesses. Why Umuahia, when NASS carries out its legislative business in Abuja? Clearly, a case of forum-shopping by the AGF who appears to be the invisible hand

behind the suit.

Now, on the judgment. The sections the judgment claims that Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act is in conflict with relate to public servants employed in the service of FGN, states and LGCs, who are required to resign from their offices 30 days to elections

and not primaries of political parties.
Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act simply relates to POLITICAL APPOINTEES and public servants/civil servants. Political appointees aren't employees in the public service. This distinction came up for interpretation in the Court of Appeal

in 2021 in Aghimien & ors v Exec Governor of Edo State & Anor where His Lordships held: "The Appellants are, in my finding, not political appointees in the mold of those mentioned in Section 208(1) of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) as erroneously held by the Court

below. They are public officers whose removal is subject to compliance with the provisions of the Revised Edition Laws of Edo State of Nigeria 2001".
The appellants, who were members of the Edo State Law Review Commission, were held to be public servants.

Not political appointees by virtue of the fact that the Law Commission is a creation of law - a decision that is consistent with the CRFN 1999 interpretation of whom a public servant is - See Section 318 CFRN 1999. This section is clear about public service and public servants

Finally, my view is: Section 84(12) is not in conflict with the CFRN 1999 as it relates only to political appointees, not public servants. This provision doesn't bar political appointees from participating in politics; it only creates a new rule for participating in election

The reference to the SC decision in INEC v Musa which held that public servants can participate in politics is tosh. The SC judgment talks about public servants and public service rules, not political appointees.

Good morning from the sanctum sanctorum of the shrine