manny4life:

As much as I agree with him, university education is NOT a fundamental right let alone that of a student. Sorry boss, you need a lot of convincing because that part ain't working.

Anyway, good initiative.

too much technicality of the law amounts to injustice.

When I started reading the whole story, I was glad that all parties involved were dragged to court but as I continued, I saw that ASUU is the victim. This lawyer is definitely sick, he has proven to Nigerians that the University system is sick and needs healing urgently as the approach he used by excluding others and only focusing on ASUU has only proven that point.

He mentioned right, and I'm like students deserve quality education and not crap. It's his likes that will still come out to claim that the present graduates are half baked, why won't they be? When things that ought to be put in place aren't made available. ASUU should fight this just course to the end as students are tired of repeated strike over the same issue.

is it only ASUU dt he is sueing....d FG is d real cause of the strike...if d are not able to keep to dia agreement...they shudnt ve made such agreements in d frst place....so d FG to b blame and not ASUU

What on earth is this man saying 'that the court should compel ASUU to call of the strike while negotiation with federal govt continues....Am a student and I stand for the course ASUU is fighting we are done negotiating with govt

Is not for ASUU to call off the strike,but the implementation should be met,cos if ASUU call off there is still a tendency that they will go on strike if the negotiation is ignored by the government.

manny4life:

As much as I agree with him, university education is NOT a fundamental right let alone that of a student. Sorry boss, you need a lot of convincing because that part ain't working.

Anyway, good initiative.

This lawyer na olodo rabata. Fundamental Directives of State Policy as enthrenched in the 1999 constitution in about four(4) sections isn't enforceable and no court of law in Nigeria can rule on it. It has always been a case of judicial restraint rather than judicial activism I.e restraining to give favorable judgment even when public opinion demands so unlike judicial activism that involves ruling based on the people's voice.
This action is surely bound to fail, he knows as well, he is just being optimistic, good move.
Besides, has he forgotten that an agreement without defects is fundamentally sacred?