Never waste time in search of ACT-English Exam Questions, Just download from killexams.com

killexams.com recommends you definitely ought to try its free ACT-English test. Its ACT-English Question Bank is really simple to use upon Mac, Windows, Google Android, Linux. You are able to print ACT-English Exam dumps and make your own book to research as you travel. Whenever you believe that a person has enough understanding, take a practice check with VCE examination simulator. Killexams.com gives you a few months of free up-dates of ACT-English ACT Section One: English examination queries. Our accreditation group is constantly in your backup and upd

Exam Code: ACT-English Practice exam 2022 by Killexams.com team
ACT Section One: English
ACT Section candidate
Killexams : ACT Section candidate - BingNews https://killexams.com/pass4sure/exam-detail/ACT-English Search results Killexams : ACT Section candidate - BingNews https://killexams.com/pass4sure/exam-detail/ACT-English https://killexams.com/exam_list/ACT Killexams : A presidential candidate caught spying

Wow, we’re witnessing a historic first in this country: A person running for U.S. president of our country while at the same time being investigated for both spying and treason (legally, sedition) against said country. What would our Founding Fathers say?

Such is the case with former President Donald Trump’s presidential bid announcement.

Of course, Trump’s short-term goal with his announcement is to distract attention away from his ongoing criminal investigations. In addition, the timing of his announcement, right after the midterm elections and at least one year earlier than typical announcements, was intended to take advantage of the Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) rule not to indict, much less arrest, presidential candidates, to avoid their actions being perceived as political.

So, given the DOJ is expected soon to issue indictments against Trump, it appears Trump’s announcement was intended to “beat the DOJ to the punch,” ie, announce his candidacy before the FBI arrests him.

No doubt, Trump will do his best to distract the public from his criminal investigations. And no doubt, it will work for his remaining base supporters who still believe Trump can do no wrong.

As for everyone else, they will, no doubt, stay focused on the two DOJ investigations, given how serious they are.

So what are these two DOJ investigations?

The first investigation involves spying. As we’ve learned, Trump was caught “red handed” with government documents containing military secrets, such as the identities of our spies and details of our spying techniques. As a result, the CIA is now conducting a review to determine which of our spies might be at risk of being outed should these documents end up in the hands of our adversaries.

Having government documents containing military secrets is a violation of the Espionage Act, referred to as the spying act. Section 18USC§793(a) of this Act states it is a federal crime to “obtain information respecting the national defense with reason to believe the information is to be used to the injury of the United States.”

In other words, it’s against the law for a private citizen, such as Trump, to have in his/her procession documents describing our national security.

This is the same law used to indict other private citizens for spying, such as Julius and Ethyl Rosenberg who were convicted in 1951 of selling military secrets to Russia (they were executed), Jonathan Pollard who was convicted in 1987 of selling military secrets to Israel (he served 30 years in prison), and most recently, Edward Snowden who is currently in exile in Russia.

The second investigation involves treason, or what would normally be called treason except that in this country the legal definition of this crime, as specified in our Constitution, requires us to be at war (think Benedict Arnold). So, since we’re not, the term being used to describe the same crime, sans war, is “sedition.”

In Trump’s case, he is being investigated to determine if he had prior knowledge of the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol. If he did, this would be a violation of the Seditious Conspiracy Act. Section 18USC§2384 of this Act states it is illegal to “conspire to delay [the government’s] laws by force.”

This is the same law used to arrest 17 members of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, two white supremacist militia groups loyal to Trump, for their involvement in the Capitol assault.

Of course, this is all legalese. As a nation founded on Judeo-Christian values of right and wrong, we’re supposed to answer to a higher authority than the U.S. criminal code.

Given this, one must ask some moral questions about Trump’s behavior, such as:

What was his intent with taking government documents containing military secrets?

Why did Trump not call off the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol assault during the 3 hours he watched it on Fox News?

Perhaps, more importantly, why does anyone claiming to be a patriot still support Trump?

Peter Engstrom lives in Danville.

Sun, 27 Nov 2022 08:48:00 -0600 en text/html https://www.dailyitem.com/opinion/a-presidential-candidate-caught-spying/article_2650433e-6b80-11ed-ba52-e3ed6e788870.html
Killexams : Society-altering Respect for Marriage Act likely to create firestorm akin to Roe v Wade

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Abortion didn’t earn the top billing (or the picture) in The New York Times’ Jan. 23, 1973, issue; that honor went to former President Lyndon B. Johnson, who had died the same day Roe v. Wade was decided.

"State Bans Ruled Out Until Last 10 Weeks," the left column headline read. "National Guidelines Set By 7-to-2 Vote; Cardinals Shocked--Reaction Mixed."

It’s difficult to imagine now, but at the time Roe stirred little national outrage outside the Catholic Church, which immediately condemned the decision and began to work against it. The Protestant churches were largely silent. Some Evangelical leaders offered tacit approval, while the Southern Baptist Convention reaffirmed its stance to advocate for "the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental and physical health of the mother."

As president, Richard Nixon's reaction to the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade ruling was muted. (Reuters)

Although President Richard Nixon had called his 1972 opponent "the triple A candidate," who stood for "Acid, Amnesty and Abortion," his personal response to the ruling a year later was muted.

US BISHOPS CONCERNED GAY MARRIAGE BILL WILL PUNISH ‘REASONABLE AND SINCERE’ RELIGIOUS OBJECTORS

The American people themselves, more concerned with Vietnam and other social upheavals of the day, were largely in favor of abortion. In the run-up to Roe, a Gallup poll found that the Republicans of the day were more pro-abortion than their Democrat neighbors, 68% to 59%.

For many politicians, the ruling might have seemed an easy break from the responsibility of having to legislate an otherwise delicate issue that, honestly, most Americans were OK with. Few outside of traditional Catholic circles and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops predicted the moral and political firestorm that would follow.

Bishops gather during the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on Nov. 16, 2021, in Baltimore, Maryland. (Michael Robinson Chavez/The Washington Post via Getty Images)

Fifty years later, Washington politicians are sleepwalking into another firestorm; this time, same-sex marriage – an issue few of them have thought deeply on, and one that polls show Americans won’t line up to oppose.

The Senate voted to advance the Respect for Marriage Act for consideration Nov. 16, with 12 Republicans joining their Democrat colleagues to push the legislation over the 60-vote threshold necessary to avoid a filibuster. 

To some of those Republican senators, it might have seemed an easy choice. "Sure," they reasoned, "the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops were loudly opposed, but they’re out of step." In fact, the day before the vote Pew Research published a poll nearly mirroring 1972 polling on abortion, with six in 10 adults favoring gay marriage and only about four in 10 calling it "somewhat" or "very bad for society."

The Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

DEFENDING MARRIAGE: WILL SENATE REPUBLICANS DISPLAY COURAGE AND UPHOLD TRUTH?

The Respect for Marriage Act seems uncontroversial enough on its face in a country where the Supreme Court has already asserted a right to non-traditional marriage in the Constitution. The act has the backing of the Mormon church, which joined the National Association of Evangelicals in supporting the law. Their logic was, in codifying the court’s decision through the legislature (and giving plaintiffs the right to sue over perceived discrimination), the act’s language would also protect their liberties to continue to hold their beliefs on traditional marriage.

The problem is, while the act acknowledges the First Amendment and includes language to protect "the liberty [and] conscience" of individuals and organizations, the protections are both narrow and meaningless.

"Diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage are held by reasonable and sincere people," it acknowledges, and "Congress affirms that such people and their diverse beliefs are due proper respect" – but the protections necessary to actually safeguard people from living their beliefs never materialize in the text. Further, an amendment codifying actually explicit protections, written by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and put forward with 20 of his colleagues, wasn’t even considered prior to the cloture vote.

Sen. Mike Lee speaks during the news conference in the Capitol on July 20, 2021. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Were the bill to be passed, every state in the union would be required to recognize the marriage laws of any other state in the union. In practice, this will signal the Californication of American marriage laws; states from Montana to Texas, and from Florida to Washington would be governed by the most radical marriage laws of the most radical state. With a simple and barely debated vote, the Senate would destroy state sovereignty on the country’s central institution.

The private, religious organizations most immediately (and textually) affected will be those that do business with the government. The designation might draw images of road crews and other government contractors, but in reality will extend to those religious nonprofits that assist the government in its social services, potentially including adoption agencies, prisoner rehabilitation clinics, and immigrant shelters.

UTAH SEN. MIKE LEE WARNS RELIGIOUS LIBERTY PROTECTIONS IN SAME-SEX MARRIAGE BILL ARE ‘SEVERELY ANEMIC’

And while the law does not explicitly deny grants and licenses to charitable religious organizations, it repeals the Defense of Marriage Act without replacing its protections – leaving religious organizations far more vulnerable to the arbitrary acts of zealous bureaucrats.

Same-sex marriage supporters hold signs encouraging drivers to honk in support of marriage equality. (AP)

The jaws behind the law are twofold. First, state attorneys general may bring civil suits against those they believe are in violation of the laws. Second, any person who is harmed by a violation of [the law] may bring a civil action… against" their neighbor.

The result? Every man a Jack Phillips – the Colorado baker who’s spent a decade embroiled in frivolous-yet-life-altering legal harassment from both private activists and the state itself.

The result? A nearly-impossible-to-traverse lawsuit regime that can reach into your conscience from all angles.

Baker Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, June 4, 2018. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski, File)

The result? Both religious liberty and fundamental federalism in the hangman’s noose.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

In 1972, the supreme American court pushed forward on a societal-altering path, lulled into complacency by its relative popularity. Over the decades, a small group of outspoken dissidents were able to build a movement that would bestride American politics, even eventually convincing both the court and a large section of American society of the moral truth of their case.

Fifty years later, D.C. appears poised to bypass a vocal dissident minority, and once again embark on a societal-altering path, lulled into complacency by its relative popularity. History is clear on the danger here: If they sow the wind, they may once again reap the whirlwind.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Sun, 27 Nov 2022 23:00:00 -0600 Fox News en text/html https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/society-altering-respect-marriage-act-likely-create-firestorm-akin-roe-v-wade
Killexams : Useful tips for candidates in Nigeria’s 2023 elections

Since I started working in the development sector in 1998, I have been very passionate about the socio-economic and political emancipation of women. I have conducted several researches for women-focused non-governmental organisations such as Women’s Rights Advancement and Protection Alternative, Women Advocates Research and Documentation Centre and Nigeria Women Trust Fund to mention a few. I have equally been involved in capacity building and advocacy for these groups.

It is very saddening that Nigeria has the lowest female representation in governance in Africa, if not in the world. We have only a sprinkle of women elected into national and state houses of assembly. Among the ministers, commissioners and heads of government departments and agencies, the number of women in leadership positions is very abysmal. For instance, there are only seven women in the 43-member cabinet of the President, Major General Muhammadu Buhari (retd.). The number at the state level is worse.

Last week, the Women Advocates Research and Documentation Centre, better known as WARDC, in collaboration with UN Women and the Government of Canada decided to kick-start a coaching and mentoring workshop for female candidates in the 2023 general elections. Thus far, this exercise has been held in Ekiti, Calabar and Abakaliki. I was one of the eminent resource persons mobilised for the two-day programme at each of the centres. Other notable Nigerians who are involved in the coaching exercise include the former Minister of Women Affairs, Iyom Josephine Anineh; former member of the House of Representatives, Nkoyo Toyo; Ex- Edo State House of Assembly Speaker Elizabeth Ativie; Executive Director of WARDC, Dr Abiola Afolabi; Programme Manager with WARDC, Emmanuela Azu; Executive Director of International Press Centre, Lagos, Mr Lanre Arogundade; and Editor-in-Chief of Nigerian Chronicles, Mr Sam Egbala.

According to Afolabi, the exercise is aimed at building the capacity of the female candidates across party lines to ensure a better electoral outcome for them in the seventh general elections in this Fourth Republic. Some of the syllabus through which the all-female participants were taken include political journey- transformative leadership; understanding the status of women in Nigeria-gender power, politics & influence; what a candidate should know on election day; Winning elections: Public speaking, confidence building; Etiquettes and communications as well as\xa0 experience sharing: Handling political party issues and fundraising.

Others include election landscape, framework and Electoral Act – What women need to know; Effective use of media by women: How women can use media to win election; management of campaign plan and fundraising.

In my own considered view, the coaching and mentoring are invaluable to both male and female candidates; hence my decision to write to amplify some of my thoughts at the programme for a wider audience. In one of my two presentations titled, “What a candidate should know about election day”, I took the participants through the three phases of the electoral cycle. Pre-election activities include electoral reform, strategic planning, budgeting, funding, procurement, recruitment, training, voter education, party registration, and voter registration. Election day activities are the deployment of election materials and personnel from the registration area centre to the polling units, setting up of polling units, accreditation, voting, sorting, counting, collating results and declaration of winners. Post-election phase involves reverse logistics, documentation, archiving, Certificate of return, post-election audit, and election dispute resolution.

As to what a candidate should know about election day, I informed the participants about the need to know the following: Dos and don’ts for candidates; number of polling units in his or her constituency; number of polling agents to deploy and their roles and responsibilities; how many voters are in each PUs, wards, LGAs, and constituency; how many voters collected their Permanent Voter Cards in his or her constituency; hours of voting; how a winner will emerge in executive and legislative contests; collation centres locations; whom to call if there’s election violence or sharp practices; how to gather evidence for possible post-election dispute resolution and the need to be aware of the restriction of movement.

I further broke down the Dos and Don’ts for the candidates on election day. Here I mentioned four Dos which include: Right to deploy polling agents; right to seek a recount of votes at polling units; right to polling unit results, and right to set up a situation room and conduct parallel vote tabulation. The seven Don’ts highlighted include the fact that candidates: Cannot campaign on election day; should not wear a dress with party emblem; should not disrupt the conduct of elections; should not come to vote with aides and security personnel; should not engage in vote buying; should not resort to violence and should not indulge in the propagation of fake news, hate speech and electoral malpractices.

I used the opportunity of the coaching and mentoring exercise to stress the importance of having polling agents for the candidates. I said inter alia that after appointing the polling agents in accordance with the provision of Section 43(1) of the Electoral Act 2022, it behoves political parties and the candidates to build the capacities of these agents on their roles and responsibilities.\xa0 The polling agents, otherwise known as party agents, have enormous powers to follow through with the distribution of election materials and personnel, observation of the voting process (accreditation, voting, sorting, counting and announcement of election results) as well as the watching of the collation process.

Among the legal rights of polling agents include: Section 41(3) of the Electoral Act, 2022 says, “The polling agents shall be entitled to be present at the distribution of the election materials, electronic voting machine and voting devices from the office to the polling booth.”\xa0 Sub (4) says, “Polling agents who are in attendance at a polling unit may be entitled, before the commencement of the election, to have originals of electoral materials to be used by the commission for the election inspected, and this process may be recorded as evidence in writing, on video or by other means by any polling agent, accredited observer or official of the commission”. According to subsection (5), “A polling agent who is in attendance at a polling unit may observe originals of the electoral materials and this may be recorded as evidence.”

Other legal rights that candidates and polling agents have include those in the following sections of the Electoral Act, 2022. Section 48 says, “A candidate or a polling agent may challenge the right of a person to vote on such grounds and in accordance with such procedures as are provided for in this Act.” According to Section 57(1), a polling agent can challenge an underage voter or impersonator.\xa0 Section 60(3) says polling agents and police shall be given an official copy of PU result.\xa0 Section 61 of the Act says, “A candidate or a polling agent may, where present at a polling unit when counting of votes is completed by the presiding officer, demand to have the votes recounted provided that the presiding officer shall cause the votes to be so recounted only once.”

It is important that candidates know the various electoral laws governing the poll in which they are participating. They should do their best to abide by the code of conduct during electioneering. If aggrieved, rather than resorting to self-help, they should channel their grievances to the election petition tribunals in order to seek redress. Given the vital role assigned to polling agents by the Electoral Act, 2022, it is important for candidates to work with their political parties to ensure that they deploy credible polling agents across the various polling units in the constituencies where they are contesting election in order to oversee the electoral process for integrity and credibility.

Tue, 29 Nov 2022 10:00:00 -0600 en-XL text/html https://www.msn.com/en-xl/africa/other/useful-tips-for-candidates-in-nigeria-s-2023-elections/ar-AA14IlBX
Killexams : Supreme Court affirms Imo PDP Reps candidate

The Supreme Court of Nigeria on Thursday, declared Ikenga Ugochinyere as the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party for the House of Representatives election for Ideato North and South Federal Constituency, Imo State.

The judgment of the Apex Court delivered by Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun has finally put to rest, the chains of litigations seeking to upturn the result of the primary election that produced Ugochinyere, who is the spokesperson for the Coalition of United Political Parties.

Justice Kekere-Ekun in the judgment held that there must be an end to litigations and recklessness.

The Apex Court ruled, just like all the lower courts before it, that there were no grounds put before it, to nullify the ticket of the party won by Ikenga Imo Ugochinyere, having fulfilled all the provisions of the law and complied with stipulated guidelines.

The judgment of the five-man panel of the Supreme Court was in an appeal marked SC/CV/1439/2022, filed by Hon. George Igbo challenging the decision of the Court of Appeal, Owerri Division.

Some of the respondents in the appeal were the PDP, Independent National Electoral Commission, Chidimma Uzomba, and Anthony Obinna, among others.

While dismissing the appeal by Igbo, Justice Kekere-Ekun upheld the preliminary objections raised by Ugochinyere and the PDP.

The Judge agreed with the decision of the Court of Appeal that the abysmal failure and/or refusal of the appellant counsel to comply with the rules of procedure in prosecuting the appeal and indeed abandoned same.

“The appellant filed his notice of appeal at the Court of Appeal on September 9, 2022 within the 14 days period from the date of judgment of the trial court as provided by the Electoral Act 2022 and section 285(9) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended.

“Section 9 of the Election Judicial Proceedings Practice Direction, 2022 mandatorily provided that the Record of Appeal shall be compiled and served on all the parties not more than 10 days of the receipt of the Notice of Appeal.

“The Notice of Appeal at the Court of Appeal was filed on September 9, 2022.

“The Record of Appeal was compiled on September 19, 2022, 11 days after the notice of appeal was filed. One day out of time.

“The said record of appeal was served on the parties on October 19, 2022, 40 days after the Notice of Appeal was filed against the clear provision of Section 9 of the Election Judicial Proceeding Practice Directions 2022,” the Apex Court noted.

The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the appellant’s appeal was deemed abandoned.

The Apex Court also admitted that it lacked the jurisdiction to determine the appeal or in the least invoke its general powers under Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act, to determine the real issues in controversy.

More so, in upholding the respondents’ objections, the Supreme Court admitted that by the provisions of Section 285 (12) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (Fourth Alteration, No. 21) Act, 2017, it is provided that “An appeal from a decision of a court in a pre-election matter shall be heard and disposed of within 60 days from the date of the filing of the appeal.”

At the Court of Appeal, the appeal of the present appellant was vide its Notice of Appeal filed on September 9, 2022 and the 60 days for the hearing and disposition of the Appeal by the Court of Appeal lapsed on November 7, 2022.

In addition, the Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal did not determine the appeal within the constitutional period of 60 days, “hence, there was no pending appeal relating to the merits of the case before this Honourable Court.”

More so, the Apex Court held in the affirmative that the law was settled that where the original jurisdiction in the lower court was extinct or had lapsed, the powers of the appellate court to exercise jurisdiction was a fortiori, extinct or non-existent as well.

“Hence, this Honourable Court cannot invoke its powers under Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act,” it said.

Thu, 08 Dec 2022 06:47:00 -0600 en-XL text/html https://www.msn.com/en-xl/africa/other/supreme-court-affirms-imo-pdp-reps-candidate/ar-AA154eUt
Killexams : Electoral Count Act of 1887: Part 8—Comparison of H.R. 8873 and S. 4573 Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute

Pending in the U.S. Senate, as of its adjournment for the midterm elections, was S. 4573, Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute, to reform the 1887 Electoral Count Act, as codified in 3 U.S.C. §§1-21 (2000). It was proposed by Senate Rules Committee Chair Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Ranking Minority Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO) who is retiring. It would supersede the version of S. 4573 introduced last July by Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) previously discussed in the seven prior New York Law Journal articles in this series. S. 4573 would also amend the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 to ensure its even-handed administration during presidential transitions between Election Day and the January 20 inauguration.

The House of Representatives passed H.R. 8873, the Presidential Election Reform Act, by 229 to 203 on Sept. 21, 2022. The Act has since been delivered to the Senate, but it remains at the desk and has not been referred to a committee at this time.

Thu, 08 Dec 2022 01:03:00 -0600 en text/html https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2022/12/08/electoral-count-act-of-1887-part-8-comparison-of-h-r-8873-and-s-4573-amendment-in-the-nature-of-a-substitute/?slreturn=20221109180147
Killexams : Editorial: Sabotage in Moore County can't be tolerated. Act swiftly, prevent its spread

CBC Editorial: Wednesday, Dec. 7, 2022; editorial #8811

The following is the opinion of Capitol Broadcasting Company

Was it an act of discrimination against cross dressers? Was it about trying to fix elections so favored candidates win – regardless of what voters might have said? It needs to stop. Let people, who aren’t hurting others, lead their own lives. Don’t like how an election turned out – there are plenty of avenues to express grievances appropriately – including through the courts.

The perpetrators of this plot "knew exactly what they were doing to cause the damage and cause the outage that they did," said Moore County Sheriff Ronnie Fields, a Republican just starting his second term in office.

Cooper called the act a "new level of threat" and added “protecting critical infrastructure like our power system must be a top priority. … We will be evaluating ways to work with our utility providers and our state and federal officials to make sure we harden our infrastructure where that’s necessary and work to prevent future damage."

Given the current climate that seems to have opened up these kinds of threatening acts, Cooper has little time to spare. He needs to act with dispatch to assure our energy infrastructure is reliable and is protected from natural threats like hurricanes AND from human acts of purposeful destruction and disruption.

  • Direct the State Utilities Commission to take the lead and bring together power providers – Duke Energy, Dominion Energy, the electric cooperatives and municipal electric utilities – to review the current status of infrastructure and security of critical generating and transmission systems. The goal is to develop a comprehensive program to assure the state has the capacity to meet energy needs AND has taken appropriate, necessary and effective security measures so power production and transmission is protected from interruptions by vandals and saboteurs.
  • Direct state law enforcement agencies to work with public and private utilities to assess protection needs and put a security and safety action plan into place that involves utilities as well as state and local law enforcement.
  • Review current state laws. Are they adequate to protect these facilities? Propose necessary changes to tighten security and increase punishment for those responsible for these acts of vandalism – including developing a reward fund for those who identify and lead to convictions of those who perpetrate purposeful damage to public and energy infrastructure in North Carolina.

It should not go unnoted that many volunteers, businesses and emergency responders have stepped up in Moore County to help and to the extent possible, ease the difficult situation many face. Their generosity is much appreciated. It is unfortunate that such an effort even became a necessity.

The disruption to life and commerce in Moore County will -- we hope -– be over shortly and the facilities rebuilt.

But the impact of what happened won’t fade as quickly. It remains as an urgent warning that action is necessary now to address the vulnerabilities that became all too apparent.

Gov. Cooper has made a good start initiating action to protect lives and livelihoods. He must be determined and stick to it – not a second can wait.

Capitol Broadcasting Company's Opinion Section seeks a broad range of comments and letters to the editor. Our Comments beside each opinion column offer the opportunity to engage in a dialogue about this article.

In addition, we invite you to write a letter to the editor about this or any other opinion articles. Here are some tips on submissions >> SUBMIT A LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Tue, 06 Dec 2022 19:00:00 -0600 en text/html https://www.wral.com/editorial-sabotage-in-moore-county-can-t-be-tolerated-act-swiftly-prevent-its-spread/20617090/
Killexams : 2023: Court orders INEC to list Ogun LP candidates for State, National Assembly elections

This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data.

Thu, 08 Dec 2022 08:56:00 -0600 en-US text/html https://www.vanguardngr.com/2022/12/2023-court-orders-inec-to-list-ogun-lp-candidates-for-state-national-assembly-elections/
Killexams : Court orders INEC to publish names of LP candidates in Ogun

A Federal High Court sitting in Abeokuta has ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to list all the names of candidates of the Labour Party for the 2023 national and State Assembly seats.

Justice Adetayo Aluko in his judgement, noted that the Electoral Act, 2022 is superior to INEC guidelines on elections, stating further that Section 31 of the Electoral Act, 2022 allows parties to still submit names of candidates that emerge from substitution primaries not later than 90 days before the election.

He said that the electoral umpire, by its own manuals, cannot limit the time provided for by the Electoral Act.

It would be recalled that the INEC, has failed to list the candidates of Labour Party for the National and State Assembly seats for what the electoral umpire termed as failure from the Party to submit any name of the candidate for the 26 House Assembly seats, Three Senatorial seat and Nine House of Representatives before the time frame of submission.

In the suit tagged: FHC/AB/CS/243/2022 between Labour Party, National Publicity Secretary of the party, Abayomi Arabambi, and eight others and the INEC as respondent, the party prayed the court for an order to compel INEC to accept, recognise and publish the names of candidates submitted by the party.

Delivering his judgement on the prayer of the party, Justice Akintayo Aluko ordered INEC to accept and immediately publish the names of the three senatorial, nine House of Representatives and 26 state House of Assembly candidates of the party on its website.

Justice Aluko affirmed that the party held primaries and filed a list of candidates before the deadline set for political parties.

Monday Mawah, lawyer to LP, told journalists following the court session that “with this verdict, our senatorial, House of Representatives, and all 26 State House of Assembly candidates have now been given clearance to contest the election.”

Thu, 08 Dec 2022 19:50:00 -0600 en-US text/html https://www.tvcnews.tv/2022/12/court-orders-inec-to-publish-names-of-lp-candidates-in-ogun/
Killexams : 2023: Supreme Court affirms Abuja lawyer Ugochinyere PDP House of Rep candidate for Ideato Constituency

The Supreme Court of Nigeria on Thursday declared Barrister Ikenga Imo Ugochinyere as the authentic candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, for the House of Representatives election for Ideato North and South Federal Constituency, Imo State.

The judgment of the apex court delivered by Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun has finally put to rest, the chains of litigations seeking to upturn the result of the primary election that produced the legal practitioner.

Justice Kekere-Ekun in the judgment held that there must be an end to litigations and recklessness.

The apex court, just like all the lower courts before it, said that there are no grounds put before it, to nullify the ticket of the party won by Ikenga Imo Ugochinyere, having fulfilled all the provisions of the law and complied with stipulated guidelines.

A five-man panel of the Supreme Court gave the judgement on an appeal marked SC/CV/1439/2022, filed by Hon. George Igbo (appellant) challenging the decision of the Court of Appeal, Owerri Division.

Some of the respondents in the appeal are the PDP, Independent National Electoral Commission INEC, Mrs Chidimma Uzomba and Mr Anthony Obinna among others.

In dismissing the appeal, Justice Kekere-Ekun upheld the preliminary objections raised by Ugochinyere and the PDP.

The Justice agreed with the decision of the Court of Appeal that blamed the abysmal failure and, or, refusal of the appellant counsel to comply with the rules of procedure in prosecuting the Appeal.

“The Appellant filed his notice of appeal at the Court of Appeal on the 9th day of September 2022 within the 14 days period from the date of judgment of the trial court as provided by the Electoral Act 2022 and section 285(9) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended.

“Section 9 of the Election Judicial Proceedings Practice Direction, 2022 mandatorily provided that the Record of Appeal shall be compiled and served on all the parties not more than (10) days of the receipt of the Notice of Appeal.

“The Notice of Appeal at the Court of Appeal was filed on the 9th day of September 2022.

“The Record of Appeal was compiled on the 19th day of September 2022, eleven days after the notice of appeal was filed. One day out of time. See the admission of the appellant on page 1639 of the Record of Appeal Vol. 3.

“The said record of appeal was served on the parties on the 19th day of October 2022, 40 days after the Notice of Appeal was filed against the clear provision of Section 9 of the Election Judicial Proceeding Practice Directions 2022,” the apex court noted.

The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the appellant’s appeal is deemed abandoned.

It further admitted that it lacked the jurisdiction to determine the appeal or at the least invoke its general powers under Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act, to determine the real issues in controversy.

More so, in upholding the respondents’ objections, the Supreme Court admitted that by the provisions of Section 285 (12) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (Fourth Alteration, No. 21) Act, 2017, it is provided that:

“An appeal from a decision of a court in a pre-election matter shall be heard and disposed of within 60 days from the date of the filing

of the appeal; at the Court of Appeal, the Appeal of the present Appellant was vided its Notice of Appeal filed on September 9, 2022, and the 60 days for the hearing and disposition of the Appeal by the Court of Appeal lapsed on November 7, 2022.”

In addition, the Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal did not determine the Appeal within the constitutional period of 60 days, “hence there was no pending Appeal relating to the merits of the case before this Honourable Court”.

More so, the Apex court noted in affirmative that the law is settled that where the original jurisdiction in the lower court is extinct or had lapsed, the powers of the Appellate Court to exercise jurisdiction is a fortiori, extinct or non-existent as well.

“Hence, this Honourable Court cannot invoke its powers under Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act,” Justice Kekere-Ekun ruled.

Thu, 08 Dec 2022 01:06:00 -0600 Fadehan Oyeyemi en-US text/html https://dailypost.ng/2022/12/08/2023-supreme-court-affirms-abuja-lawyer-ugochinyere-pdp-house-of-rep-candidate-for-ideato-constituency/
Killexams : Supreme Court declares Ugochinyere as PDP candidate for Ideato Reps seat

The Supreme Court on Thursday declared Barrister Ikenga Imo Ugochinyere as the authentic Peoples Democratic Party(PDP) candidate of the House of Representatives for Ideato North and South Federal Constituency in Imo state.

The apex court in its decision held that there must be an end to litigations and recklessness as it ruled, just like all the lower courts before it, that there are no grounds put before it, to nullify the ticket of the party in the custody of Ikenga Imo Ugochinyere, having fulfilled all the provisions of the law and complied with stipulated guidelines.

A five-member panel of Justices of the Supreme Court gave the judgement on the appeal marked SC/CV/1439/2022, which had, the PDP, INEC, Mrs Chidimma Uzomba, Mr Anthony Obinna as respondents, filed by Hon. George Igbo (appellant) challenging the decision of the Court of Appeal, Owerri Division.

In dismissing the appeal by Hon. Igbo, the Supreme Court upheld the preliminary objections raised by Ugochinyere and the PDP and agreed with the decision of the court below noting that, “The abysmal failure and/or refusal of the Appellant’s counsel to compile (sic) with the rules of procedure in prosecuting the Appeal and indeed abandoned same.

“The Appellant filed his notice of appeal at the lower court on the 9th day of September 2022 within the 14 days period from the date of Judgment of the trial court as provided by the Electoral Act 2022 and Section 285(9) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended.

“Section 9 of the Election Judicial Proceedings Practice direction, 2022 mandatorily provided that the Record of Appeal shall be compiled and served on all the parties not more than ten days of the receipt of the Notice of Appeal.

“The Notice of Appeal at the lower court was filed on the 9th day of September 2022. The Record of Appeal was compiled on the 19th day of September 2022, eleven days after the notice of appeal was filed. One day out of time. See the admission of the appellant on page 1639 of the Record of Appeal Vol. 3.

“The said record of appeal was served on the parties on the 19th day of October 2022, 40 days after the Notice of Appeal was filed against the clear provision of Section 9 of the Election Judicial Proceeding Practice Directions 2022”, the apex court noted and held that the lower court was right in holding that the Appellant’s appeal is deemed abandoned.

It further admitted that it lacked the jurisdiction to determine the Appeal or at the least, invoke its general powers under Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act, to determine the real issues in controversy.

In upholding the Respondents’ objections, the Supreme Court admitted that by the provisions of Section 285 (12) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (Fourth Alteration, No. 21) Act, 2017, it is provided that, “An appeal from a decision of a Court in a pre-election matter shall be heard and disposed of within 60 days from the date of the filing of the Appeal.

At the Court of Appeal, the Appeal of the present Appellant was vided its Notice of Appeal filed on September 9, 2022, and the 60 days for the hearing and disposition of the Appeal by the Court of Appeal lapsed on November 7, 2022.

In addition, the Supreme Court held that the Lower Court of Appeal did not determine the Appeal within the constitutional period of 60 days, “hence there was no pending Appeal relating to the merits of the case before this Honourable Court”.

More so, the Apex court noted in affirmative that the law is settled that where the original jurisdiction in the lower Court is extinct or had lapsed, the powers of the Appellate Court to exercise jurisdiction is extinct or non-existent as well.

“Hence, this Honourable Court cannot invoke its powers under Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act.”

ALSO READ FROM NIGERIAN TRIBUNE 

Thu, 08 Dec 2022 00:03:00 -0600 en-GB text/html https://tribuneonlineng.com/supreme-court-declares-ugochinyere-as-pdp-candidate-for-ideato-reps-seat/
ACT-English exam dump and training guide direct download
Training Exams List