Omehia/Amaechi S/Court Judgment: Section 141 Of 2010 Electoral Act Mischievous
A legal luminary, Barr. Samuel J. Efik has stated that though Section 141 of the Electoral Amended Act was enacted to cure the mischief in the Electoral Act of 2010 but that it is going to create further problems.
According to him in an exclusive interview with this medium, “Where a candidate or party is agrieved either because he was short-changed or replaced after winning the primary election; the man approached the court for redress. And man could get judgment, the election is over. When the aggrieved person eventually wins at the court, how can he get the benefit of his victory since he did not participate in the election? he asked.
He explained that it is either his party finances another election which is very rare or he will be left with no other option except compensation, adding that the development is regarded as “a hollowed victory”.
“It is either the aggrieved person seek compensation for damages incurred but getting victory from that election which is the primary purpose of seeking that victory is not there”.
He stated that the person imposed on the election and participated in all the elections would be the one to enjoy the seat.
On the controversial demolition of the on-going mosque, Barr. Efik said the government action if it ever happened was an arbitrary act “I will not support the situation where things are done arbitrary whether Muslim or government. That is why we talk about the rule of law as against the rule of the jungle”.
He maintained that government is continuum, assuming the former administration had given approval and the current one wants to use it. Statutory notice must be given before any action is taken and compensation paid to the owners.
Barr. Efik however did not agree with those who are of the opinion that the action was malicious as according to him, “many mosques standing in the state as well as the blocking of the streets of Port Harcourt on weekly basis by the Muslim worshipers confirm the governor as being tolerant of other religious groups in the State.
