A STILL BORNE PIECE OF LAW, AND RIGHTLY SO DECLARED IN THE CASE OF ORIGIN 8
This paper would highlight the learned author’s disagreement with the decision of the Supreme Court in the Origin 8 case, and demonstrate that the Supreme Court’s conclusion on the interpretation and application of C.I. 132, is the correct position of the law.
OVER THE BAR - JUSTICE KULENDI’S SHOT.
This paper is published for three main reasons.
First, it is a contribution to our administrative and constitutional law from my own viewpoint. A practitioner’s view is not the law as it is entirely within the province of the Supreme Court to lay down the law and we are all bound to follow it.
Thaddeus Sory writes
IS THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION CHAIRPERSON A MANDATORY WITNESS FOR THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION?