However,I have read the case of Jev V Iyortom (2015) LPELR 24420 (SC) and further wish to state as follows: 1. The decisions in Jev v Iyortom(1) and Jev v Iyortom(2) are categorically one and same 2. The Supreme Court never reviewed itself (ie its decision) rather it reviewed the consequential orders made by it. 3. Review of consequential orders cannot be said to amount to a review of its decision in law 4. Courts are only bound by points of law that are settled and decided,not consequential orders ODUNEYE v FRN (2014) 5. It is trite that for a court to overrule itself it must do so expressly 6. Till the needful is done,the decision in Jev V Iyortom(1) is not only valid and subsisting but remains an authority for what it decides. Thank you. Regards, Chukwuemeka Maduako ……………………………………………………… Dear Chukwuemeka Maduako, Thank you for the feedback. It is obvious that you are not conversant with the latest decision of the Supreme Court on the issue. There are two iyortoms’ cases. Apparently, the one you referred to is the first reported in (2014) LPELR – 23000 (SC). However, an application was made to the Apex Court for a review of the decision which was granted. That effectively reversed the earlier position taken by the Apex Court. The second and current position is the one that I cited – Jev & Anor v. Iyortom & Ors (2015) LPELR-24420 (SC). Thank you. Inibehe Effiong ………………………………………….. Dear Mr. Effiong, RE: EXPOSITION OF THE LAW ON THE ABIA STATE GOVERNORSHIP CONTROVERSY While I commend the industry responsible for this literary piece, I cannot but differ from your line of argument and submission to the effect that section 141 of the Electoral Act is inapplicable to Federal High Court,Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court in pre-election cases.In going forward,I wish to unequivocally submit that the Supreme Court authority of Jev V Iyortom (2015) holds a contrary postulation in its entirety and has no bearing,nexus nor catenation whatsoever to your line of submission.Contrary to your position Mr. Inibehe, the Supreme Court in page 48 of same Judgment painstakingly agreed and meticulously aligned with the dictates of section 141 of the EA to the effect that an election tribunal or court shall not under any circumstance declare any person a winner at an election which such a person has not fully participated in all stages of the said election. In reaching this position,I must emphatically state that the Supreme Court conceded no less to the grammatical connotation nor interpretation of the word ‘court’ or ‘tribunal’ as lettered in the provisions of section 133(2) of the EA.The court in holding that the 1st Respondent cannot be sworn in as section 141 forbids same since he never contested the election proper literally paid homage and reverence to the letters and spirit of section 141 and nothing more.The Supreme Court in resolving the above issue declared that the clear position of the law now is that a person must participate in all stages of election before he can be declared the winner of the said election.Interestingly,It is no new fact that the above suit was commenced at the Federal High Court,Makurdi,ascended the hierarchical ladder all the way to the Supreme Court and yet,the above judicial pronouncement birthed,even when the trial court owes no iota of semblance to an election petition tribunal.In opposing your submission, I dare submit that the Supreme Court has by its extant posture,given judicial imprimatur to the fact that section 141 of the EA binds all courts in Nigeria,including itself,pre-election,election and post-election,the nature of the matter notwithstanding.Furthermore, i’m constrained to submit that the above posture by the highest court of the land as regards section 141,warrants further judicial exposition and pronouncement to section 143 and indeed,the entire Electoral Act with a view to ascertaining the precise meaning of the word ‘court’ wherever it’s found.Pending when same is done,it is unarguably settled law that the Federal High Court is subject to the provisions of section 141 of the Electoral Act(as amended) and the court whenever called upon as a matter of law,must abide by the said provision. Chukwuemeka Maduako is a Legal Practitioner and a Public Affairs Analyst and can be reached via emyall4u@yahoo.com]]>