Real Reason Court Disqualified APC Governorship Candidate Timipre Sylva

Real Reason Court Disqualified APC Governorship Candidate Timipre Sylva

The Federal High Court in Abuja has ruled out the candidacy of Mr. Timipre Sylva, the All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate, for the governorship election scheduled for November 11 in Bayelsa State.

Delivering the judgment, Justice Donatus Okorowo held that Sylva, the immediate past Minister of Petroleum Resources, was ineligible to participate in the gubernatorial contest, having already served five years as governor of the state.

Read Also Choir Mistress Caught On Pastor’s Matrimonial Bed Nak3d (VIDEO)

The court emphasized that the 1999 Constitution, as amended, allows a maximum tenure of eight years for a governor. Therefore, if Sylva were to contest and win the impending election, he would exceed this constitutional limit by spending a total of nine years in office.

Read Also Tenant Records S3x With Landlord’s Daughter (VIDEO)

Justice Okorowo pointed out that unchallenged evidence presented in court confirmed that Sylva had previously taken the oath of office as Bayelsa state governor on two occasions. Drawing from a precedent set by the Supreme Court in Marwa Vs Nyako, the judge emphasized that the constitution cannot be extended to prolong the statutory period a person can serve as a governor in the country.

Consequently, he declared Sylva ineligible to stand as a candidate in the forthcoming Bayelsa state governorship poll.

Read Also BREAKING: Ododo Dumps APC Weeks To Kogi Governorship Election (DETAILS)

In response to the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/821/2023, filed by a chieftain of the APC in Bayelsa State, Mr. Demesuoyefa Kolomo, the Federal High Court directed the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to remove Mr. Timipre Sylva’s name from the list of candidates for the upcoming election.

The plaintiff, in his suit filed on June 13, sought the court’s determination on whether, in light of Sylva’s previous tenures as governor of Bayelsa from May 29, 2007, to April 15, 2008, and from May 27, 2008, to January 27, 2012, he was eligible to contest and be elected for another four-year term under section 180(2)(a) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

Following the legal clarification, the plaintiff sought a declaration that, by virtue of Section 182(1)(b) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), Sylva was not qualified to contest the gubernatorial election on the APC platform or any other political party’s platform in the upcoming election.

He further requested an order instructing INEC to remove Sylva’s name from the list of candidates for the Bayelsa governorship election on the APC platform or any other political party’s platform, both for the November 11 election and for any future election, as he was deemed ineligible to contest.

The plaintiff affirmed his membership in the APC and his status as a registered voter in the state. He stated that the former Minister was initially elected as governor on April 14, 2007, officially assuming office on May 29, 2007, and serving until April 15, 2008, when his election was nullified by the court, leading to his removal from office.

Named as 1st to 3rd defendants in the matter were Sylva, the APC, and INEC, respectively.

In his defense, Mr. Timipre Sylva argued that he had only held the position of the governor of Bayelsa on one occasion, asserting that he was elected into office on May 27, 2008.

In a counter-affidavit filed before the court, Sylva contended that there was no valid election held in the state in 2007. He stated, “I have only occupied the office of the governor of Bayelsa state on one occasion. I was elected as the governor of Bayelsa State on 27th May, 2008. Contrary to paragraph 5 of the affidavit, I know that by virtue of the Court of Appeal judgment referred to, that is now reported as Amgbare Vs. Sylva (2009) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1121), there was no election in Bayelsa State in 2007,” he added.

Sylva maintained that it was within his constitutional and legal rights to participate in the governorship contest. He argued that sections 180(2)(a) and 182(1)(b) of the Constitution were not applicable in his case, a position that Justice Okorowo dismissed in his judgement. The court found merit in the case of the plaintiff.