Wildrage:


First time I would disagree with u on this forum, your opinions are almost all of the time spot on, but on this you got it wrong. Let me say upfront that I consider Saraki a despicable, treacherous, opportunistic scoundrel, a rapacious thief deserving all the tribulations being meted to him by his equally power hungry, tyrannical soul mates. That said, I believe we are a country governed by law and under no circumstance should the tenets, letters and the core principles of law be deviated from just because it's expedient to do so. If we encourage mob action against a deserving thief someday an innocent relative may be wrongly lynched to death just because someone maliciously called him Ole in the market place.

To what you opined, my dissent

1) the law is very specific on who can prosecute or authorize prosecution by way of delegating his authority for false declaration of assets, The attorney general of the federation. This is unlike any other criminal prosecution where the power to prosecute can be implied even when there is no substantive AG

2) like I said earlier, the law is not referring to the office but the person of the Attorney general, there is no ambiguity. No other person can act on his behalf unless there is an express authorisation from the AGF. In this case, Buhari shot himself in the foot by his inexplicable delay in appointing his ministers

3) The law recognize a vacuum if there is one even though nature abhors it

4) In its rush to please the puppeteer, CCB not only acted unlawfully but also in total disregard of its own procedures. An accuse is to be afforded an opportunity by the commission to explain any discrepancy discovered after verification of his declared assets, the commission only proceeds to prosecute if the Explanation is considered unsatisfactory. In this case nothing of such happened.

5) this constitutional infraction may not be weighty enough to warrant the impeachment of the president, moreso when there is nothing to show he is directly involved in this shenanigan but I assure you that if he continues to behave like we are still in a military era where his whims must be obeyed and his wishes must be law , then sooner or later even those cheering him on now would start seeing him as a menace that must be thwarted, he frittered away his goodwill in 84, same can still happen

Wildrage:


Morning, you are very correct, the National Assembly has the constitutional latitude to determine what constitute an impeachable offense, even the way the president laughs in public may be considered an offense worthy of impeachment, so the Daura bigot has to thread carefully

TonyeBarcanista:
Oga, let's stop arguing emotionally. The section 174(1) was NOT about only regular court.... Lemme quot it

"(1) The Attorney-General of the Federation shall have power
(a) to institute and undertake criminal proceedings against any person before any court of law in Nigeria, other than a court- martial, in respect of any offence created by or under any Act of the National Assembly";

Subsection 2 of 174 further stated that...
(2) The powers conferred upon the Attorney- General of the Federation under subsection (1) of this section may be exercised by him in person or through officers of his department.

That has nullified your argument.

TonyeBarcanista:
Oga, let's stop arguing emotionally. The section 174(1) was NOT about only regular court.... Lemme quot it

"(1) The Attorney-General of the Federation shall have power
(a) to institute and undertake criminal proceedings against any person before any court of law in Nigeria, other than a court- martial, in respect of any offence created by or under any Act of the National Assembly";

Subsection 2 of 174 further stated that...
(2) The powers conferred upon the Attorney- General of the Federation under subsection (1) of this section may be exercised by him in person or through officers of his department.

That has nullified your argument.

gwales:
buhari is the king of the North, nobody can impeach him

MizMyColi:


Thank you.
Personally I like the turn and twist this is taking.
Ebele Jonathan was once quoted as saying that if you use 40% of your powers, you will be seen as a menace.
I know I did not post rubbish and I knew the impeachment part would get to core Buharists who have thrown away their ability to apply discernment on Buhari based topics.
In their imagination, every naysayer is a threat that must be put down and out.

GEJ's goat and yam theory might be right afterall.
Nigeria is a nation that has her roots entrenched deeply in corruption, starting from the top echelons of society, to the janitor in the smallest establishment.

When you are saddled with a responsibility to clean up such huge mess, you apply wisdom and tact....and diplomacy. Else they will fight you tooth and nail and chances are that you won't win...especially when you think that the people who are sold in on your vision are actually harbingers of doom to your administration.

Dhugal:

Actually,you buttress his argument.
S.174(2) CFRN says "..or through officers of his department",while S.24(2) of the CCB Act lays down the process through which said officers can act for the AGF in asset declaration cases.It is not in conflict with the constitution.The constitutional provision is broad and general,while the Act's provision lays down the specific manner the constitutional provision should be applied in code of conduct cases.You really should read well,comprehend and assimilate before offering up interpretations that may mislead.
Saraki may walk free on this technicality and others,such as the CCB flouting it's own procedure of inviting him to come explain discrepancies in his asset declaration thereby infringing on his right of equal treatment and fair hearing,and that will be a blow on the fight against corruption.What is worth doing is worth doing well.

Dhugal:

Actually,you buttress his argument.
S.174(2) CFRN says "..or through officers of his department",while S.24(2) of the CCB Act lays down the process through which said officers can act for the AGF in asset declaration cases.It is not in conflict with the constitution.The constitutional provision is broad and general,while the Act's provision lays down the specific manner the constitutional provision should be applied in code of conduct cases.You really should read well,comprehend and assimilate before offering up interpretations that may mislead.
Saraki may walk free on this technicality and others,such as the CCB flouting it's own procedure of inviting him to come explain discrepancies in his asset declaration thereby infringing on his right of equal treatment and fair hearing,and that will be a blow on the fight against corruption.What is worth doing is worth doing well.

Wildrage:

Sincerely I don't know what you mean by being emotional, I have no dog in the fight between the dubious change chanters, I am just a proponent for the strict adherence to the rule of law. The constitution talks about CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS in a regular court, the charge before the code of conduct tribunal is not a criminal proceeding, the tribunal has no power to commit anyone into prison or impose a fine upon guilty verdict, the accuse can personally defend himself or be represented by an attorney at the tribunal. If a prima facie case of criminal liability is established at the tribunal, the AG is at liberty to institute an action at the high court. Try and read the Act first before forming an opinion

TonyeBarcanista:

The CCB Act is in concordance with the constitution. The constitution (as quoted) only put to rest any argument that may arise. Read section 174(2) again. Meanwhile, the Constitution is the ONLY legal document upon which other documents rest. In fact, the Supreme Court is famous for striking out some section of electoral act that were in conflict. The Acts (laws of parliament) does not explain the Constitution, the Constitution instead explains the Act.

The Section 174(1) not only specified High Court but also went ahead to talk about other tribunals including those established by act of the parliament. The case is actually criminal in nature but the punishment for it was Specific. In fact conviction before the CCT means losing right to run for office or hold any office within a Specified. Let us also understand that CCT is not an really "anti-corruption" court, its function to to try those with false declaration of assets among other code of conduct breach. Saraki's corruption case will still be tried in FHC or State High Court.

MizMyColi:


So far so good, nothing the OP says has been proven a lie.
The issue of contention here is the Buhari Impeachment...which discerning minds already appropriated to continued actions in these lines.

This is a forum and like I said, learning never stops...

If I post something which seems correct to me and in the long run, a superior argument strikes mine out, everyone is better for it.
You claim you are my friend, when you saw the rubbish that I posted, did you so much as quote me to say, "No, Miz, it is like this and like this....Did you do anything to help me get better, knowledge wise?"
No.
You saw someone condemning me and you hopped right in to register yours.


Emotionally blackmailing me and perhaps indirectly insinuating what I know you are insinuating is so not cool. Not cool

MizMyColi:

Please read carefully before commenting.
I am particularly indifferent in all this.
This was posted as a broadcast message on my BBM and as a patriotic citizen, I thought to share

helical deception! You are indifferent and still brought this .


The office of the attorney General exists even without an appointed occupant; and this has been laid to rest by the supreme court. That's the most watery argument saraki presented. God brought BUHARI and he's the only one who can remove him.

salam1:
If u lyk jump inside lagoon he's d president of d federal republic of Nigeria

uniklinkum:
We have seen through her emptiness and stupidity long time ago. Anyways good you are disgracing yourself and your family on a larger front.

Caseless:
just twist things in an asymmetrical order, you ignored where I corrected you or add to your knowledge below and chose the 2nd post that came after it - where ibnsultan registered his disappointment and I chorused.

okolochyke:




Dont mind the romance bloggers turned political analysts

I bet they don't even know the basic principles of an impeachment process.

TonyeBarcanista:

The CCB Act is in concordance with the constitution. The constitution (as quoted) only put to rest any argument that may arise. Read section 174(2) again. Meanwhile, the Constitution is the ONLY legal document upon which other documents rest. In fact, the Supreme Court is famous for striking out some section of electoral act that were in conflict. The Acts (laws of parliament) does not explain the Constitution, the Constitution instead explains the Act.

The Section 174(1) not only specified High Court but also went ahead to talk about other tribunals including those established by act of the parliament. The case is actually criminal in nature but the punishment for it was Specific. In fact conviction before the CCT means losing right to run for office or hold any office within a Specified. Let us also understand that CCT is not an really "anti-corruption" court, its function to to try those with false declaration of assets among other code of conduct breach. Saraki's corruption case will still be tried in FHC or State High Court.

In his ruling on an application for bench warrant for the arrest of Saraki made by Muslimi Hassan, a Deputy Director Federal Ministry of Justice on behalf of the Federal Government, the tribunal Chairman, Justice Danladi Umar ordered the Inspector General of Police and other relevant agencies to arrest the Senate President.

...The judge said in the absence of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), the Solicitor General of the Federation or anybody mandated by the constitution has the right to initiate a legal action or exercise the power to file action on behalf of the Federal Government.

On the non appearance of Saraki to take plea, the tribunal was of the opinion that the former Governor of Kwara state cannot claim that he was not aware of the court summon.

“The defendant was served with the criminal notice filed by the complainant on 14 September, and he duly replied to the notice.

On the contention of Saraki that the tribunal should take judicial notice of an order of the Federal High Court Abuja, made on Thursday to the effect that a suit has been filed, the court said “a court of coordinate jurisdiction cannot stop this tribunal,” adding that,”By the provision of Section 306 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, this tribunal cannot accede to the submission of the counsel to the defendant to halt this proceeding.”

Justice Umar added that “This tribunal is a superior court of record that has coordinate jurisdiction with the Federal High Court; this court cannot be restricted by an injunction from a court of coordinate jurisdiction.

“The Senate President cannot claim he was unaware of the summons. As a high ranking politician, occupying such a position in the country, he is expected to obey court order.

TonyeBarcanista:
I tire sef o

docadams:


I advised Mizmycoil in another thread to stick to the romance section where she's very versatile. She won't hear. Rather she comes to political section with 'Mills & Boon' adventures running round her brain.

Adviser Namagbe
Your advice is seen and duly discarded.
I will remain here.
I will write my mills and boon....even harlequin adventures here.

Anyone who is not cool with my posts and submissions should look away or consider committing e-suicide.
No offence

gwales:
buhari is the king of the North, nobody can impeach him

docadams:


CCT chairman go fit you well well. But only on Saraki's case. I heard the current one is compromised already.

FreeGlobe:
Buhari looks like that person that will never learn from history. He may end up being the only Nigerian president that is dismissed twice. Events of 1984 may democratically repeat itself in this dispensation.

TonyeBarcanista:

The Drama de sweet Tomakint pass

TonyeBarcanista:

The Drama de sweet Tomakint pass

MizMyColi:


and you waited for a reply and didn't get one?
Before joining the chorus?
Isn't that akin to indirectly insulting me?

I said I am particularly indifferent because I am for Saraki, yet very much against him.
If I were so interested...I would be on every saraki related thread defending him.

You mentioned office of the attorney general...The OP mentioned attorney general, actually, they are two different things.


All the same, your point and your angst is noted. Thank you for your time.

Caseless:
I said one of the argument of saraki counsel was that, no AGF currently in office, so it does not bind on anyone in that office to bring h before the law. I explained that the supreme court has ruled that the office of the AGF is a corporate body that exist and function with or without an appointed occupant, therefore can act in a case that's coterminous to it's constitutional responsibility.






I just de look u like this....

Caseless:
I said one of the argument of saraki counsel was that, no AGF currently in office, so it does not bind on anyone in that office to bring h before the law. I explained that the supreme court has ruled that the office of the AGF is a corporate body that exist and function with or without an appointed occupant, therefore can act in a case that's coterminous to it's constitutional responsibility.






I just de look u like this....

Oya no veshh naaaa
Forgive me e hear

bloodkiIler: