teufelein:
Just so you know...

...that in saner climes, any infringement by the chief executive of the country is punished by an Act of Parliament or by the Law. In Nigeria, there's absolutely no way of punishing the president! By the 1999 Constitution, the president is a god!!!
The only way to contain the Chief Executive is to report him to the US President and the British Prime Minister! Even at that, he's not compelled to listen to any of them (he might even send them back in body bags!). But YOU still believe in this useless Constitution? YOU are the problem!

The Constitution is the problem; we ought to be collectively fighting to have it discarded rather than chasing after politicians and their parties that implement that Book of Lucifer!

You are wrong. If the president violates the constitution or is guilty of treasonous acts or other criminal offences, then he can be impeached by the national assembly. And subsequently dealt with according to the law.

The constitution is far from perfect, but it isn't the reason why Nigeria is a mess.

Even if you have a perfect document sent down from heaven as the Nigerian constitution, implementation is what matters.

Nigerian politicians have found a way to misimplement the constitution. That's why it's difficult to prosecute corrupt officials, same reason why it's impossible to recall a senator or impeach the President.

Lack of proper implementation.

gidgiddy:


In military rule, there is no democracy or legislature. The issue of carrying people along does not come into it because if the military wanted that, they would conduct elections as soon as possible. The military governs by fiat. The Aburi agreement/meeting was to discuss the terms by which the 4 Regions would carry on existing as Nigeria until the return of civilian rule. The terms were discussed and agreed to and signed. Gowons job was to go back to Nigeria and start preparations to conduct elections. Gowon completely destroyed everything by going against the agreement he signed and this ultimately led to the war.

Wrong.

gidgiddy:


In military rule, there is no democracy or legislature. The issue of carrying people along does not come into it because if the military wanted that, they would conduct elections as soon as possible. The military governs by fiat. The Aburi agreement/meeting was to discuss the terms by which the 4 Regions would carry on existing as Nigeria until the return of civilian rule. The terms were discussed and agreed to and signed. Gowons job was to go back to Nigeria and start preparations to conduct elections. Gowon completely destroyed everything by going against the agreement he signed and this ultimately led to the war.

First and foremost, the independence constitution did not give room for military take over of government hence the military guys who took over together with the ones who were gathering themselves to Aburi had all committed treason in the first instance and should therefore have been under some form of punishment at that time in question. Therefore it was an insult on Nigerians that they were even the ones trying to make a new constiution for us without having explained to us why they subverted and destroyed the one we had drafted by ourselves as a sovereign people. So the rejection of Aburi Accord was partly in recognition of the fact that our sovereignty as a people rested squarely in our hands and not on the military which should not be found anywhere near political power but in the barracks or at the borders.

Secondly, how could they have gone to make agreements on the regional terms of coexistence pending the return of civil rule without reaching any agreement on exactly how and when that very civil rule would return? Was civil rule going to return by itself?

Deadlytruth:


First and foremost, the independence constitution did not give room for military take over of government hence the military guys who took over together with the ones who were gathering themselves to Aburi had all committed treason in the first instance and should therefore have been under some form of punishment at that time in question. Therefore it was an insult on Nigerians that they were even the ones trying to make a new constiution for us without having explained to us why they subverted and destroyed the one we had drafted by ourselves as a sovereign people. So the rejection of Aburi Accord was partly in recognition of the fact that our sovereignty as a people rested squarely in our hands and not on the military which should not be found anywhere near political power but in the barracks or at the borders.

Secondly, how could they have gone to make agreements on the regional terms of coexistence pending the return of civil rule without reaching any agreement on exactly how and when that very civil rule would return? Was civil rule going to return by itself?

You are talking from both sides of your mouth. You cannot give military rule a democratic face when you want. Military rule is not democratic and they don't represent the sovereign will of the people. Only someone democratically elected has any mandate to represent people.

In military rule, what officers are supposed to do is govern by decree while making preparations to return the country to civilian rule

What Gowon should have done is to keep to the agreement he signed in Aburi and beging the preparation for elections. Gowon cannot represent the sovereign will of the people, he was not elected. It is not for Gowon to come back to Nigeria and reject the agreement he signed on the excuse that the people don't like it, if the military cared about what people like, they would not sieze power in the first place. When civilian rule then returns, the elected representatives of the people can now decide the way foward.

But what did Gowon do? He abolished the 4 Regions that were constitutionally created by the people and created 12 states by decree. All the 36 states in Nigeria today were created by military decree, none of them were created by the sovereign will of the people.

But the Aburi accord kept the 4 constitutionally created Regions, in fact, the Aburi agreement respected the will of the people far more than Gowon who abolished the Regions

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol0003cE8CU

Xander85:


Bros, just ignore all the fools on here!

The ones on here that are actually Igbo and abusing Mazi Kanu don't have the wider interest of their people at heart, rather their intentions are a bit more self-centred as they think only of the elections and Atiku/Obi winning! They know within their hearts that even if Atiku/Obi manage to overcome the rigging machine the APC have placed before them and emerge eventual winners on the day, that nothing will change in relation to Ndigbo and their place in this cursed country!

Is anyone actually thinking that Atiku (even if he genuinely wants to) can see to the restructuring of the Nigerian polity in such a way that each region/state/ethnicity will be in control of their destiny (which is what the Biafran agitation is all about), and be free to use their resources as they deem fit, only paying a tax or remitting 50% proceeds to the centre?

.
Thanks

gidgiddy:



You are talking from both sides of your mouth. You cannot give military rule a democratic face when you want. Military rule is not democratic and they don't represent the sovereign will of the people. Only someone democratically elected has any mandate to represent people.

In military rule, what officers are supposed to do is govern by decree while making preparations to return the country to civilian rule

What Gowon should have done is to keep to the agreement he signed in Aburi and beging the preparation for elections. Gowon cannot represent the sovereign will of the people, he was not elected. It is not for Gowon to come back to Nigeria and reject the agreement he signed on the excuse that the people don't like it, if the military cared about what people like, they would not sieze power in the first place. When civilian rule then returns, the elected representatives of the people can now decide the way foward.

But what did Gowon do? He abolished the 4 Regions that were constitutionally created by the people and created 12 states by decree. All the 36 states in Nigeria today were created by military decree, none of them were created by the sovereign will of the people.

But the Aburi accord kept the 4 constitutionally created Regions, in fact, the Aburi agreement respected the will of the people far more than Gowon who abolished the Regions

You keep talking as if it was Gowon who started the whole problem.
If Ironsi had simply obeyed the intact sovereign constiution he met on ground by way of simply swearing in the Dipcharima presented by the ruling NNA coalition as replacement for Balewa, replacing the slain premiers with their deputies, and then returning to the barracks as a professional soldier; do you in all honesty think there would later have been any need for any one to go to Aburi to draft a new constiution let alone it being reneged upon by whoever?
Would the likes of Gowon, Murtala Muhammed, Obasanjo, Buhari, IBB, Abacha and all other military opportunists have ever had the opportunity to put Nigeria into this sorry state we still hopelessly grapple with till today? Why focus on the prognosis of a problem but ignore the root cause?
If Gowon committed havoc by reneging on the Aburi Accord which neither bore the seal of the people's sovereign approval nor came through a genuine universally recognized democratic process; then what do we say of Ironsi who, before Gowon came, had unilaterally destroyed the terms of coexistence which we ourselves unanimously agreed to and clearly spelt out in the sovereign independence constitution which drafting process he didn't even participate in at all?
Hasn't it ever occured to you that by his taking over power illegally and by his pioneership of the mutilation of the independence constitution, Ironsi actually laid the foundation for reneging on agreements thus getting everyone to believe that agreements, however solemnly made, were not really sacrosanct? Ironsi had already established the culture that agreements in Nigeria are not cast in stone hence future agreements do not necessarily need to be respected provided any of the parties to the agreement can later give 'cogent' excuses to breach them. Recall that Ironsi himself justified his breaching of our federal constiution by manufacturing the obviously false and unilateral excuse that federalism was promoting tribalism over nationalism. So Blame him, not Gowon.