The constitution is equivocal and ambiguous about the clear procedures for electing a speaker and deputy.but in section 54,the constitution specifically said that the speaker will be elected from among the members.it also goes to say that for any legislative business to commence,there must be a quorum of one third of the members of the house.according to barristers yusuf and ubani,legislative business are businesses of the house after a speaker and deputy have been elected not before the elections.

Looking at legislative precedents,all legislative elections in Nigeria have always been with a simple majority of members present.according to the senate and house rules,just a majority of members are required to form a quorum for elections.am sure this also applies to the house of assemblies,i stand to be corrected.more legislative and legal inputs are welcomed.

Generalpatton:
The constitution is equivocal and ambiguous about the clear procedures for electing a speaker and deputy.but in section 54,the constitution specifically said that the speaker will be elected from among the members.it also goes to say that for any legislative business to commence,there must be a quorum of one third of the members of the house.according to barristers yusuf and ubani,legislative business are businesses of the house after a speaker and deputy have been elected not before the elections.

Looking at legislative precedents,all legislative elections in Nigeria have always been with a simple majority of members present.according to the senate and house rules,just a majority of members are required to form a quorum for elections.am sure this also applies to the house of assemblies,i stand to be corrected.more legislative and legal inputs are welcomed.

Oghenaogie
Tuniski
Caseless
Sirjamo
Esseite
Celeiyke
Metaphysical
Seunmsg

They are legal. The controversy is in whether the timing of inauguration was appropriate, good faith and duly communicated. Once such conditions are met, it is immaterial whether quorum is form or not. Those present at inauguration will simply elect the leadership via simple majority.


Anyway, let the matter goes to court and deepens our jurisprudence.

The guy above me has said something.. Let wait for others

Politicians keep setting dangerous precedents. It may not be appropriate for us as laymen to determine whether it is legal or illegal. But we can clearly see that it is immoral except blinded by political affiliation.

If it is found to be illegal by the court, the perpetrators should be adequately and commensurately punished to serve as deterrents to others who might be want to tow such line.

tuniski:


They are legal. The controversy is in whether the timing of inauguration was appropriate, good faith and duly communicated. Once such conditions are met, it is immaterial whether quorum is form or not. Those present at inauguration will simply elect the leadership via simple majority.


Anyway, let the matter goes to court and deepens our jurisprudence.

Am sure the courts have ruled on this matter before which will be unearthed soonest.you haven't given any reason to backup the legality.the reason you are giving shows its illegal.in bauchi,the time was supposed to be 9 but the 11 members were there before 8pm taintimg the whole process

LibertyRep:
Politicians keep setting dangerous precedents. It may not be appropriate for us as laymen to determine whether it is legal or illegal. But we can clearly see that it is immoral except blinded by political affiliation.

If it is found to be illegal by the court, the perpetrators should be adequately and commensurately punished to serve as deterrents to others who might be want to tow such line.

Your last paragraph clearly showed why such illegality continually persists,lack of detergent or stiff punishment for impunity and lawbreakers.inspire of the controversy surrounding saraki's 2015 election,it was leval because more than 55 members were present in the house,a simple majority was required.commonsense demands that if a simple majority cannot remove a speaker,why should a mere one third quorum elect ?

tuniski:


They are legal. The controversy is in whether the timing of inauguration was appropriate, good faith and duly communicated. Once such conditions are met, it is immaterial whether quorum is form or not. Those present at inauguration will simply elect the leadership via simple majority.


Anyway, let the matter goes to court and deepens our jurisprudence.

People like you is the reason why Nigeria is a laughing stock to even countries like Zimbabwe.

Please if you say by the bold why go on saying there's controversy as to the timing of inauguration, etc,etc.................

So if there are 5 persons present and 4 votes in support of a candidate whose votes counts for himself I guess they are in majority?

Generalpatton:

Am sure the courts have ruled on this matter before which will be unearthed soonest.you haven't given any reason to backup the legality.the reason you are giving shows its illegal.in bauchi,the time was supposed to be 9 but the 11 members were there before 8pm taintimg the whole process

If it can be shown conclusively as that then It is illegal.

bixton:



People like you is the reason why Nigeria is a laughing stock to even countries like Zimbabwe.

Please if you say by the bold why go on saying there's controversy as to the timing of inauguration, etc,etc.................

So if there are 5 persons present and 4 votes in support of a candidate whose votes counts for himself I guess they are in majority?

Yes, if at inauguration properly served, only 5 elected members showed up, the five elect the leadership.

Don't be emotional. The quorum only comes to play after inauguration. Inauguration is not a function of quorum but a compulsory process. If however, legislators are absent Like it happened in senate in 2015, those present will be inaugurated and elect the leadership. QED

tuniski:

Yes, if at inauguration properly served, only 5 elected members showed up, the five elect the leadership.

Don't be emotional. The quorum only comes to play after inauguration. Inauguration is not a function of quorum but a compulsory process. If however, legislators are absent Like it happened in senate in 2015, those present will be inaugurated and elect the leadership. QED

Oga,our constitution and democracy is patterned after the us and the election of a speaker there is by absolute majority.why saraki election stood was because there was a simple majority of members present.even on channels TV yesterday,the pdp chairman in bauchi a lawyer claimed that 16embers were present and thereby satisfied the simple majority rule.
Again,you claim to be a democrat but it seems you are anti democratic in reality.democracy is all about giving as many people as possible a chance to partake directly or indirectly in state affairs.both majority and minority will have their say but the majority carries the day,it is simply a system where the majority decision always prevails not minority decision.therefore,9 and 11 members claiming to produce speakers when they are minority is clearly undemocratic and anyone supporting them like you is clearly not a democrat.rethink your ways

tuniski:

Yes, if at inauguration properly served, only 5 elected members showed up, the five elect the leadership.

Don't be emotional. The quorum only comes to play after inauguration. Inauguration is not a function of quorum but a compulsory process. If however, legislators are absent Like it happened in senate in 2015, those present will be inaugurated and elect the leadership. QED

So is there any proof that those absent were served or properly served?
I hope you realise legislators are bound by the constitution and by good morals/conduct..............

In as much as the 2015 drama happened the way it is, was there any proof that the other members were away of the business of the day?

tuniski:


They are legal. The controversy is in whether the timing of inauguration was appropriate, good faith and duly communicated. Once such conditions are met, it is immaterial whether quorum is form or not. Those present at inauguration will simply elect the leadership via simple majority.


Anyway, let the matter goes to court and deepens our jurisprudence.

abi na... quorum was formed but timing is the issue...those who supported Buhari and presidency interference in legislative matter una see what executive influence can cause...
no come de shout Buhari no impose they were voted...these ones were voted too...

The leadership constituted are illegal gven the shady circumstances wherein the both HOAs were convened.
Meanwhile, Karma always have a way of paying us back as Oshiomole once said;

Sometimes immoral actions are not illegal

OGHENAOGIE:
abi na... quorum was formed but timing is the issue...those who supported Buhari and presidency interference in legislative matter una see what executive influence can cause...
no come de shout Buhari no impose they were voted...these ones were voted too...

I dont see the comparison here.buhari proclamation letter stated 10am and it started exactly at 10,almost all members of nass were present.were these obtainable in the two states? There is nothing wrong in a governor or president having a favorite but going about it the right way is the issue

Racoon:
The leadership constituted are illegal gven the shady circumstances wherein the both HOAs were convened.
Meanwhile, Karma always have a way of paying us back as Oshiomole once said;

You couldn't have said it better.the bauchi governor could have copied the template set by the sokoto and adamawa govs in installing their choices

faceURfront:
Sometimes immoral actions are not illegal

You are right but there's nothing legal here.anything not recognized by law is illegal

bixton:



So is there any proof that those absent were served or properly served?
I hope you realise legislators are bound by the constitution and by good morals/conduct..............

In as much as the 2015 drama happened the way it is, was there any proof that the other members were away of the business of the day?

I have said it earlier that if it can be conclusively proven that the absentees were not properly notified of the timing, then it is illegal.
Let the end in court it will deepen our jurisprudence.

Generalpatton:

I dont see the comparison here.buhari proclamation letter stated 10am and it started exactly at 10,almost all members of nass were present.were these obtainable in the two states? There is nothing wrong in a governor or president having a favorite but going about it the right way is the issue

they should go to court...then you have a point though but quorum was set even if na ungodly hour

I think, the "unholy" hour that the election was held is the issue here.

Its illegal. Elections of principal officers is by a majority of the whole house. Not a majority of the quorum

OGHENAOGIE:
they should go to court...then you have a point though but quorum was set even if na ungodly hour

The minority faction has gone to court to stop the majority

tuniski:


They are legal. The controversy is in whether the timing of inauguration was appropriate, good faith and duly communicated. Once such conditions are met, it is immaterial whether quorum is form or not. Those present at inauguration will simply elect the leadership via simple majority.


Anyway, let the matter goes to court and deepens our jurisprudence.

Keep quiet with your double standard

Illegally illegal people, but this is Nigeria

Saraki has set bad precedence...

LibertyRep:
Politicians keep setting dangerous precedents. It may not be appropriate for us as laymen to determine whether it is legal or illegal. But we can clearly see that it is immoral except blinded by political affiliation.

If it is found to be illegal by the court, the perpetrators should be adequately and commensurately punished to serve as deterrents to others who might be want to tow such line.

Punished ke. All d people that have engaged in such acts b4, how many were punished

LibertyRep:
Politicians keep setting dangerous precedents. It may not be appropriate for us as laymen to determine whether it is legal or illegal. But we can clearly see that it is immoral except blinded by political affiliation.

If it is found to be illegal by the court, the perpetrators should be adequately and commensurately punished to serve as deterrents to others who might be want to tow such line.

Here I stand

Legal or illegal is none of my business