spenca:


in as much as i understand the position you hold i greatly disagree with you.

1. if the Nigerian state seeks an independent legislative, it should stick not to include electioneering of legislatures through party lines, during elections did you see Bukola Saraki's name on the ballot papers ?

2. no where in the world are legislatures "independent" free and do not toe "party lane", what do you think stands out the major debates in the senate n house of rep in the U.S ? Democrats and liberals party manifesto and how do you think this comes about because these principals toe party line and are given directives from their respective parties on what to vote and to stand against. This is where APC seems to look into.

3.what the constitution means by 'independence' of the legislature doesnt transform for them to go against party directives but not to be influenced by other arms of government i.e executive and judiciary. It is so sad the formers of the constitution has left a lot of pot holes in the constitution.

4. Saraki cannot appoint principal officers, majority members of the Ruling party are against those elected therefore it isn't the legislature who appointed them but Saraki.

At this point I think I have made my stance clear, if we don't agree on it, only means we attend different school of thought.

Ur assertions are valid but they are completely different from what I think should be addressed first.

I seek to know if a party rule overrides the senate convention and not about saraki and his party issues over who to appoint and who appointed who and that have been the explanations u have been making which is really different from the questions im asking.

I seek to know the position of the law on which rule governs the senate and not on the directives of APC leaders to the house leadership.

The party can still fill up those positions with its prefered candidates without breaching the extant Senate laws.

The real issue here is that no one cares to talk about the position of the law in this matter rather lots of contributors are divided purely based on subjective considerations and not about the law or is the law now on relegation?

The senate extant rules have been on existence long before APC as a party was even dreamt of and now we seek to elevate party directives above the senate rules?

Saraki is using the law as it's shield against following his party directives and I expected his party to respond to him by providing him extant laws too that backs up their directives to him but they know there is non and that is why no one is looking at it from that legal perspective and that is my area of interest and not on what party said or who did what rather "WHAT IS THE POSITION OF THE LAW" or is Nigeria no longer govern by laws anymore?

The US congress u mentioned have members from various political parties and it is instructive to note that all party directives to its members in choosing its house leadership was made while complying with all the extant laws that governs the US congress.

Democrats/Republicans have never demanded from its members to act against the senate rules despite their ideological differences.

Your assertions that there are no independence of the senate members from its political parties all over the world is nothing but fallacy, if you have been following the US congress for a long time then u should have known that most democrats in the US congress have been opposing Mr Obama's policies both on healthcare, the nuclear deal with Iran, his methodology in fighting ISIS etc and they are members of the same party and this has stalled most of the executive bills sent to congress from sailing through.

Do you think this would have been possible if the democrats in the house were all tied to the apron strings of the party?

Nigeria can only make progress only when everyone in it agree to accept and respect the law and not to choose which to comply with or discard.

I completely agree with u that party members should follow party guidlines but only when It does not breach statutory rules and conventions.

The drafters of the 1999 constitution envisaged this type of situation and also provided an instant remedy to it by inserting in the constitution that any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution becomes null and void which also includes party rules that are inconsistent with extant laws are to be discarded.

When we determine what the position of the law is first, then we can be guided to take a position that is legally backed up.

Legitimizing illegality isn't the way forward.

The bitter truth about APC crises is that, the party leadership keeps making decisions that are legally porous and some of it's members are exploiting those legal flaws created by its leadership.

As it stands now, Saraki is right before the law but wrong only in the eye's of the party leadership and it's faithfuls and the sad part of it all is this "MORALITY is not LEGALITY".

My dear nairalander, I appreciate ur rational contributions to the subject in discuss but my interest is purely on the position of the law and not on the position of the party because the law overrides the party rules and party rules should be made to conform with the dictates of the law and not the other way round as most assertions erroneously tends to propagate.

spenca:


goan sleep under the bed

ummmm,something tells me thats some line from a novel...if it had been "go sleep under da goddamm bed...", i wudda suspected james hadley chase,but no,though i still got my doubts,especially why n when u not down mostly with da romance,family,...kitchen section (there a kitchen section?),a lady is on ur profile n that means Mills'n'Boons...yeah..

Spybradd:


ummmm,something tells me thats some line from a novel...if it had been "go sleep under da goddamm bed...", i wudda suspected james hadley chase,but no,though i still got my doubts,especially why n when u not down mostly with da romance,family,...kitchen section (there a kitchen section?),a lady is on ur profile n that means Mills'n'Boons...yeah..

This is a medieval mentality, you do not deserve any further reply from me . Cheers mate

byrron:


Ur assertions are valid but they are completely different from what I think should be addressed first.

I seek to know if a party rule overrides the senate convention and not about saraki and his party issues over who to appoint and who appointed who and that have been the explanations u have been making which is really different from the questions im asking.

I seek to know the position of the law on which rule governs the senate and not on the directives of APC leaders to the house leadership.

The party can still fill up those positions with its prefered candidates without breaching the extant Senate laws.

The real issue here is that no one cares to talk about the position of the law in this matter rather lots of contributors are divided purely based on subjective considerations and not about the law or is the law now on relegation?

The senate extant rules have been on existence long before APC as a party was even dreamt of and now we seek to elevate party directives above the senate rules?

Saraki is using the law as it's shield against following his party directives and I expected his party to respond to him by providing him extant laws too that backs up their directives to him but they know there is non and that is why no one is looking at it from that legal perspective and that is my area of interest and not on what party said or who did what rather "WHAT IS THE POSITION OF THE LAW" or is Nigeria no longer govern by laws anymore?

The US congress u mentioned have members from various political parties and it is instructive to note that all party directives to its members in choosing its house leadership was made while complying with all the extant laws that governs the US congress.

Democrats/Republicans have never demanded from its members to act against the senate rules despite their ideological differences.

Your assertions that there are no independence of the senate members from its political parties all over the world is nothing but fallacy, if you have been following the US congress for a long time then u should have known that most democrats in the US congress have been opposing Mr Obama's policies both on healthcare, the nuclear deal with Iran, his methodology in fighting ISIS etc and they are members of the same party and this has stalled most of the executive bills sent to congress from sailing through.

Do you think this would have been possible if the democrats in the house were all tied to the apron strings of the party?

Nigeria can only make progress only when everyone in it agree to accept and respect the law and not to choose which to comply with or discard.

I completely agree with u that party members should follow party guidlines but only when It does not breach statutory rules and conventions.

The drafters of the 1999 constitution envisaged this type of situation and also provided an instant remedy to it by inserting in the constitution that any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution becomes null and void which also includes party rules that are inconsistent with extant laws are to be discarded.

When we determine what the position of the law is first, then we can be guided to take a position that is legally backed up.

Legitimizing illegality isn't the way forward.

The bitter truth about APC crises is that, the party leadership keeps making decisions that are legally porous and some of it's members are exploiting those legal flaws created by its leadership.

As it stands now, Saraki is right before the law but wrong only in the eye's of the party leadership and it's faithfuls and the sad part of it all is this "MORALITY is not LEGALITY".

My dear nairalander, I appreciate ur rational contributions to the subject in discuss but my interest is purely on the position of the law and not on the position of the party because the law overrides the party rules and party rules should be made to conform with the dictates of the law and not the other way round as most assertions erroneously tends to propagate.

I have stated it over and over again and if you can't decipher it, am sorry mate. If you care to know no law says senate president to appoint principal officers, this fiasco is one of the pot holes the framers of the constitution did not envisage, at this point I am dropping the mic .

spenca:


This is a medieval mentality, you do not deserve any further reply from me . Cheers mate

whoa! Quite stoic....... And medieval indeed.