INTRODUCTION


In an article titled, “Presidency: Supreme Court has resolved FCT 25% quandary, my younger friend, Dr Kayode Ajulo, specifically mentioned my name (amongst other senior lawyers), whom he respectfully referred to as “revered to be authorities in their fields”. He even generously described us as “legends of Inner Bar (who are) jurists who have become oracles of constitutional law whose names have refused to leave the pages of law reports”. I thank Ajulo for his kind effusive words of praises and adulation.

Were this kind recognition all he said about me and the other “oracles of constitutional law”, I would not have bothered to write this rejoinder. But, he soon thereafter most unfairly descended on us with unrestrained upbraiding as follows:


And when they lend their respected voices to public issues, their words are taken as gospel by laymen who lack the qualification and the intellectual rigour to interrogate their opinions of these senior lawyers are Yeah and Amen”.

However, this electioneering season has been an eye opening one for some of us. It has been a season or unraveling and miracles as to how some legal professionals have either by deliberate action or absence of proper research, interpret one of the simplest provisions in our Constitution as regards election to the office of the President and requirements of the candidate for that highest public office in the land”.

“We have seen those that should know and those who have held exalted and enviable positions hold curious opinions on Constitutional issues that embarrass our industry and harass ones intellect”.

“For some of them, politics have been mixed with law in order to please certain quarters of the political class. But this is a dangerous mix. There is politics, and there is law. While they can sometimes intersect, they should not be muddled up when discussing pertinent legal issues that affect the nationhood of the country and the collective development of her citizen”.

This write-up of mine should, therefore, be seen as my RIGHT OF REPLY of (see section 39 of the 1999 Constitution, as altered). I honestly believe Dr Ajulo went too far in categorizing all senior lawyers whose views are not in tandem with his as holding “curious opinions”, either “by deliberate action or lack of proper research”. He also accused us of being tainted by partisanship or politics, merely for expressing our views. And to think that such views to him constitute “curious opinions on constitutional issues that embarrass our industry and harass our intellect”, was far too rude, self-opinionated and too vainglorious to be swept under the carpet. He erroneously (perhaps, arrogantly), elevated his personal views over and above all others’. Where is that coming from? Narcissism? Politics? godfatherism? I do not know. Or, do you? The truth is that it is, rather, Ajulo’s views that were not only political, but heavily politicised. His entire piece read like a piece of a political party’s manifesto. It failed woefully to exhibit the attributes of the rigours and intellectual breadth and depth of scholarly research which he so gleefully talked about in his needless diatribe.


My simple take on this is that when a debate on a serious controversial national issue gets to a crescendo such as we now have it, various dimensions of and opinions on the issue under discourse must be vigorously pursued, explored and interrogated. Consequently, as regards this raging ruckus and scrimmage as to whether the 25% votes required by S.134 (2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution ( as amended) is applicable to the FCT, Abuja, I have now decided to navigate further, some uncharted routes, by going mathematical to find X......


Follow the link below to complete reading ..


https://barristerng.com/finding-the-bodmas-x-in-the-mathematics-of-25-of-the-fct-abuja/

Brilliant. Obi is coming

I want to see 24 SS1 students and the senior prefect in my office immediately

Pls someone should interprete this for me