Court Dismisses Order Seeking to Stop Rivers LG Poll

Court Dismisses Order Seeking to Stop Rivers LG Poll

  A Rivers State High Court sitting in Port Harcourt on Thursday dismissed an ex parte order seeking to stop the August 30 Local Government elections in the state. The Presiding Judge, Justice Stephen Jumbo, in his ruling in a suit filed by a Port Harcourt-based legal practitioner, Williams Abayomi-Stanley, against President Bola Tinubu, the Attorney General of the Federation, the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission, and its Chairman, said the application for motion ex parte lacked merit and thereby dismissed it. Jumbo, however, granted a motion ex parte order for substituted service to the defendants but directed that the conduct of the August 30th LG elections should go ahead as scheduled and adjourned till September 10, 2025, for a hearing on the substantive suit. Speaking to newsmen outside the courtroom, counsel to the claimant, Godsent Elewa, said his client was in court to seek for interpretation of a section of the RSIEC law and the Constitution of Nigeria as amended if the president has the powers to appoint a Chairman and members of the commission to conduct local LG polls in the state. Elewa, while narrating what led to the dismissal of his application, however, welcomed the ruling of the court, which granted one of his motions and expressed his readiness to continue with the proceeding on the next adjourned date. He stated, “My client, Williams Stanley-Abayomi, is a Constitutional lawyer and an indigene of Rivers State from Emuoha LGA. The applicant basically is in Court to seek the interpretations of some Sections, particularly section 2 sub 1 and section 3 sub 1 of the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission Law number 12, 2018 and Sections 197, 198 and 200 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as altered.” He, however, said he has nothing against the Court ruling, especially as one of the prayers of his client was granted. “We have two motions ex parte, the first was the motion ex parte for an interim injunction to restrain the conduct of the August 30 local government elections. Unfortunately, the Court dismissed that motion as it lacked merit and adjourned to the 10th of September for all the parties to be served with our substantive processes and for us to argue the main application. “The second order was an order for substituted service to be effected on the first and the second defendants, which are President Bola Tinubu and the Attorney-General of the Federation. So these were the two orders the court granted today”, he concluded.

US Appeal Court Rules Against Trump Birthright Citizenship Order

  A US appeals court on Wednesday ruled that President Donald Trump’s order restricting birthright citizenship was unconstitutional and backed the decision of a lower court to block the nationwide order. The order has been mired in legal back-and-forth for months, and is currently halted by a federal court amid multiple legal proceedings. The Supreme Court ruled last month that lone judges had likely exceeded their powers by issuing nationwide injunctions against a string of Trump’s policies, including his move to end birthright citizenship. Several district judges had blocked Trump’s attempt to end the longstanding rule, guaranteed in the US Constitution, that anyone born on US soil is automatically an American citizen. But the Ninth District Court of Appeals ruled that an injunction issued by a district judge based in Seattle was not a case of judicial overreach. “We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a universal injunction in order to give the States complete relief,” Judge Ronald Gould wrote. According to Gould’s ruling, limiting an injunction to the state level would be as ineffective as not blocking the order at all, because of complications that could arise if people move between states with different citizenship rules. The appeals court also concluded that Trump’s birthright order went against the wording of the US Constitution. “The district court correctly concluded that the Executive Order’s proposed interpretation, denying citizenship to many persons born in the United States, is unconstitutional. We fully agree,” Gould wrote. Trump’s executive order decrees that children born to parents in the United States illegally or on temporary visas would not automatically become citizens — a radical reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. The current Supreme Court, with a 6-3 conservative majority, avoided ruling last month on the constitutionality of Trump’s executive order and only addressed the issue of nationwide injunctions, which was nevertheless claimed by Trump as a “giant win.” The Supreme Court also left open the possibility that executive orders could be blocked via broad class-action lawsuits against the government. A federal judge earlier this month granted class-action status to any child who would potentially be denied citizenship under Trump’s order, and issued a preliminary halt to it as legal proceedings carry on. AFP