budaatum:

I am disappointed that Kemi's nysc is not at least being investigated. My opinion, expressed on here somewhere, is that if she did fake it, then she might be faking other things, like cheques to steal our money, and for that reason, should be investigated, and if found in the wrong prosecuted, and if found guilty made to pay the fine. In "other climes" , she would have resigned already.

Whenever I'm in Nigeria, however, I am constantly informed that I can't be local government chairman, not that I intend to, mind. They tell me that when Kabiyesi tells me to bring the allocation, "let us share it" , or when the governor demands 90% be returned to the party, you will be talking oyinbo, say "that's not how it's done in other climes!"

"Buda! This is not 'other climes'! Dis na Naija!" They inform me.

As much as I wish we were better, we are not living by the rules of other climes! You will forgive me when I say I don't have idealic expectations where Nigeria is concerned! Nor do I expect perfection from Buhari. But he is better, in my opinion, than the alternatives.

Your opinion that he is better is based on perception rather than reality. I also do not have an unrealistic vision regarding our society. Personally I consider 'fighting corruption' a waste of time and resources. Not because I approve of corruption but because I feel that the purported fight tackles the symptoms and not the disease. One cannot successfully fight corruption until one has addressed the conditions that make corruption possible.

I indicated to you yesterday that nepotism is the other side of the coin of corruption. Once you run a government of my brother, by my brother and for my brother you inevitably provide the psychological conditions for sleaze to thrive. That's one reason why I say Buhari's anti corruption campaign is cheap bluster, a mere Opera show.
Pray tell me what Mr integrity has done to Babachir of the famed grass cutter contract? The hypocrisy is galling.

Me.all I.know is that since he.is helping them to kill the infidels they see him as a real and core Muslim hence their undying support it's an haram to support anyone values the life of infidels

Yes, my perception. And I was this very morning explaining to ma that it is an error commonly made for one to claim that how one sees things is how things actually are. We argued this over in the religious section where some people claim their perception is reality. Unfortunately, it's an error very common in us humans, and I am especially guilty as charged. I may be ignorant for instance, or biased, or blind! I sure am smart enough to select and present only information that supports my position. But you'd find I don't bother much. People are way too smart to be fooled by my selectivity! And I'll look foolish when I get busted.

Ignorance, in my opinion, is what makes corruption possible, for example. People are corrupt because they think its the only way to achieve their goals. The solution is to teach them the proper way to achieve goals. But then they have to not be ignorant in choosing goals so they have to be taught that too, and probably first. And when we're talking about the millions or so Nigerians, we're talking a whole heaps load of educating, which would take a generation or two. But I bet you have something else in mind regarding the causes of corruption. Nepotism, did you call it? You have a different perception on it, perhaps. And perceivably more valid than mine maybe. But there you go, different perceptions. We all have one.

In case it's not perceived by you, "my brother" is part of who we are, rather unfortunately. When I get into some office, everyone in the Orolu Kingdom would come begging for a job, and I will employ some of them, including my uncle's uneducated son who would not be satisfied if I make him my driver instead of 'Special Adviser for Transport, with a business card and all! And if I tell him his driving license is fake (it actually is!), I should expect to be attending the next Orolu Kingdom family meeting where the item on the agenda would be my failure to be nepotic. And ignorant people would inform me that I should promptly mend my ways or be labelled a bastard!

We will someday engineer that nonsense out of our dna, but the truth is, we haven't even begun yet. And accusing Buhari of it is denying everyone else who is equally culpable.

One correction. Not "Mr Integrity". But "Mr Much More Integrity Than Most Others".

Mujtahida:

Your opinion that he is better is based on perception rather than reality. I also do not have an unrealistic vision regarding our society. Personally I consider 'fighting corruption' a waste of time and resources. Not because I approve of corruption but because I feel that the purported fight tackles the symptoms and not the disease. One cannot successfully fight corruption until one has addressed the conditions that make corruption possible.

I indicated to you yesterday that nepotism is the other side of the coin of corruption. Once you run a government of my brother, by my brother and for my brother you inevitably provide the psychological conditions for sleaze to thrive. That's one reason why I say Buhari's anti corruption campaign is cheap bluster, a mere Opera show.
Pray tell me what Mr integrity has done to Babachir of the famed grass cutter contract? The hypocrisy is galling.

budaatum:
Yes, my perception. And I was this very morning explaining to ma that it is an error commonly made for one to claim that how one sees things is how things actually are. We argued this over in the religious section where some people claim their perception is reality. Unfortunately, it's an error very common in us humans, and I am especially guilty as charged. I may be ignorant for instance, or biased, or blind! I sure am smart enough to select and present only information that supports my position. But you'd find I don't bother much. People are way too smart to be fooled by my selectivity! And I'll look foolish when I get busted.

Ignorance, in my opinion, is what makes corruption possible, for example. People are corrupt because they think its the only way to achieve their goals. The solution is to teach them the proper way to achieve goals. But then they have to not be ignorant in choosing goals so they have to be taught that too, and probably first. And when we're talking about the millions or so Nigerians, we're talking a whole heaps load of educating, which would take a generation or two. But I bet you have something else in mind regarding the causes of corruption. Nepotism, did you call it? You have a different perception on it, perhaps. And perceivably more valid than mine maybe. But there you go, different perceptions. We all have one.

In case it's not perceived by you, "my brother" is part of who we are, rather unfortunately. When I get into some office, everyone in the Orolu Kingdom would come begging for a job, and I will employ some of them, including my uncle's uneducated son who would not be satisfied if I make him my driver instead of 'Special Adviser for Transport, with a business card and all! And if I tell him his driving license is fake (it actually is!), I should expect to be attending the next Orolu Kingdom family meeting where the item on the agenda would be my failure to be nepotic. And ignorant people would inform me that I should promptly mend my ways or be labelled a bastard!

We will someday engineer that nonsense out of our dna, but the truth is, we haven't even begun yet. And accusing Buhari of it is denying everyone else who is equally culpable.

One correction. Not "Mr Integrity". But "Mr Much More Integrity Than Most Others".

Let me for the sake of argument concede that Buhari has more integrity than others but I'd like you to know that that integrity has not spilled over into how he governs.

Mujtahida:

Let me for the sake of argument concede that Buhari has more integrity than others but I'd like you to know that that integrity has not spilled over into how he governs.

No, you must not concede for the sake of argument! You are doing me no favour in letting me continue to deceive myself, if that is what I'm doing. And consider too those who might just take my word for it, and whom I might be leading astray! You must check, and confirm please, for my perception might be wrong.

However, and for the sake of making a point. Atiku, for instance, and in my opinion, has no integrity whatsoever. Would our nation not be worse if he was President? Is a head with a bit of integrity not much better that one with none?

Mujtahida, I just got this sent to me.

Nobel laureate Prof. Wole Soyinka, calling former President Olusegun Obasanjo, a degenerate, liar, predator and sadist, has challenged him to swear whether he never awarded oil blocks in return for sexual gratification while he presided over the affairs of Nigeria.
Obasanjo awarded oil blocks for sex, says Wole Soyinka

In "other climes" , would Soyinka (a man I highly respect though I'm now reconsidering), not be dragged to court for defamation of Obasanjo's character (for whom I have no regard whatsoever), and fined heavily if he can't prove what he's claimed is true? But in the upside down Nigeria climes, see how he can make any unproven accusations he wants and ask the person he accused to come and prove him wrong!

I'd bet, sometime down the line, someone would drag this up and tell me to see how corrupt Obasanjo was and expect me to accept it because "respected Soyinka" said it!

budaatum:
Mujtahida, I just got this sent to me.

Nobel laureate Prof. Wole Soyinka, calling former President Olusegun Obasanjo, a degenerate, liar, predator and sadist, has challenged him to swear whether he never awarded oil blocks in return for sexual gratification while he presided over the affairs of Nigeria.
Obasanjo awarded oil blocks for sex, says Wole Soyinka

In "other climes" , would Soyinka (a man I highly respect though I'm now reconsidering), not be dragged to court for defamation of Obasanjo's character (for whom I have no regard whatsoever), and fined heavily if he can't prove what he's claimed is true? But in the upside down Nigeria climes, see how he can make any unproven accusations he wants and ask the person he accused to come and prove him wrong!

I'd bet, sometime down the line, someone would drag this up and tell me to see how corrupt Obasanjo was and expect me to accept it because "respected Soyinka" said it!

Did you not read this portion in the article in your link
“If I denounce you (Obasanjo) as a degenerate in need of help, remember that I do not require fiction. Verifiable truth is solemnly at my disposal.

Read more at: https://www.vanguardngr.com/2018/08/obasanjo-awarded-oil-blocks-for-sex-wole-soyinka/

The bolded is a assertion by Wole Soyinka. The burden now shifts to Obasanjo to dispute it. If he keeps mum, he'd be seen to have conceded to the assertion. And in other climes even here in Nigeria Wole Soyinka cannot be used for libel if like he says his assertion is based on verifiable truth at his disposal. He'd simply plead justification and that is sufficient defence to dismiss any action brought under the tort of defamation against him.
So the burden is on Obasanjo. That's how it works in law.

Mujtahida:

Did you not read this portion in the article in your link
“If I denounce you (Obasanjo) as a degenerate in need of help, remember that I do not require fiction. Verifiable truth is solemnly at my disposal.

Read more at: https://www.vanguardngr.com/2018/08/obasanjo-awarded-oil-blocks-for-sex-wole-soyinka/

The bolded is a assertion by Wole Soyinka. The burden now shifts to Obasanjo to dispute it. If he keeps mum, he'd be seen to have conceded to the assertion. And in other climes even here in Nigeria Wole Soyinka cannot be used for libel if like he says his assertion is based on verifiable truth at his disposal. He'd simply plead justification and that is sufficient defence to dismiss any action brought under the tort of defamation against him.
So the burden is on Obasanjo. That's how it works in law.

That is not how it works in the climes I live in. If you make defamatory accusations against me. I may drag you to court where you'd be require to provide evidence for your allegations, or recant and pay me damages. The only "justification that is valid is evidence in support of your claims, and not, you "think I did" or " probably did" what you alledge! But even if I don't drag you to court, it doesn't mean what you say is in any way true. And anyone who thinks it is on that basis is, well, not an evidence requiring atheist like I am, I guess.

In Nigeria, considering the ineptitude if our legal system, one can easily see why most would not bother suing. It is a reform that nation needs.

budaatum:

That is not how it works in the climes I live in. If you make defamatory accusations against me. I may drag you to court where you'd be require to provide evidence for your allegations, or recant and pay me damages. The only "justification that is valid is evidence in support of your claims, and not, you "think I did" or " probably did" what you alledge! But even if I don't drag you to court, it doesn't mean what you say is in any way true. And anyone who thinks it is on that basis is, well, not an evidence requiring atheist like I am, I guess.

In Nigeria, considering the ineptitude if our legal system, one can easily see why most would not bother suing. It is a reform that nation needs.

He said he has verifiable truth. Let Obasanjo take him to court. It's like a dare. Obasanjo should take it and let's see.

Tort of defamation is same in Nigeria and throughout the commonwealth. So I tell you that it has nothing to do with the ineptitude of our legal system. The only time Obasanjo will succeed in an action for defamation is if Wole Soyinka cannot proof his assertion. If he proves it, the case will fall flat.

So how do you know whether Soyinka has no evidence? Let Obasanjo sue na.

I am a practicing lawyer. Evidence is not decided by whether you are an atheist. It's of no consequence in law. Simple: Soyinka makes an assertion. If Obasanjo feels like it he should refute it. As it stands now the scale of probability tilts more in favour of Soyinka. An unchallenged assertion in law is deemed as an admission. Just got to let you know cos the way you mention atheist and evidence in one breath seems to me that you feel that as an atheist you are entitled to a special criteria in determining what is evidence. No Sir, you are not. Status has nothing to do with evidence. What Soyinka has said is an assertion which is very much acceptable in law (law of pleading). The burden I repeat is on Obasanjo.

Mujtahida:

An unchallenged assertion in law is deemed as an admission.

That is simply untrue. And no, atheism gives me no special qualification. I mention it to let you know how I consider evidence. But back on topic.

Anyone can assert anything they want and as much as they want but that does not make it true. Nor does an assertion become true because one does not challenge it! You could tell a lie, for instance, and I might refuse to respond to it, but that does not make your lies the truth

Obasanjo may sue Soyinka for libel, and I truly wish he would, though I'm not holding my breathe. It is indeed a dare, and if he sued, a can of worms would open up and we'd know the truth instead of being left to believe whatever we wished to. And if Obasanjo gave oil wells to people for whatever reason than is justifiable, we'd at least all know for certain that Obasanjo is a crook, and we'll get them back. But if I were Soyinka, and had proof that he did as he claims, you wouldn't be reading this in a paper. I would consider it my duty to drag Obasanjo to court myself and take back our goddamn oil well from the thieving lying bastard! It would show others they wouldn't get away with doing the same thing.

I'll wait and see who blinks on this.

budaatum:

That is simply untrue. And no, atheism gives me no special qualification. I mention it to let you know how I consider evidence. But back on topic.

Anyone can assert anything they want and as much as they want but that does not make it true. Nor does an assertion become true because one does not challenge it! You could tell a lie, for instance, and I might refuse to respond to it, but that does not make your lies the truth

Obasanjo may sue Soyinka for libel, and I truly wish he would, though I'm not holding my breathe. It is indeed a dare, and if he sued, a can of worms would open up and we'd know the truth instead of being left to believe whatever we wished to. And if Obasanjo gave oil wells to people for whatever reason than is justifiable, we'd at least all know for certain that Obasanjo is a crook, and we'll get them back. But if I were Soyinka, and had proof that he did as he claims, you wouldn't be reading this in a paper. I would consider it my duty to drag Obasanjo to court myself and take back our goddamn oil well from the thieving lying bastard! It would show others they wouldn't get away with doing the same thing.

I'll wait and see who blinks on this.

Go and ask any lawyer whether the bolded is true or not. That's all I can say. It is an established principle of law that an unchallenged and uncontroverted assertion is deemed admitted. Go ask any lawyer.

Mujtahida:

Go and ask any lawyer whether the bolded is true or not. That's all I can say. It is an established principle of law that an unchallenged and uncontroverted assertion is deemed admitted. Go ask any lawyer.

Unchallenged and uncontroverted assertions in a newspapers, Mujtahida? Isn't that the equivalent of me calling someone a thief in the market and our jungle justice of tyre and petrol?

Below is an example of what is true. It is much more than assertions in a paper! If this does not get before a judge, no subsequent judge on earth would accept Soyinka's current assertions as evidence of validity! This is what happened in the case below!

In M/V GONGOLA HOPE V. SMURFIT CASES LTD. (2007) 15 NWLR 189
ORALL FWLR (PT. 388) 1005 AT 1026, PARAS. C - H Per Ogbuagu, JSC reiterated thus:
''Where the evidence of a plaintiff is unchallenged and uncontroverted and particularly where the opposite party had the opportunity to do so, it is always open to the trial court seized of the matter to accept and act on such unchallenged and uncontroverted evidence before it. In such circumstances, the evidence before the court obviously goes one way with no other set of facts or evidence weighing against it. In other words, there is nothing in such a situation to put on the other side of the proverbial or imaginary scale of balance as against the evidence given by the plaintiff. The onus of proof is naturally discharged on a minimal of proof. In the instant case, the defendants led no evidence in support of their case, the Court of Appeal therefore rightly determined the matter based on evidence led by the plaintiffs.
SEE NWABUOKU V. OTTIH (1961) 1 NMLR 487; BALOGUN V. U.B.A. LTD. (1992) 6 NWLR (PT. 347) 336, (1992) 7 SCNJ 61; ODUNSI V.
BANGBALA (1995) 1 NWLR (PT. 374) 641, (1995) 1 SCNJ 275''

budaatum:

Unchallenged and uncontroverted assertions in a newspapers, Mujtahida? Isn't that the equivalent of me calling someone a thief in the market and our jungle justice of tyre and petrol?

Below is an example of what is true. It is much more than assertions in a paper! If this does not get before a judge, no subsequent judge on earth would accept Soyinka's current assertions as evidence of validity! This is what happened in the case below!

I am drawing equivalences and taking it further cos we talked about sueing. So if Obasanjo sues Soyinka, Soyinka's statement in that newspaper (which is an assertion) will be reduced into a pleading. If Obasanjo does not counter them, they will be deemed admitted. Facts admitted require no further prove. Were you not the one who mentioned defamation and sueing for libel? In your mind you thought it's simple abi. Well, in case you don't know defamation is very difficult to proof.

This is becoming tiresome.

As things stand now based on Soyinka's statements
that his assertions are based on verifiable truth and in the absence of any rebuttal by Obasanjo, the scales of believability tilt more in Soyinka's favor notwithstanding all this being in a newspaper. I don tire going round and round the same point.

Mujtahida:

So if Obasanjo sues Soyinka, Soyinka's statement in that newspaper (which is an assertion) will be reduced into a pleading. If Obasanjo does not counter them, they will be deemed admitted.

I agree. And the case for defamation is thrown out, and Soyinka can further sue for legal expenses incurred.

However, "it is not that simple" (sorry). Obasanjo's non-counter does not imply guilt. He can't be considered to have been found to be guilty (or to have pleaded guilty) before the law of any crime asserted by Soyinka on the above basis. A criminal court would not say the previous uncontested case implies guilt.

budaatum:

I agree. And the case for defamation is thrown out, and Soyinka can further sue for legal expenses incurred.

However, "it is not that simple" (sorry). Obasanjo's non-counter does not imply guilt. He can't be considered to have been found to be guilty (or to have pleaded guilty) before the law of any crime asserted by Soyinka on the above basis. A criminal court would not say the previous uncontested case implies guilt.

Hahahaha hahahaha. You want to talk law but defamation is a civil tort not a crime so the issue of guilt does not arise.
If the case is dismissed, Soyinka need not sue Obasanjo again. His lawyer will only just that the matter be dismissed with cost (money to be paid by Obasanjo if he looses).

Mujtahida:

Hahahaha hahahaha. You want to talk law but defamation is a civil tort not a crime so the issue of guilt does not arise.
If the case is dismissed, Soyinka need not sue Obasanjo again. His lawyer will only just that the matter be dismissed with cost (money to be paid by Obasanjo if he looses).

I am not a lawyer, so my choice of words might not be technical, even though some has rubbed off from dad who was.

We were discussing the "truth" of the assertions, and uncontested does not mean they are true. Soyinka wins in tort court if Obasanjo does not contest. But Obasanjo is still not deemed to have committed the crimes asserted against him in the eyes of the law. And the law does not, as far as I know sit on the pages of a newspaper. Obasanjo has to drag this case to tort court for the first instance to apply. And EFCC or the Attorney General has to drag him to Criminal court for the second. Though, I am wondering if Soyinka has any basis to instigate proceedings. I hope he does, and should.

budaatum:

I am not a lawyer, so my choice of words might not be technical, even though some has rubbed off from dad who was.

We were discussing the "truth" of the assertions, and uncontested does not mean they are true. Soyinka wins in tort court if Obasanjo does not contest. But Obasanjo is still not deemed to have committed the crimes asserted against him in the eyes of the law. And the law does not, as far as I know sit on the pages of a newspaper. Obasanjo has to drag this case to tort court for the first instance to apply. And EFCC or the Attorney General has to drag him to Criminal court for the second. Though, I am wondering if Soyinka has any basis to instigate proceedings. I hope he does, and should.

Let me simplify this thing for you. First there's no basis for anything criminal here. It is not a criminal offence for the president to give oil blocks in exchange for sex. So remove the issue of crime and guilt and whatever else pertains to criminal law.

Secondly the law is not necessarily concerned with truth but with believability. If my lies are more believable than your truth, the law will upload my case. Sounds immoral but this is what it is.

In very simple terms: Soyinka made assertions reported by newspapers. He said he has verifiable facts. If Obasanjo does not counter him then Bro regardless of whether what Soyinka said is true or not, Soyinka is likely to be believed. This is plain common sense.

The first to state is case appears right until another person comes and cross examines him (proverbs 17:18).
For now Soyinka appears right.

Mujtahida:
For now Soyinka appears right.

Your perception. And I can only say I am very jealous of your perceptual abilities! I myself need more than that to accept such appearances, as my eyes are perhaps not as capable of seeing as good as your's seem to do..

Mujtahida:
The first to state is case appears right until another person comes and cross examines him (proverbs 17:18).

I don't think I like your proverbs 17:18! It makes me wonder about those who die before they get to present their case!

My Proverbs 17:18 says: A man void of understanding striketh hands, and becometh surety in the presence of his friend.

My 18:17 is close though: In a lawsuit the first to speak seems right, until someone comes forward and cross-examines.

A person might indeed "seem" right because they spoke first, but I was told, and have since confirmed, that the person who speaks first might be biased or have an agenda or be lying or I might be stupid and not have understood correctly, and there's that imperfect perception of mine that often gets in the way making things "seem" as they aren't.

It it hence that I am rather strongly advised to not be too quick to judgement running off with half a story, and must come forward and cross-examine to have both sides of an argument to consider before I decide. It is also what I understand my 18:17 to be saying, by the way, and not how you seem to take it - advise to believe the first speaker!

I like more evidence before I go about claiming it is true that "Obasanjo gave oil fields for sex", is my point, despite what the Bible or Soyinka may say, even though I strongly dislike that stupid Ota man. And would like you to to be aware of this particular fault in me going forward (assuming this might be one of many engagements between us), that if you ever make such assertions on the evidence as we have here, I am likely to not accept it as valid, or the truth.

Your time has been most highly appreciated.

budaatum:

Your perception. And I can only say I am very jealous of your perceptual abilities! I myself need more than that to accept such appearances, as my eyes are perhaps not as capable of seeing as good as your's seem to do..


I don't think I like your proverbs 17:18! It makes me wonder about those who die before they get to present their case!

My Proverbs 17:18 says: A man void of understanding striketh hands, and becometh surety in the presence of his friend.

My 18:17 is close though: In a lawsuit the first to speak seems right, until someone comes forward and cross-examines.

A person might indeed "seem" right because they spoke first, but I was told, and have since confirmed, that the person who speaks first might be biased or have an agenda or be lying or I might be stupid and not have understood correctly, and there's that imperfect perception of mine that often gets in the way making things "seem" as they aren't.

It it hence that I am rather strongly advised to not be too quick to judgement running off with half a story, and must come forward and cross-examine to have both sides of an argument to consider before I decide. It is also what I understand my 18:17 to be saying, by the way, and not how you seem to take it - advise to believe the first speaker!

I like more evidence before I go about claiming it is true that "Obasanjo gave oil fields for sex", is my point, despite what the Bible or Soyinka may say, even though I strongly dislike that stupid Ota man. And would like you to to be aware of this particular fault in me going forward (assuming this might be one of many engagements between us), that if you ever make such assertions on the evidence as we have here, I am likely to not accept it as valid, or the truth.

Your time has been most highly appreciated.

You don't seem to get the simple point I am making: in the absence of a rebuttal by Obasanjo, Soyinka scales high on the graph of believability.

Mujtahida:

You don't seem to get the simple point I am making: in the absence of a rebuttal by Obasanjo, Soyinka scales high on the graph of believability.

I do get the simple point you are making. On your "graph of believability", Soyinka weighs more than Obj because he spoke first and baring any counter, while on my "graph of believability" they both measure the same, despite my very strong bias against Obj and barring much more evidence either ways.

My perception just differs to your's Mujtahida. Probably for reasons I stated in my previous et al.

Afamed:

The worst of them is Aminu Tambuwal. If he gets PDP Presidential ticket, definitely he can not defeat PMB. If he goes back to contest as Governorship candidate, his people are waiting to vote him out. He has really committed the greatest political blunder

lols , someone like Bukola , Atiku sef will nt want to work 4him because dey too want to get dat ticket too by force, it is d time 4 d chairman to get more money than b4