SUPERPACK:
but saraki was elected in the presence of of only 57 senators which is not up to 2/3 of the total 109 senators, so what did the law say about it?

Thanks for making me check. Been planning to since yesterday.

(a) a President and a Deputy President of the Senate, who shall be elected by the members of that House from among themselves; and

(b) a Speaker and a Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, who shall be elected by the members of that House from among themselves.

(2) The President or Deputy President of the Senate or the Speaker or Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives shall vacate his office -

(a) if he ceases to be a member of the Senate or of the House of Representatives, as the case may be, otherwise than by reason of a dissolution of the Senate or the House of Representatives; or

(b) when the House of which he was a member first sits after any dissolution of that House; or

(c) if he is removed from office by a resolution of the Senate or of the House of Representatives, as the case may be, by the votes of not less than two-thirds majority of the members of that House


It's a bit tricky here. It does not specify a number for election but a number for removal. Technically, the other senators chose to be absent and the election went on. Whoever crafted this constitution had Saraki in mind. Lol.

PaChukwudi44:

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

Why is confusion and lack of understanding your middle name?

You said 2/3 of members in Plenary and the article is telling you 2/3 majority and not 2/3 of members in plenary.

Na wa o

PaChukwudi44:

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

However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows.

Words from the bible.

What matters is that he will be impeached not necessarily when or how.

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

in law, if we have a situation where specific is mentioned in similar subject, any other item that is similar but with no specific is always treated solely as stated.
If the constitution says 2/3 majority of ALL members of the house in a section and says 2/3 majority of the house in another section, it means the ALL stated in the first instance cant be applied where it wasnt stated.
For the house to sit, there must be a quorum, and except otherwise stated, any decision made by a quorum is binding on the house, note that the house isnt members as individuals but as those present for the business of the chambers belong to.
2/3 majority of 1/3(quorum) can impeach the leaders, the only issue that wont make such feasible is that the mode of passing notice of sitting must be followed, so others are gonna be aware of any form of sitting even if they dont want them to, except they locked them out but the clerk must be there to get the records.

tiwiex:

Thanks for making me check. Been planning to since yesterday.

(a) a President and a Deputy President of the Senate, who shall be elected by the members of that House from among themselves; and

(b) a Speaker and a Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, who shall be elected by the members of that House from among themselves.

(2) The President or Deputy President of the Senate or the Speaker or Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives shall vacate his office -

(a) if he ceases to be a member of the Senate or of the House of Representatives, as the case may be, otherwise than by reason of a dissolution of the Senate or the House of Representatives; or

(b) when the House of which he was a member first sits after any dissolution of that House; or

(c) if he is removed from office by a resolution of the Senate or of the House of Representatives, as the case may be, by the votes of not less than two-thirds majority of the members of that House


It's a bit tricky here. It does not specify a number for election but a number for removal. Technically, the other senators chose to be absent and the election went on. Whoever crafted this constitution had Saraki in mind. Lol.

lol, we have one of the constitution with loose end in the world, Nigeria would have been a great place if we had/have a smart and selfless president, because there is so much powers and the house cant impeach him.

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

"MEMBERS OF THAT HOUSE" if you are a member of a family, even if you are not at home, wouldn't you be considered in the scheme of things?

deltaisgreat:
"MEMBERS OF THAT HOUSE" if you are a member of a family, even if you are not at home, wouldn't you be considered in the scheme of things?

It says 2/3 MAJORITY of the members of that house.

This means all the members of the house must not be present for decisions to be made. Only a majority in number to all the numbers in the house.

If a family has 6 members and there are 4 members present they can take a decision that would be binding on the 2 that are absent. That Is what the legal language in the constitution implies

It's really been proven that in order to be a member of APC, one has to lose his brain or at the very least, lower his iq.
2/3 majority of members of a house, a clear and explicit provision,is now subjected to varying forms of twists and gymnastics.
For those of you who genuinely don't know and want to learn,any question that requires a 2/3 majority of a legislature to settle, means 2/3 of the total membership of that house.They all don't have to be there, but once the required threshold is cleared, then the question is carried.
These have all been cleared up by the Supreme Court,for the idiots that are here supporting illegality in the hope things will later be tied up in court. See Peter Obi v Anambra HOA, Ladoja v Oyo HOA.

Nairaland really has gone to the dogs, ignoramuses everywhere,kids and adults with the iq of a jellyfish populating the space.
If only there were mods up to the task........

Butterflyle0:


Why is confusion and lack of understanding your middle name?

You said 2/3 of members in Plenary and the article is telling you 2/3 majority and not 2/3 of members in plenary.

Na wa o

So we should ignore our constitution and follow BMC article? Chai!!!

BTW who are the members of the house of Senate? How many are there? What is 2/3 majority of the house of Senate?

Butterflyle0:


It says 2/3 MAJORITY of the members of that house.

This means all the members of the house must not be present for decisions to be made. Only a majority in number to all the numbers in the house.

If a family has 6 members and there are 4 members present they can take a decision that would be binding on the 2 that are absent. That Is what the legal language in the constitution implies

If your brain can code that 2/3 of 6 is 4,can you give us 2/3 of 109 please?

Dhugal:

If your brain can code that 2/3 of 6 is 4,can you give us 2/3 of 109 please?

Read what i wrote again because your comment here shows you did not understand it

Butterflyle0:


Read what i wrote again because your comment here shows you did not understand it

Jellyfish, you either are ignorant or being deliberately obtuse.
From what you wrote,4 can make a decision for 6 cos 4 is 2/3 of 6.Less than 4 can't,resulting in an impasse.
Now,give of 2/3 of 109.
Simple mathematics

Dhugal:

Jellyfish, you either are ignorant or being deliberately obtuse.
From what you wrote,4 can make a decision for 6 cos 4 is 2/3 of 6.Less than 4 can't,resulting in an impasse.
Now,give of 2/3 of 109.
Simple mathematics

72 at least

Dhugal:

Jellyfish, you either are ignorant or being deliberately obtuse.
From what you wrote,4 can make a decision for 6 cos 4 is 2/3 of 6.Less than 4 can't,resulting in an impasse.
Now,give of 2/3 of 109.
Simple mathematics

That's not what I meant. I simply gave an example explaining what 2/3, MAJORITY of the members of the house meant in the constitution.

Do note the exclusive nature of the word MAJORITY and use of the language (2/3 of that)

I could also have cited the same example by saying if a family was made up of 109 members and 55 are present which according to the constitution forms not only a quorum but also THE MAJORITY of members of that house.

The constitution did not say MAJORITY OF ALL THE MEMBERS OF THAT HOUSE.

Neither did it say 2/3 MAJORITY OF THE ENTIRE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE.

It simply states that as long as the number present is more than half of the entire members then that becomes MAJORITY of the members of that house.

Be mindful of the commission of the words ALL and ENTIRE

2odd:

72 at least

72+.
Meaning APC needs 73 Senators,at least,to impeach Saraki.
This question has already been decided by the Supreme Court,which is why you don't see any APC Senator talking publicly,at least,of impeachment. Only minions and zombies,who don't know their right from their left.

Dhugal:
It's really been proven that in order to be a member of APC, one has to lose his brain or at the very least, lower his iq.
2/3 majority of members of a house, a clear and explicit provision,is now subjected to varying forms of twists and gymnastics.
For those of you who genuinely don't know and want to learn,any question that requires a 2/3 majority of a legislature to settle, means 2/3 of the total membership of that house.They all don't have to be there, but once the required threshold is cleared, then the question is carried.
These have all been cleared up by the Supreme Court,for the idiots that are here supporting illegality in the hope things will later be tied up in court. See Peter Obi v Anambra HOA, Ladoja v Oyo HOA.

Nairaland really has gone to the dogs, ignoramuses everywhere,kids and adults with the iq of a jellyfish populating the space.
If only there were mods up to the task........

You insult people here but display the highest level of ignorance and behave as if you've a Phd in illogicality. Your thinking isn't up to that of a child in the kindergarten class. How can you ever conceive that All members of the house will sit before their 2/3 will be counted for an impeachment of a senate president? In their normal legislative plenaries, is it always all that sit?

Dhugal:

72+.
Meaning APC needs 73 Senators,at least,to impeach Saraki.
This question has already been decided by the Supreme Court,which is why you don't see any APC Senator talking publicly,at least,of impeachment. Only minions and zombies,who don't know their right from their left.

Pls I need the link to those judgement

Dhugal:

72+.
Meaning APC needs 73 Senators,at least,to impeach Saraki.
This question has already been decided by the Supreme Court,which is why you don't see any APC Senator talking publicly,at least,of impeachment. Only minions and zombies,who don't know their right from their left.

Yeah you are right I actually forgot this has already been settled by the supreme court in the illegal impeachment of Peter obi, Ladoja and Dariye

Butterflyle0:


That's not what I meant. I simply gave an example explaining what 2/3, MAJORITY of the members of the house meant in the constitution.

Do note the exclusive nature of the word MAJORITY and use of the language (2/3 of that)

I could also have cited the same example by saying if a family was made up of 109 members and 55 are present which according to the constitution forms not only a quorum but also THE MAJORITY of members of that house.

The constitution did not say MAJORITY OF ALL THE MEMBERS OF THAT HOUSE.

Neither did it say 2/3 MAJORITY OF THE ENTIRE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE.

It simply states that as long as the number present is more than half of the entire members then that becomes MAJORITY of the members of that house.

Be mindful of the commission of the words ALL and ENTIRE

Solve this question,using simple BODMAS(Hope you remember/know what that is).
2/3(members of the house).
Where:
Membership of the house = 109
Good luck.
Note:There is no mention of quorum in S.50(2)c,and it is trite law that what is not mentioned in law is excluded.

JusticeSeeker:
You insult people here but display the highest level of ignorance and behave as if you've a Phd in illogicality. Your thinking isn't up to that of a child in the kindergarten class. How can you ever conceive that All members of the house will sit before their 2/3 will be counted for an impeachment of a senate president? In their normal legislative plenaries, is it always all that sit?

Another idiot on the loose.
I know thinking is a chore for your ilk,but comprehension too?
Lord have mercy

Dhugal:

Jellyfish, you either are ignorant or being deliberately obtuse.
From what you wrote,4 can make a decision for 6 cos 4 is 2/3 of 6.Less than 4 can't,resulting in an impasse.
Now,give of 2/3 of 109.
Simple mathematics

That dude is beyond redemption.They twisted an explicit constitutional provision to mean 2/3 of those present rather than 2/3 of the whole house.Having proved to them that even with that twist it will still be impossible to impeach Saraki,he is now grabbing at straws and trying to twist even the simplest letter in English language as if we are fools.I really feel sorry for them.Tuesday will come and go and Saraki will remain senate presient

Dhugal:

Solve this question,using simple BODMAS(Hope you remember/know what that is).
2/3(members of the house).
Where:
Membership of the house = 109
Good luck.
Note:There is no mention of quorum in S.50(2)c,and it is trite law that what is not mentioned in law is excluded.

bROS YOU SABI BOOK JOOR

PaChukwudi44:


bROS YOU SABI BOOK JOOR

Lol.
The CFRN,1999 as amended, may be flawed,but it's not 'rocket science' reading and comprehending it's explicit provisions.
I remember the days of arguing over Falana's contention that the administration can appoint Magu to full chairmanship of EFCC without going through confirmation. The zombies were out too,hailing the man and asking if I were a 'SAN' to know more than him.
Till this day,Magu is still acting.
Same rubbish we're now getting from Sagay.
If a man be in APC,he's a new creature.His brain are passed away,his intelligence become mush.

Dhugal:

Solve this question,using simple BODMAS(Hope you remember/know what that is).
2/3(members of the house).
Where:
Membership of the house = 109
Good luck.
Note:There is no mention of quorum in S.50(2)c,and it is trite law that what is not mentioned in law is excluded.

Stop being deliberately ignorant.

The constitution says 2/3 MAJORITY of the members of that house.

NOTE THE USE OF THE WORD MAJORITY

It did not say 2/3 of the members of that house.

Stop deliberately excluding the word MAJORITY

Butterflyle0:


Stop being deliberately ignorant.

The constitution says 2/3 MAJORITY of the members of that house.

NOTE THE USE OF THE WORD MAJORITY

It did not say 2/3 of the members of that house.

Stop deliberately excluding the word MAJORITY

so you do not understand the meaning of 2/3 majority as against the use of just majority? Bros you get serious problem.English you no sabi.Mathematics you no sabi na waoooo

Butterflyle0:


Stop being deliberately ignorant.

The constitution says 2/3 MAJORITY of the members of that house.

NOTE THE USE OF THE WORD MAJORITY

It did not say 2/3 of the members of that house.

Stop deliberately excluding the word MAJORITY

You keep showing yourself as a product of 'free education'.
I didn't exclude anything.Anywhere,any day,2/3 is a majority compared to remaining 1/3.
The text said 2/3 majority of members,not 2/3 OF majority of members.
Get back in class,and this time stay there and learn.
This will be the last I respond to you. You continually show yourself obtuse and unwilling to learn,even though you're a paid shill.I can see you're not a sharp tool at all,not to talk of being the sharpest in the shed

Dhugal:

You keep showing yourself as a product of 'free education'.
I didn't exclude anything.Anywhere,any day,2/3 is a majority compared to remaining 1/3.
The text said 2/3 majority of members,not 2/3 OF majority of members.
Get back in class,and this time stay there and learn.
This will be the last I respond to you. You continually show yourself obtuse and unwilling to learn,even though you're a paid shill.I can see you're not a sharp tool at all,not to talk of being the sharpest in the shed

exactly what I tried to explain to him.2/3 majority is not same as 2/3 of the majority.The dude is simply beyond redemption

Dhugal:

You keep showing yourself as a product of 'free education'.
I didn't exclude anything.Anywhere,any day,2/3 is a majority compared to remaining 1/3.
The text said 2/3 majority of members,not 2/3 OF majority of members.
Get back in class,and this time stay there and learn.
This will be the last I respond to you. You continually show yourself obtuse and unwilling to learn,even though you're a paid shill.I can see you're not a sharp tool at all,not to talk of being the sharpest in the shed

Its amazing how our educational system has so devolved to the levels you are at.

2/3 majority of the members of that house is interpreted thus.

Members of the house are 109
Majority of the members of the house means any number above half the total members of the house (this is majority OF the members of the house)

2/3 mentioned there is the vote required from that majority which is 55 and above.

Split the expressions apart!

As long as ALL OR ENTIRE were not inserted then by law it is not admissible as an expression defining ALL or the ENTIRE members of that house.

This is simple legal language and clearly a loophole in the constitution as stated by Sagay.

It said 2/3 MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS and not 2/3 MAJORITY OF ALL THE MEMBERS.

PaChukwudi44:

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

My friend, its too difficult to impeach a president ooo. All that will happen from him is to declare a curfew, create an emergency, arrest the Senate President for questioning and detain him. This is because the apparatus of cohesion is controlled by the president.

On the other side, the president can impeach the SP. He can use cohesion and the like. More so, after the whole hiccup, he can close the Red Chamber and ensure courts do not sits till after 2019.

The president of Nigeria is too powerful and we must thank GOD that neither GEJ nor PMB have used 15% of that power. PMB is a confirm gentleman so far.

PaChukwudi44:

exactly what I tried to explain to him.2/3 majority is not same as 2/3 of the majority.The dude is simply beyond redemption

You are totally confused.

You are the one who has been talking about 2/3 of the majority.

I have been drilling into your head that, that is not what the constitution said.

It said 2/3 majority of the members of that house.

There is no inclusive clause such as ALL or ENTIRE.

Read my expression and read yours and see who is clearly confused when placed side by side with the constitutional expression

PaChukwudi44:

exactly what I tried to explain to him.2/3 majority is not same as 2/3 of the majority.The dude is simply beyond redemption

I wonder what they're taught in school these days.
Even grasp of basic comprehension eludes him.
Not that I'm surprised,the jellyfish has existed millions of years without a brain.So,a son of man or two may fall through the cracks too.

FarahAideed:


Take this level of shallowness away from here please

Mr 'deep thinker'if you can stand the truth then.....