Chuksonyeike:

Well the APC will never have 2/3 of sitting of any plenary. You idiots has already made your plots public.

You've brought no logical input into this discussion. This shows your level of intelligence, very crude like thay of a wild animal. I will not indulge you with a reply but next time, present your case without taking things too personal.

Following

FOLYKAZE:
After he has been impeached, he can go to court for redress and APC will take it to Supreme court for interpretation. The legal battle would be over after 2019 election.

The law says Senate President can be impeached by the votes of not less than two-thirds majority of the members of that House. The colored red phrase does not say the total 109 members or those present in the plenary. So until the Supreme court gives us a clear definition, APC can go ahead and let those not in fine-tune with the impeachment should held to court.

Like Oshiomhole mentioned, there is no illegality in impeachment of a senate head and his deputy. There is no illegality if APC fires on. There are lot of precedence the party will fall on. The worst PDP will do is to call an international conference, make some noise on the pages of newspaper, television and radio, boil the cyber space with silly rants and go to court. Now of this action is going to return Saraki to senate president seat

in that case it's means your buhari can still be impeach with this method u just outline and when its happened don't come and cry fowl

wisino1:
in that case it's means your buhari can still be impeach with this method u just outline and when its happened don't come and cry fowl

It doesn't work that way bro.

It take a very long and rigorous process to impeach the president. Can take at least 3 months at which during these period, the president would have thwarted the threat.

But as for Senate President, na just vote by collecting signature which doesn't take more than 30 mins. If the majority carries the day, SP is gone for good.

The APC majority in the Senate since the 8th Senate has been very thin at best.Even in the midst of defections their margin has not really improved. At the Moment APC has 54 senators (1 in jail),PDP 49,ADC 2,APGA 2.If they win the 2 vacant seats they will now have 56 seats which is a very far cry from the 2/3 majority of 73 required for the whole house.

Prof Sagay a prominent APC politician and constitutional lawyer obviously seeing that the APC will not be able to secure the constitutionally stipulated 2/3 majority of the house has decided to misinterpret the very explicit section 50 chapter 5 of the 1999 constitution to mean 2/3 majority at a plenary sitting.

Even if we were to go by that phoney interpretation. It will still be difficult for the APC to secure 2/3 majority. Let's assume 10 PDP senators did not make it to plenary and we have just 99 senators. The APC will still not be able to muster the 2/3 majority of 66 .If the number of PDP senators absent further increases to 15,The APC still won't have the 2/3 majority of 63 .

My advice to the tout Oshiomhole is to give up and lick your wounds.You have been beaten and have lost this war.Stop making a fool of yourself

Those of you are here saying what you don't know especially the OP let me explain some things to you.

There is a reason why the Senate is called THE HALLOWED CHAMBERS.

Whoever is made the senate president must be someone of impeccable character and unbridled integrity.

Saraki lacks any of these qualities and has been known to be fraudulent, corrupt and a usurper of power.

Even in Kwara his own people are unanimously calling him a thief. He has been linked to fraud charges and most recently his boys have been linked to armed robbery in which 33 people were killed.

This is a bad CV to have as a Senate president and enough to have him impeached.

Those who are saying, that if APC impeaches him what stops the PDP members from impeaching the APC senate leader the next day, you need to realise that impeachment does not just happen except there is a cause such as those I listed above. As long as the new senate President is clean then nobody in that senate would dare raise a motion for impeachment.

To the legality or illegality of the impeachment process, the constitution says the votes of 2/3 MAJORITY of the members of the house would effect an impeachment of the SP.

It did not say 2/3 Majority of ALL the members of the house neither does it say 2/3 majority of THE ENTIRE members of the house.

What the constitution means by the conditions given is that those who sit for this motion to be passed must be MAJORITY in number when compared to the number of the entire members of the house.

For example, the house has 109 members , once they are 55 sitted then the motion can be passed and 2/3 of that 55 is what is required to vote and impeach the SP.

When majority are seated it then means they have the numbers to form a quorum and are able to reflect the mind of the majority of the senate members.

Sagay spoke nothing but the truth and his interpretation is solidly correct.

The Operative word in the constitution is 2/3 MAJORITY of the members and not ALL or the ENTIRE members of the house.

Legal language is not English language and is not mathematics.

FOLYKAZE:


It doesn't work that way bro.

It take a very long and rigorous process to impeach the president. Can take at least 3 months at which during these period, the president would have thwarted the threat.

But as for Senate President, na just vote by collecting signature which doesn't take more than 30 mins. If the majority carries the day, SP is gone for good.

So once it gets to the impeachment of the President you want to follow the Constitution? BTW where did you get your 3 months from? The president can be impeached in a week. And in the case of Senate president who told you that you just collect signatures in 30 minutes?

You really make me laugh. Shebi the Senate will reconvene on Tuesday? Go ahead and impeach Saraki let's see.Just know that I will so troll and make fun of you and your likes should the much touted impeachment fail to hold and Saraki remains Senate president at the end of Tuesday

wisino1:
in that case it's means your buhari can still be impeach with this method u just outline and when its happened don't come and cry fowl

Ignorance is not an excuse when knowledge is readily available.

The Nigerian constitution gives a different provision for the impeachment of the President. Impeachment of the SP is a different kettle of fish and far more easier to achieve. That of the President would take months

Butterflyle0:
Those of you are here saying what you don't know especially the OP let me explain some things to you.

There is a reason why the Senate is called THE HALLOWED CHAMBERS.

Whoever is made the senate president must be someone of impeccable character and unbridled integrity.

Saraki lacks any of these qualities and has been known to be fraudulent, corrupt and a usurper of power.

Even in Kwara his own people are unanimously calling him a thief. He has been linked to fraud charges and most recently his boys have been linked to armed robbery in which 33 people were killed.

This is a bad CV to have as a Senate president and enough to have him impeached.

Those who are saying, that if APC impeaches him what stops the PDP members from impeaching the APC senate leader the next day, you need to realise that impeachment does not just happen except there is a cause such as those I listed above. As long as the new senate President is clean then nobody in that senate would dare raise a motion for impeachment.

To the legality or illegality of the impeachment process, the constitution says the votes of 2/3 MAJORITY of the members of the house would effect an impeachment of the SP.

It did not say 2/3 Majority of ALL the members of the house neither does it say 2/3 majority of THE ENTIRE members of the house.

What the constitution means by the conditions given is that those who sit for this motion to be passed must be MAJORITY in number when compared to the number of the entire members of the house.

For example, the house has 109 members , once they are 55 sitted then the motion can be passed and 2/3 of that 55 is what is required to vote and impeach the SP.

When majority are seated it then means they have the numbers to form a quorum and are able to reflect the mind of the majority of the senate members.

Sagay spoke nothing but the truth and his interpretation is solidly correct.

The Operative word in the constitution is 2/3 MAJORITY of the members and not ALL or the ENTIRE members of the house.

Legal language is not English language and is not mathematics.

The 55 should go ahead and sit.Why is it taking so much time. Enough of the rantings. Impeach him already.

Tuesday will soon be here let's see how Saraki will be impeached.

PaChukwudi44:

The 55 should go ahead and sit.Why is it taking so much time. Enough of the rantings. Impeach him already.

Tuesday will soon be here let's see how Saraki will be impeached.

Ask yourself why the PDP senators have been having sleeping vigils at the senate and why saraki immediately called for a recess the moment he defected and why he got the sacked DSS boss involved the day he called for a meeting of the senate leaders.

He knows his impeachment is a done.deal but is just trying to delay the inevitable

Butterflyle0:


Ask yourself why the PDP senators have been having sleeping vigils at the senate and why saraki immediately called for a recess the moment he defected and why he got the sacked DSS boss involved the day he called for a meeting of the senate leaders.

He knows his impeachment is a done.deal but is just trying to delay the inevitable

Your chairman has been the one ranting and making noise.The Senate will reconvene on Tuesday and woe betide you if Saraki is still Senate president at the end of the day as I will troll the life out of you here.Let me see how the APC will secure 2/3 majority even of plenary sitting. With the analysis I did even if 15 PDP senators are absent at plenary sitting, the APC still won't muster the stipulated 2/3 majority.How on earth do you hope to accomplish the impeachment?

The APC should go back to the drawing board.Making noise on the media does not get the Senate president impeached

PaChukwudi44:

Your chairman has been the one ranting and making noise.The Senate will reconvene on Tuesday and woe betide you if Saraki is still Senate president at the end of the day as I will troll the life out of you here.Let me see how the APC will secure 2/3 majority even of plenary sitting. With the analysis I did even if 15 PDP senators are absent at plenary sitting, the APC still won't muster the stipulated 2/3 majority.How on earth do you hope to accomplish the impeachment?

The APC should go back to the drawing board.Making noise on the media does not get the Senate president impeached

How backward are you really?

What is the current number of APC senators in the house when compared to PDP 49?

APC already has 2/3 majority of the members of the house because APGA is with APC at this point .

PDP senators never have the number to form MAJORITY of the members of the house because they are 49 .

I will hold my peace at this point because you are no longer presenting a legal argument but just an emotional one

Butterflyle0:


How backward are you really?

What is the current number of APC senators in the house when compared to PDP 49?

APC already has 2/3 majority of the members of the house because APGA is with APC at this point .

PDP senators never have the number to form MAJORITY of the members of the house because they are 49 .

I will hold my peace at this point because you are no longer presenting a legal argument but just an emotional one

So bros what did you score again at mathematics in your waec? The simplest of arithmetics is this difficult for you?
What is 2/3 of 109? 56?60? Haba!!! Even if 15 PDP senators are absent and APGA and ADC senators vote with the APC, they still won't secure 2/3 majority of the sitting (I didn't say the whole house)

Let me teach you simple mathematics. The Senate has 109 senators. Let's assume 15 PDP senators did not come to plenary. Total number present at sitting is 109-15=94
2/3 of 94=63

Total no of APC senators=56(assuming they win the two outstanding seats)
Total no of APGA senators =2
Total no of ADC senators=2
56+2+2=60

So you can see clearly even with your phoney interpretation of section 50,the APC still can't secure enough majority to impeach Saraki

PaChukwudi44:

So bros what did you score again at mathematics in your waec? The simplest of arithmetics is this difficult for you?
What is 2/3 of 109? 56?60? Haba!!! Even if 15 PDP senators are absent and APGA and ADC senators vote with the APC, they still won't secure 2/3 majority of the sitting (I didn't say the whole house)

Let me teach you simple mathematics. The Senate has 109 senators. Let's assume 15 PDP senators did not come to plenary. Total number present at sitting is 109-15=94
2/3 of 94=63

Total no of APC senators=56(assuming they win the two outstanding seats)
Total no of APGA senators =2
Total no of ADC senators=2
56+2+2=60

So you can see clearly even with your phoney interpretation of section 50,the APC still can't secure enough majority to impeach Saraki

Its clear you lack understanding of legal language. You assume legal language is mathematics?

These is a reason why the constitution did not say the votes of 2/3 MAJORITY of ALL the members of that house.

If it had included words like ALL or ENTIRE then it becomes a mathematical language.

It rather States that the votes of 2/3 MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS OF THAT HOUSE.

If you keep viewing it mathematically you will never be able to translate it.

I have already broken it down to you which is exactly what sagay was trying to say as a legal luminary but you think you know better.

Perhaps in your own version of the constitution words like ALL and ENTIRE were used right?

Truth is the law is silent on quorum, even Saraki knows that but is whipping up sentiments by shouting 2/3 of the registered members of Senate.

Changing Saraki as Senate President for me at this point is pretty too late in the day. They should find a way to manage him till next year.

It is a lesson to leadership that small things matter.

Butterflyle0:


Its clear you lack understanding of legal language. You assume legal language is mathematics?

These is a reason why the constitution did not say the votes of 2/3 MAJORITY of ALL the members of that house.

If it had included words like ALL or ENTIRE then it becomes a mathematical language.

It rather States that the votes of 2/3 MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS OF THAT HOUSE.

If you keep viewing it mathematically you will never be able to translate it.

I have already broken it down to you which is exactly what sagay was trying to say as a legal luminary but you think you know better.

Perhaps in your own version of the constitution words like ALL and ENTIRE were used right?

So you do not understand both mathematics and even English language? You want me to communicate to you in Yoruba too? Better face the truth. Whatever way you twist it ,Saraki can never be impeached. See you on Tuesday

otokx:
Truth is the law is silent on quorum, even Saraki knows that but is whipping up sentiments by shouting 2/3 of the registered members of Senate.

Changing Saraki as Senate President for me at this point is pretty too late in the day. They should find a way to manage him till next year.

It is a lesson to leadership that small things matter.

Constitution was never silent as 2/3 majority of members of the house was explicitly stated as the requirement for impeaching the Senate president and other NASS leaders

Juliusmalema:


Trash

How?

The APC can even come with Sagay on Tuesday to impeach Saraki lol

2odd:

No you are the illogical one here 2/3 of the entire house ,have to vote for the senate president removal , 80 can be present
I can see that you clearly didn't read the two examples ,not all members were present when Evan ENWEREM and CHUBA OKADIGBO were impeached but more than 2/3 of the entire house voted for their removal .

Buhari is too slow for my liking, OBJ would've done away with your thieving senate president that you are supporting just because of political, tribal or sentimental inclination. A sitting is a sitting Provided a quorum is formed. APC has the number any day to form a quorum all they need is the will power to do it and the wailers will pick up from there. No other interpretation of this. Sagay has discovered something innovative that looks like a loophole in the constitution.

below is an article on what the constitution says and views of the nass members during election reordering saga.
"As preparations by the leadership and some members of the National Assembly to override President Muhammadu Buhari’s veto of the amendments to the Electoral Act engage another gear, Sunday Vanguard can exclusively report that plans are at advanced stages to perfect the override action using the strict interpretations of some provisions of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended.
NASS
Whereas the 1999 Constitution stipulates some areas of amendment that strictly make provision for the participation of the entire membership of each chamber, there are other provisions that merely refer to majority without the added priviso of “total num of legislators”.
The bone of contention had been the perceived near-impossibility of the National Assembly mustering the required two-thirds majority to override the presidential veto.
In fact, presidency sources who have been working hard at breaking the ranks of the legislators – some times allegedly offering carrots and, in some more vicious instances, threatening with the stick – informed Sunday Vanguard that the legislators cannot muster the needed two-thirds majority.
In the Senate, 73 votes of all members constitute two-thirds, while in the House, 240 of all members is it.
Information made available during the weekend suggest that what the NASS is interpreting as two-thirds, is not of the total number of legislators, but those who would be in attendance in so far as the quorum is formed.
This is being hinged on the express provisions of the 1999 Constitution which does not specify the need for and participation of total number of legislators who carry out voting in all instances.
For instance, in Sections 8 (1) (a) (c), (d) on States and LGA creation, 8 (2) (i) Boundary Adjustment, Sec. 9 (1) and (3), (4) and Sec. 48 and 49, S. 50 (c), Sec. 54 (1), 56 (1), and 58 (5), the constitution usually states, specifically, the type of majority and the meaning of majority that is required.
Sec 8 (1) (a) (c) and (d) while 8 (3) (i), on boundary adjustments, the constitution requires “two-thirds majority of members of each House of the National Assembly.
Sec. 9 says “ Sec. 8 or Chapter IV shall not be passed by either House of the National Assembly unless the proposal is approved by votes of not less than four-fifth majority of ALL the members of each House and also approved by a resolution of the Houses of Assembly of not less than two-thirds of all states.
The above is how to amend Sec. 8 or Chapter 4 of the Constitution.
Sec. 9 (1) also states that other parts of the constitution can only be amended by “the votes of not less than two-thirds majority of ALL the members of that House and approved by resolution of the Houses of Assembly of not less than two-thirds of all states.
Sec 9 (4) states that “For the purpose of states and LGAs creation, the numbers of members of each house of the NASS shall, notwithstanding any vacancy, be deemed to be the no of members specified in Sec 48 (109 Senators) and Sec 49 (360 House members). This means that even in the cases of vacancies occasioned by death or recall or ill-health, the majority required shall be based on 109 senators and 360 House members.
Sec. 50 (c) states that Senate President or Speaker can be removed by the “Votes of not less than two-thirds of that House”.
Meanwhile, Sec. 54 stipulates that the Senate or House shall be one-third of all the members. This is in respect of the constitutionally recognised quorum for the sitting of either the Senate or the House.
Sec. 56 (1) states that “Except as otherwise provided by this constitution, any question proposed for decision in the Senate or House shall be determined by the required majority of the members present and voting; and the persons presiding shall cast a vote whenever necessary to avoid an equality of votes but shall not vote in any other case.
The contention and position being pushed in the National Assembly now – at least by the leadership and some members – is that, it is, therefore, where the constitution only mentioned two-thirds of members, it is deemed to be two-thirds of members present provided the quorum has been formed.
This is the interpretation that is likely to guide the National Assembly in dealing with Sec. 58 (5) which states that “where the President withholds his assent and the bill is again passed by each House by two-thirds majority, the bill shall become law and the assent of the President shall not be required.
Already, the leadership of NASS is confident that it can muster the required number.
The amendment to the Electoral Act became the subject of contention largely because of the re-ordering of elections. The Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, had fixed the presidential election to kick start the polling season for February next year, but the NASS voted for an amendment to the Electoral Act where it re-ordered the sequence, pitching the federal legislative elections for and the presidential election last.
It is this new order, inserted in the Electoral Act, that has become so controversial because it is viewed, in some quarters, as being targeted at President Muhammadu Buhari.
However, a preponderant body of views is insisting that putting the legislative elections first, comes with the possibility of creating a rainbow legislative body, as against a national assembly that would derive membership from a bandwagon effect of the already emerged President whose election would have been concluded and, therefore, sway interests in favour of the President-elect’s party."

The constitution defines majority in some specific case and a quorum is just needed where there is no definition

FOLYKAZE:
After he has been impeached, he can go to court for redress and APC will take it to Supreme court for interpretation. The legal battle would be over after 2019 election.

The law says Senate President can be impeached by the votes of not less than two-thirds majority of the members of that House. The colored red phrase does not say the total 109 members or those present in the plenary. So until the Supreme court gives us a clear definition, APC can go ahead and let those not in fine-tune with the impeachment should held to court.

Like Oshiomhole mentioned, there is no illegality in impeachment of a senate head and his deputy. There is no illegality if APC fires on. There are lot of precedence the party will fall on. The worst PDP will do is to call an international conference, make some noise on the pages of newspaper, television and radio, boil the cyber space with silly rants and go to court. Now of this action is going to return Saraki to senate president seat

The mistake most of you do is you bend the law to favour you whenever you want it to soothe you but when it later work against you,you will start forming bull in a ware shop. Like the case of Tambuwal in 2014 and Saraki in 2018

OlujobaSamuel:
below is an article on what the constitution says and views of the nass members during election reordering saga.
"As preparations by the leadership and some members of the National Assembly to override President Muhammadu Buhari’s veto of the amendments to the Electoral Act engage another gear, Sunday Vanguard can exclusively report that plans are at advanced stages to perfect the override action using the strict interpretations of some provisions of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended.
NASS
Whereas the 1999 Constitution stipulates some areas of amendment that strictly make provision for the participation of the entire membership of each chamber, there are other provisions that merely refer to majority without the added priviso of “total num of legislators”.
The bone of contention had been the perceived near-impossibility of the National Assembly mustering the required two-thirds majority to override the presidential veto.
In fact, presidency sources who have been working hard at breaking the ranks of the legislators – some times allegedly offering carrots and, in some more vicious instances, threatening with the stick – informed Sunday Vanguard that the legislators cannot muster the needed two-thirds majority.
In the Senate, 73 votes of all members constitute two-thirds, while in the House, 240 of all members is it.
Information made available during the weekend suggest that what the NASS is interpreting as two-thirds, is not of the total number of legislators, but those who would be in attendance in so far as the quorum is formed.
This is being hinged on the express provisions of the 1999 Constitution which does not specify the need for and participation of total number of legislators who carry out voting in all instances.
For instance, in Sections 8 (1) (a) (c), (d) on States and LGA creation, 8 (2) (i) Boundary Adjustment, Sec. 9 (1) and (3), (4) and Sec. 48 and 49, S. 50 (c), Sec. 54 (1), 56 (1), and 58 (5), the constitution usually states, specifically, the type of majority and the meaning of majority that is required.
Sec 8 (1) (a) (c) and (d) while 8 (3) (i), on boundary adjustments, the constitution requires “two-thirds majority of members of each House of the National Assembly.
Sec. 9 says “ Sec. 8 or Chapter IV shall not be passed by either House of the National Assembly unless the proposal is approved by votes of not less than four-fifth majority of ALL the members of each House and also approved by a resolution of the Houses of Assembly of not less than two-thirds of all states.
The above is how to amend Sec. 8 or Chapter 4 of the Constitution.
Sec. 9 (1) also states that other parts of the constitution can only be amended by “the votes of not less than two-thirds majority of ALL the members of that House and approved by resolution of the Houses of Assembly of not less than two-thirds of all states.
Sec 9 (4) states that “For the purpose of states and LGAs creation, the numbers of members of each house of the NASS shall, notwithstanding any vacancy, be deemed to be the no of members specified in Sec 48 (109 Senators) and Sec 49 (360 House members). This means that even in the cases of vacancies occasioned by death or recall or ill-health, the majority required shall be based on 109 senators and 360 House members.
Sec. 50 (c) states that Senate President or Speaker can be removed by the “Votes of not less than two-thirds of that House”.
Meanwhile, Sec. 54 stipulates that the Senate or House shall be one-third of all the members. This is in respect of the constitutionally recognised quorum for the sitting of either the Senate or the House.
Sec. 56 (1) states that “Except as otherwise provided by this constitution, any question proposed for decision in the Senate or House shall be determined by the required majority of the members present and voting; and the persons presiding shall cast a vote whenever necessary to avoid an equality of votes but shall not vote in any other case.
The contention and position being pushed in the National Assembly now – at least by the leadership and some members – is that, it is, therefore, where the constitution only mentioned two-thirds of members, it is deemed to be two-thirds of members present provided the quorum has been formed.
This is the interpretation that is likely to guide the National Assembly in dealing with Sec. 58 (5) which states that “where the President withholds his assent and the bill is again passed by each House by two-thirds majority, the bill shall become law and the assent of the President shall not be required.
Already, the leadership of NASS is confident that it can muster the required number.
The amendment to the Electoral Act became the subject of contention largely because of the re-ordering of elections. The Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, had fixed the presidential election to kick start the polling season for February next year, but the NASS voted for an amendment to the Electoral Act where it re-ordered the sequence, pitching the federal legislative elections for and the presidential election last.
It is this new order, inserted in the Electoral Act, that has become so controversial because it is viewed, in some quarters, as being targeted at President Muhammadu Buhari.
However, a preponderant body of views is insisting that putting the legislative elections first, comes with the possibility of creating a rainbow legislative body, as against a national assembly that would derive membership from a bandwagon effect of the already emerged President whose election would have been concluded and, therefore, sway interests in favour of the President-elect’s party."

The constitution defines majority in some specific case and a quorum is just needed where there is no definition

May God bless you for this.

PaChukwudi44 come and read and before you read, throw away mathematics from your head because that is not admissible in legal language escept when expressly mentioned.

OlujobaSamuel:
below is an article on what the constitution says and views of the nass members during election reordering saga.
"As preparations by the leadership and some members of the National Assembly to override President Muhammadu Buhari’s veto of the amendments to the Electoral Act engage another gear, Sunday Vanguard can exclusively report that plans are at advanced stages to perfect the override action using the strict interpretations of some provisions of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended.
NASS
Whereas the 1999 Constitution stipulates some areas of amendment that strictly make provision for the participation of the entire membership of each chamber, there are other provisions that merely refer to majority without the added priviso of “total num of legislators”.
The bone of contention had been the perceived near-impossibility of the National Assembly mustering the required two-thirds majority to override the presidential veto.
In fact, presidency sources who have been working hard at breaking the ranks of the legislators – some times allegedly offering carrots and, in some more vicious instances, threatening with the stick – informed Sunday Vanguard that the legislators cannot muster the needed two-thirds majority.
In the Senate, 73 votes of all members constitute two-thirds, while in the House, 240 of all members is it.
Information made available during the weekend suggest that what the NASS is interpreting as two-thirds, is not of the total number of legislators, but those who would be in attendance in so far as the quorum is formed.
This is being hinged on the express provisions of the 1999 Constitution which does not specify the need for and participation of total number of legislators who carry out voting in all instances.
For instance, in Sections 8 (1) (a) (c), (d) on States and LGA creation, 8 (2) (i) Boundary Adjustment, Sec. 9 (1) and (3), (4) and Sec. 48 and 49, S. 50 (c), Sec. 54 (1), 56 (1), and 58 (5), the constitution usually states, specifically, the type of majority and the meaning of majority that is required.
Sec 8 (1) (a) (c) and (d) while 8 (3) (i), on boundary adjustments, the constitution requires “two-thirds majority of members of each House of the National Assembly.
Sec. 9 says “ Sec. 8 or Chapter IV shall not be passed by either House of the National Assembly unless the proposal is approved by votes of not less than four-fifth majority of ALL the members of each House and also approved by a resolution of the Houses of Assembly of not less than two-thirds of all states.
The above is how to amend Sec. 8 or Chapter 4 of the Constitution.
Sec. 9 (1) also states that other parts of the constitution can only be amended by “the votes of not less than two-thirds majority of ALL the members of that House and approved by resolution of the Houses of Assembly of not less than two-thirds of all states.
Sec 9 (4) states that “For the purpose of states and LGAs creation, the numbers of members of each house of the NASS shall, notwithstanding any vacancy, be deemed to be the no of members specified in Sec 48 (109 Senators) and Sec 49 (360 House members). This means that even in the cases of vacancies occasioned by death or recall or ill-health, the majority required shall be based on 109 senators and 360 House members.
Sec. 50 (c) states that Senate President or Speaker can be removed by the “Votes of not less than two-thirds of that House”.
Meanwhile, Sec. 54 stipulates that the Senate or House shall be one-third of all the members. This is in respect of the constitutionally recognised quorum for the sitting of either the Senate or the House.
Sec. 56 (1) states that “Except as otherwise provided by this constitution, any question proposed for decision in the Senate or House shall be determined by the required majority of the members present and voting; and the persons presiding shall cast a vote whenever necessary to avoid an equality of votes but shall not vote in any other case.
The contention and position being pushed in the National Assembly now – at least by the leadership and some members – is that, it is, therefore, where the constitution only mentioned two-thirds of members, it is deemed to be two-thirds of members present provided the quorum has been formed.
This is the interpretation that is likely to guide the National Assembly in dealing with Sec. 58 (5) which states that “where the President withholds his assent and the bill is again passed by each House by two-thirds majority, the bill shall become law and the assent of the President shall not be required.
Already, the leadership of NASS is confident that it can muster the required number.
The amendment to the Electoral Act became the subject of contention largely because of the re-ordering of elections. The Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, had fixed the presidential election to kick start the polling season for February next year, but the NASS voted for an amendment to the Electoral Act where it re-ordered the sequence, pitching the federal legislative elections for and the presidential election last.
It is this new order, inserted in the Electoral Act, that has become so controversial because it is viewed, in some quarters, as being targeted at President Muhammadu Buhari.
However, a preponderant body of views is insisting that putting the legislative elections first, comes with the possibility of creating a rainbow legislative body, as against a national assembly that would derive membership from a bandwagon effect of the already emerged President whose election would have been concluded and, therefore, sway interests in favour of the President-elect’s party."

The constitution defines majority in some specific case and a quorum is just needed where there is no definition

Even 2/3 of members present in plenary, the APC will still not be able to impeach Saraki. Whatever way you look at it the APC has lost

Butterflyle0:



May God bless you for this.

PaChukwudi44 come and read and before you read, throw away mathematics from your head because that is not admissible in legal language escept when expressly mentioned.

Bros shebi na Tuesday? We shall see how the APC senators will form these quorum without their PDP counterparts and impeach the Senate president!! Is the reconvening only for APC senators? Shebi other senators will also attend? Let's see how they will impeach Saraki

PaChukwudi44:

Bros shebi na Tuesday? We shall see how the APC senators will form these quorum without their PDP counterparts and impeach the Senate president!! Is the reconvening only for APC senators? Shebi other senators will also attend? Let's see how they will impeach Saraki

All that is needed to form a quorum is 1/3 of the entire members of the house which in this case is about 36.

Once 36 senators gather then they have a quorum.

However for impeachment to happen they need to have a number in majority to the total number in the house. In this case, any number from 55 and above since the entire membership is 109.

With this 55 or above all they need is 2/3 votes from them and an impeachment goes into effect.

JusticeSeeker:
You simply refuse to be logical? It's highly improbable that an entire 109 senators will be at a sitting. Example, One is in jail right now, 2 seats are vacant as a result of death, on a good day, some may go abroad for official functions. Now, a decision made by those behind can't be legal because because it's not the entire 109 senators that took the decision. Is that your thinking? Guy get some sense.

. Do you know why signatures were taken and counted before motion of impeachment is moved?

PaChukwudi44:

Even 2/3 of members present in plenary, the APC will still not be able to impeach Saraki. Whatever way you look at it the APC has lost

You are still talking about 2/3 OF MEMBERS PRESENT IN PLENARY when that is not what the article you read says.

Smh na wa o.

It clearly showed you your ignorance and you are here still not understanding what it says.

durangokid:
The mistake most of you do is you bend the law to favour you whenever you want it to soothe you but when it later work against you,you will start forming bull in a ware shop. Like the case of Tambuwal in 2014 and Saraki in 2018

The PDP legal team during the Tambuwal couldn't have seen the loophole and used it for their own advantage. APC legal luminaries have found it and can utilize it. Saraki actually pointed to the hole and he will be kicked out through it. Remember Oshiomhole said they have precedence they can fall on. He is making reference to the number of votes that brought Saraki in. To the face of the law, the ⅔ majority is needed not ⅔ of the entire member of the house.

Saraki is jittery already. You can see him shouting on top of his voice that APC can't get ⅔ of the entire members of the house. He wants to deflect attention and that tactics won't work again. APC should just him impeached and we can argue the legality to Supreme court

PaChukwudi44:

Bros shebi na Tuesday? We shall see how the APC senators will form these quorum without their PDP counterparts and impeach the Senate president!! Is the reconvening only for APC senators? Shebi other senators will also attend? Let's see how they will impeach Saraki

Must it be Tues? Just watch nah

FOLYKAZE:


Must it be Tues? Just watch nah

So you are not ready to impeach Saraki yet you have been making noise all along? Why don't wait until you are ready before disturbing our cyberspace

Butterflyle0:


You are still talking about 2/3 OF MEMBERS PRESENT IN PLENARY when that is not what the article you read says.

Smh na wa o.

It clearly showed you your ignorance and you are here still not understanding what it says.

Since you do not need plenary why haven't you impeached him already lol.Abegi you guys should stop disturbing our cyberspace. Bunch of cowards