Did I just read Professor Sagay a Professor of Law say that the National Assembly has no powers to summon the President? He even went on to draw an analogy with the United Kingdom saying even the Parliament can't summon the Queen. Very faulty analogy. First of the Prime Minister is the Head of Government in the UK and is responsible policy creation and execution. The Queen has no business running through government. She's as good as a lameduck Head of state as Parliament has the absolute powers to remove her and even dissolve the Monarchy! That's how Constitutional law works in the UK. The Queen is at the mercy of Parliament and whatever 'powers ' she holds right now are purely cosmetic.

Professor Sagay should have instead compared the Nigerian situation with that of the United States that runs a similar type of government with us. Congress has in the past summoned Presidents to appear before investigative committees as did three sitting presidents — George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Gerald Ford — who have testified before Congress . Another — Woodrow Wilson — submitted to hours of committee questioning at the White House. Source- https://www.justsecurity.org/61535/congress-subpoena-trump-testify/

It is trite that he who takes the benefit also takes the burden. If in the case of Nigeria the President is responsible for the day to day administration of the country- there is no reason why the National Assembly should not be able to summon him If need arises. The Nigerian President shouldn't therefore enjoy the benefit of policy making and execution and then go on to refuse taking the burden of accountability to Nigeria and Nigerians

I concur.

johnmartus:
I concur.

True

Kzinne:
Did I just read Professor Sagay a Professor of Law say that the National Assembly has no powers to summon the President? He even went on to draw an analogy with the United Kingdom saying even the Parliament can't summon the Queen. Very faulty analogy. First of the Prime Minister is the Head of Government in the UK and is responsible policy creation and execution. The Queen has no business running through government. She's as good as a lameduck Head of state as Parliament has the absolute powers to remove her and even dissolve the Monarchy! That's how Constitutional law works in the UK. The Queen is at the mercy of Parliament and whatever 'powers ' she holds right now are purely cosmetic.

Professor Sagay should have instead compared the Nigerian situation with that of the United States that runs a similar type of government with us. Congress has in the past summoned Presidents to appear before investigative committees as did three sitting presidents — George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Gerald Ford — who have testified before Congress . Another — Woodrow Wilson — submitted to hours of committee questioning at the White House

It is trite that he who takes the benefit also takes the burden. If in the case of Nigeria the President is responsible for the day to day administration of the country- there is no reason why the National Assembly should not be able to summon him If need arises. The Nigerian President shouldn't therefore enjoy the benefit of policy making and execution and then go on to refuse taking the burden of accountability to Nigeria and Nigerians

In contrast, Congress failed in an attempt to compel testimony from former President Harry Truman during the Red Scare and McCarthy era.
Truman sent a letter to the committee on November 12 refusing to honor the subpoena on separation of powers grounds.


https://www.justsecurity.org/61535/congress-subpoena-trump-testify/

Have presidents ever testified under oath before Congress?

Yes, but exceedingly rarely and only as a voluntary matter.

A number of former presidents and vice presidents have testified in Congress, as has at least one sitting vice president. But three sitting presidents — George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Gerald Ford — have testified before Congress. Another — Woodrow Wilson — submitted to hours of committee questioning at the White House. All of them did so voluntarily rather than under legal compulsion.

When you make claims and do your half baked cut and paste stories, try as much as possible to do basic research, read and properly comprehend.

Truman did not honor congressional requests to testify siting the same executive privilege as used by many US presidents.

The ones that testified did so on voluntary basis, not based on legal compulsion, they did so on their own.

I hope you know the meaning of voluntary.

Stop listening to ignorant Nigerian TV SANs, they are all olodo upon 20, they miseducate and misinformed clueless Nigerians.

plaindealer:










When you make claims and do your half baked cut and paste stories, try as much as possible to do basic research, read and properly comprehend.

Truman did not honor congressional requests to testify siting the same executive privilege as used by many US presidents.

The ones that testified did so on voluntary basis, not based on legal compulsion, they did so on their own.

I hope you know the meaning of voluntary.

Stop listening to ignorant Nigerian TV SANs, they are all olodo upon 20, they miseducate and misinformed clueless Nigerians.

You have no idea what Constitutional law is . It's clear. First of the National Assembly can and should be able to summon the President as the need arises and it shouldn't be voluntary. In law arguments or precedents from other legal systems are persuasive and not BINDING - and so using the USA and UK situation are purely for comparative purposes and not BINDING on our legislators to follow. Nigerians are been slaughtered on a daily basis and the President who enjoys all the perks of office is refusing to appear before a National Assembly that represents all Nigerians- and you tell me that is ok?

The doctrine of neccesity should come into play here. The President should appear and tell Nigerian exactly what he is doing about the dire situation as it is now. If American s were slaughtered everryday do you think the US Congress will fold it's hands and watch on?

plaindealer:










When you make claims and do your half baked cut and paste stories, try as much as possible to do basic research, read and properly comprehend.

Truman did not honor congressional requests to testify siting the same executive privilege as used by many US presidents.

The ones that testified did so on voluntary basis, not based on legal compulsion, they did so on their own.

I hope you know the meaning of voluntary.

Stop listening to ignorant Nigerian TV SANs, they are all olodo upon 20, they miseducate and misinformed clueless Nigerians.

and I don't copy and paste stories. Go and read my article properly to understand this viewpoint cos you not making any sense. Live with it.

Kzinne:
You have no idea what Constitutional law is . It's clear. First of the National Assembly can and should be able to summon the President as the need arises and it shouldn't be voluntary. In law arguments or precedents from other legal systems are persuasive and not BINDING - and so using the USA and UK situation are purely for comparative purposes and not BINDING on our legislators to follow. Nigerians are been slaughtered on a daily basis and the President who enjoys all the perks of office is refusing to appear before a National Assembly that represents all Nigerians- and you tell me that is ok?

The doctrine of neccesity should come into play here. The President should appear and tell Nigerian exactly what he is doing about the dire situation as it is now. If American s were slaughtered everryday do you think the US Congress will fold it's hands and watch on?

[quote]In contrast, Congress failed in an attempt to compel testimony from former President Harry Truman during the Red Scare and McCarthy era.
Truman sent a letter to the committee on November 12 refusing to honor the subpoena on separation of powers grounds.


https://www.justsecurity.org/61535/congress-subpoena-trump-testify/

Stop passing off your own personal opinion as fact and the last time I checked, should and can are disposable words, they are not grounded in facts and realities.

I just gave you instances where an American president refused and rejects summons by the congress while siting executive privilege.

Was he arrested, was he taken to court, was he sanctioned for contempt of congress? No.

Or your own constitution or democracy is better than American democracy?

The presidents that showed up did so voluntarily, not compelled to by the congress.

If you are going to argue, do so with facts and precedents. Your opinion is your own personal opinion, not constitutional facts.

So it's now a big issue to go to national assembly to answer question?

Kzinne:
and I don't copy and paste stories. Go and read my article properly to understand this viewpoint cos you not making any sense. Live with it.

Wilson invited the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to convene at the White House in order to promote the League of Nations and passage of the Treaty of Versailles. Tantamount to a field hearing,

The names, references and link you posted were copied and pasted from the same website that I referenced.


You Wilson example actually proved my point because he refused to go to the congress, he instructed them to meet him at the white house, he basically sent them on a field trip.

American presidents don't pay attention to summons buy the congress, they even prevent white house officials from testifying before congress, Trump didn't even show up for his own impeachment so what's the deal about PMB not going to NASS? Is your constitution better than American constitution or is your democracy better than American democracy where presidents gives the congress the middle finger and where they don't even let officials from the white house honor congressional requests and testimonies?

plaindealer:

what do you mean by constitutional facts? These aren't my opinions these are facts. Right now there's no where in the Nigerian constitution dealing with the summoning of the President apart from where he presents a budget. Like I earlier stated referencing other countries isn't binding on our legislators. The best the President can do is to go to court for an interpretation.

Your argument us faulty and baseless. You mean the National Assembly can actually impeach the President which means sack him from office but can't summon him? What a joke. The National Assembly is so powerful that it can with the concurence of about 24 state houses of assembly dissolve the office of the President and the Presidential system as a whole. Live with it

Kzinne:
what do you mean by constitutional facts? These aren't my opinions these are facts. Right now there's no where in the Nigerian construction dealing with the summoning of the President apart from where get presents a budget. Like u said referencing other countries isn't binding on our legislators. The best the President can do us to go to court for an interpretation.

Your argument us faulty and baseless. You mean the National Assembly can actually impeach the President which means sack him from office but can't summon him? What a joke. The National Assembly is so powerful that it can with the concurence of about 24 state houses of assembly dissolve the office of the President and the Presidential system as a whole. Live with it

I was expecting you to show is where in the constitution you obtained your facts from, but as usual, it's just your own personal opinion.

Impeachment and summons are 2 different things, Trump was impeached, but the congress couldn't make him show up, Trump even kept his officials away from congress by rejecting their summons.

I'm

plaindealer:



I was expecting you to show is where in the constitution you obtained your facts from, but as usual, it's just your own personal opinion.

Impeachment and summons are 2 different things, Trump was impeached, but the congress couldn't make him show up, Trump even kept his officials away from congress by rejecting their summons.

If you want classes on Constitutional law say it and stop beating about the bush. I've taught students who some are on PhDs as we speak. This is no personal opinion. It is trite law. If you have no understanding the powers of the National Assembly go ahead and ask. Why do you think the Constitution starts with 'We the People'. The National Assembly is the Sovereign. The real sovereign and not even the President. The National Assembly can annul the Constitution and create a new one. Even if the President goes to court for an interpretation and the court rules in it's favor- the National Assembly can amend the Constitution which will now compel the President to if it likes appear before the National Assembly on a daily basis