kasiem:

how can u say that Rochas is ordinary man on the street when he has received the certificate of returns from inec as the new governor of imo state? Man, as far as nigeria is concern, Rochas is the new governor of the state, just that we are wait for official and ceremonial transition to come up. Okay, if u are insinuating that we go through the beaureacracies attached to our constitution that means that u can support the military commander incharge of kano that allowed mayhem to thrive with the claim that he never got any directive from the fg. How does that sound reasonable, when the lives have been lost? Sometimes, we need to act beyond the scopes of the laid down laws when the case involved need to be treated with high exigency. Okay, why didn't the USA government inform their pakistan counterpart before invading Osama's hideout?

Bros, again you are citing ridiculous and unparallel analogies. Firstly, the action of commander in-charge of brigade in Kano State amounts to dereliction of duty. When an officer is graduating from NDA or any military academy, he or she swears an oath to defend the lives and properties of Nigerian both internally and externally. In situation exhibited in Kano, the commanding officer should not wait for orders to come from force headquarters in order to spring into action. If the officer’s excuse of no actions is based on lack of order from the above, the officer has no business in the armed forces of Nigeria. At least in this scenario, the officer had sworn an oath during passing out ceremony but Okoracha has not sworn an oath of office yet.

Secondly, there is a UN resolution that calls for “self-defense”. Since Osama Bin Laden had been allegedly precipitated attack on the USA, the aforementioned UN resolution allows USA to pursue Osama Bin Laden anywhere possible. Again, I do not know the section of Imo State statutory code that allows ordinary citizen of the state such Okorocha to embark on such reckless endeavor. Okorocha has not been sworn-in as governor and allegedly breaching laws and protocols already. What would happen when his is finally sworn in as governor of Imo State? I say God save Imo State.

@ Dede: I feel your pain. I am a lawyer myself, and it certainly does rile that the application of the rule of law in Nigeria remains in the woods.

However I think that you expect an utopia. You need to recognise that systems and institutions within a society take time to evolve. When the systems are poorly developed there will be anomalies - and in many cases it might take outrightly unorthodox methods to acheive otherwise salutary ends. This occurs when the system is still run largely on jungle justice - and it will be naive for the ideological purist to imagine that recourse to legal propriety alone would resolve the drastic situations that arise within the jungle.

Ours is still a jungle, and it will take sustained effort over time to advance from that point.

However where jungle tactics are still in force, it may take jungle measures to deal with such behaviour.

Study Niccolo Maciavelli's works.

You will find that the greater interest of society is not always met by puristic legalism.

Dede1:


Secondly, there is a UN resolution that calls for “self-defense”. Since Osama Bin Laden had been allegedly precipitated attack on the USA, the aforementioned UN resolution allows USA to pursue Osama Bin Laden anywhere possible.

You are wrong sir. If we are to be legalistic and puristic about it, whilst Osama may be viewed as an enemy combatant, the state of Pakistan is not legally so classed: and as such the invasion of Pakistani airspace remains illegal to the extent that it was done without the express consent of the Pakistani Government. The proper legal process would have been to proceed with the permission and co-operatoion of the authouries within that country.

However we all know that following such puristic legalism would have been fool-hardy of the US.

This seals the point that in extra-ordinary circumstances it is unreasonable to expect recourse to strictly legal methods when it is crucial to acheive an over-arching positive benefit. Osama's case is a prime example.

Edit.

Deep Sight:

@ Dede: I feel your pain. I am a lawyer myself, and it certainly does rile that the application of the rule of law in Nigeria remains in the woods.

However I think that you expect an utopia. You need to recognise that systems and institutions within a society take time to evolve. When the systems are poorly developed there will be anomalies - and in many cases it might take outrightly unorthodox methods to acheive otherwise salutary ends. This occurs when the system is still run largely on jungle justice - and it will be naive for the ideological purist to imagine that recourse to legal propriety alone would resolve the drastic situations that arise within the jungle.

Ours is still a jungle, and it will take sustained effort over time to advance from that point.

However where jungle tactics are still in force, it may take jungle measures to deal with such behaviour.

Study Niccolo Maciavelli's works.

You will find that the greater interest of society is not always met by puristic legalism.

Nigeria embarked on curbing excesses of jungle justice by adopting the system of government know as democracy. Bros believe it or not, precedents are major tools of change.

The alleged Okorocha’s action does not set a good precedent for Imo State. In fact in the next for years, governor-elect might want to place Okorocha in a house arrest so that Imo State treasury should be safe before the new governor is sworn-in. I am completely lost for words to note there are well articulated individuals of Imo State and Nigeria willing to cut Okorocha some slacks on this issue.

^^^ Well I certainly am not cutting him slack bro. I am articulating the fact that systems evolve over time. Whilst that process takes its haul, there will always be instances of jungle logic. Such jungle logic will not be addressed by puristic legalism.

If I am to follow your logic, i might very well say that the UN accords on sovereignty were developed exactly to curb jungle laws, no? Yet it was apt for the United States to set aside such purism in pursuit of a cardinal greater good, no?

Deep Sight:

You are wrong sir. If we are to be legalistic and puristic about it, whilst Osama may be viewed as an enemy combatant, the state of Pakistan is not legally so classed: and as such the invasion of Pakistani airspace remains illegal to the extent that it was done without the express consent of the Pakistani Government. The proper legal process would have been to proceed with the permission and co-operatoion of the authouries within that country.

However we all know that following such puristic legalism would have been fool-hardy of the US.

This seals the point that in extra-ordinary circumstances it is unreasonable to expect recourse to strictly legal methods when it is crucial to acheive an over-arching positive benefit. Osama's case is a prime example.

I intended to lean towards the issue of respect for Pakistani air space or lack thereof. However, Pakistan had expressed total lack of knowledge about Osama Bin Laden’s presence in Pakistan. Since Osama Bin Laden had also disregarded the Pakistani sovereign status by driving illegally into Pakistan with armed bandits, I guess the USA has reserved legal audacity according to UN resolution to chase him into Pakistan.

Dede1:


Bros, again you are citing ridiculous and unparallel analogies. Firstly, the action of commander in-charge of brigade in Kano State amounts to dereliction of duty. When an officer is graduating from NDA or any military academy, he or she swears an oath to defend the lives and properties of Nigerian both internally and externally. In situation exhibited in Kano, the commanding officer should not wait for orders to come from force headquarters in order to spring into action. If the officer’s excuse of no actions is based on lack of order from the above, the officer has no business in the armed forces of Nigeria. At least in this scenario, the officer had sworn an oath during passing out ceremony but Okoracha has not sworn an oath of office yet.

Secondly, there is a UN resolution that calls for “self-defense”. Since Osama Bin Laden had been allegedly precipitated attack on the USA, the aforementioned UN resolution allows USA to pursue Osama Bin Laden anywhere possible. Again, I do not know the section of Imo State statutory code that allows ordinary citizen of the state such Okorocha to embark on such reckless endeavor. Okorocha has not been sworn-in as governor and allegedly breaching laws and protocols already. What would happen when his is finally sworn in as governor of Imo State? I say God save Imo State.

and was there any place in the UN constitution that acknowledged respect for sovereignty of a state? Yes, how can USA use the self defence on a man that was unarmed as at the time the attacked him, they should've arrested the man the same way they arrested saddam, but, they saw the vulnerability of trying to harbor such a man in their custody, so they applied the jungle justice based on the unwritten law of neccessity. 2ndly, the swearing of oath in nigeria before becoming known as an elected official is not all what u need before administering ur responsibilities, rather the nigerian constitution that made it that political power belongs to the electorates and can be gotten through the election. So, whenever u've gotten that mandate from the people it is left for u to discharge ur responsibilities not waiting for the judges "who constitute a small section in the society", to perform their ceremonial function of oath administration. Afterall, we've had leaders in the past who have taken the oath office without the mandate of the people. In this case what we should consider to be prior is the interest of the people.

Dede1:


I intended to lean towards the issue of respect for Pakistani air space or lack thereof. However, Pakistan had expressed total lack of knowledge about Osama Bin Laden’s presence in Pakistan. Since Osama Bin Laden had also disregarded the Pakistani sovereign status by driving illegally into Pakistan with armed bandits, I guess the USA has reserved legal audacity according to UN resolution to chase him into Pakistan.

I like that term you have just used: "reserved legal audacity" - - - that says it all. In that term alone, you yourself have acceded that which i set out above to you: namely that jungle tactics are not always addressed by puristic legalism.

By the way, there is no UN resolution that authourises the invasion of Pakistani airspace - especially when Pakistan is supposedly an ally. If Pakistan claimed ignorance of Bin Laden's whereabouts, the legal thing to do would have been to inform them and seek their permission and co-operation. I am just trying to make you see that if you are to be strictly legalistic, then you cannot justify the invasion of the Pakistani airspace - for the exact reason that the state of Pakistan itself is not a declared enemy, etc.

Thus puristic legalism is not always apt for moral situations. That is the point i seek to make.

I do not want to even go into the other aspects of the legality of the whole Osama operation. The man was unarmed and yet shot dead for supposedly resisting arrest. That has to be a joke, right? It will serve no purpose to start a debate on that. Suffice to say that strict legality would be futile in jungle situations.

The sort of looting that goes on in Nigeria, I dare say, oft qualifies as a jungle situation.

maddock (m)
Posts: 355

Offline

Re: Okorocha Freezes Imo Accounts
« #29 on: Yesterday at 10:49:16 AM »
@mbulele and blacksta
I quite agree with you it is very wrong but a situation where high level corruption and looting is the order of the day, this measure is a welcome one. You will be amaze at the various memos for contract being backdated and the money collected all the bid to steal as much as possible. Majority of them politicians in nigeria are mentally unbalanced. Did you not read about the Bankole loan issues that surfaced this week, what is the outcome of the mata i can very well bet my last pence that it has been swept under the carpet. Lots of illegality are being perpetrated on a daily and if you wait to counter them the legal way it might just be too late.

High-level corruption or not, a civilian has no such power. So this story is likely bogus.

Deep Sight:

I like that term you have just used: "reserved legal audacity" - - - that says it all. In that term alone, you yourself have acceded that which i set out above to you: namely that jungle tactics are not always addressed by puristic legalism.

By the way, there is no UN resolution that authourises the invasion of Pakistani airspace - especially when Pakistan is supposedly an ally. If Pakistan claimed ignorance of Bin Laden's whereabouts, the legal thing to do would have been to inform them and seek their permission and co-operation. I am just trying to make you see that if you are to be strictly legalistic, then you cannot justify the invasion of the Pakistani airspace - for the exact reason that the state of Pakistan itself is not a declared enemy, etc.

Bros, we shall try not to intertwine the issues of USA/Pakistan/Osama Bin Laden and Okorocha/Imo State/Ohakim. I guess UN article 51 granted instances of self defense to its member nations.

Haba Governor elect

"THE ONLY THING NECESSARY FOR THE SUSTENANCE OF EVIL IS FOR THE GOOD PEOPLE TO DO NOTHING"

Where in the Nigerian Constitution is a Governor-elect prohibited from issuing orders "in the public interest".

After casting their votes, how far away from the ballot boxes were voters expected to stay back to "defend their

votes"? What did we see? Why did they have to wait?

Leave Okorocha alone o. There is no point allowing the outgoing Governor to siphon State money only to start

chasing him around like Ibori. A stitch in time saves nine, even if you use black thread over a white cloth.

Shebi them say: cunny man die cunny man bury am

Dede1:

Bros, we shall try not to intertwine the issues of USA/Pakistan/Osama Bin Laden and Okorocha/Imo State/Ohakim. I guess UN article 51 granted instances of self defense to its member nations.

Self Defense against agressors. Pakistan is not an Aggressor against the USA - CERTAINLY NOT IN A DECLARED LEGAL SENSE.

If anything, both countries are supposedly allies. Thus your argument in that regard must fail.

Kobojunkie:


High-level corruption or not, a civilian has no such power. So this story is likely bogus.

You are often so idealistic, it is at once admirable and sad. You are being entirely naive.

Dede1:

Bros, we shall try not to intertwine the issues of USA/Pakistan/Osama Bin Laden and Okorocha/Imo State/Ohakim. I guess UN article 51 granted instances of self defense to its member nations.

no, there is need to juxtapose the two cases for it to bring a clearer view of the need for law of necessity. The two cases are related in such a way that they pertain to the welfare of the masses, if u try unjustifying Rochas' stance with the claim that he has not taken the oath of office, that means there is every tendency for claim that the vice president shouldn't be allowed to preside over affairs in the absence of the president cos he's not having the full powers of the president (as we saw during the yar'dua saga)

Dede1:

Bros, we shall try not to intertwine the issues of USA/Pakistan/Osama Bin Laden and Okorocha/Imo State/Ohakim. I guess UN article 51 granted instances of self defense to its member nations.

no, there is need to juxtapose the two cases for it to bring a clearer view of the need for law of necessity. The two cases are related in such a way that they pertain to the welfare of the masses, if u try unjustifying Rochas' stance with the claim that he has not taken the oath of office, that means there is every tendency for claim that the vice president shouldn't be allowed to preside over affairs in the absence of the president cos he's not having the full powers of the president (as we saw during the yar'dua saga)

^^^ You have given Dede two indisputable instances that prove that puristic legality is not always morally or practically expedient. The Osama execution and the acting presidency of Jonathan are cases in point. Well articulated sir.

I Love the argument, just trying to learn more from the elderly ones like u guys.

Freezing of accounts: Your action is illegal, Imo govt tells Okorocha
By Okorie Uguru 22 hours 20 minutes ago
Font size:

The Imo State government has slammed the state’s governor-elect, Chief Rochas Okorocha, for instructing the state government’s bankers not honour cheques from the current government of Chief Ikedi Ohakim until after the handover on May, 29.




In a release signed by the state’s Commissioner for Information, Mr. Elvis Agukwe, the government described the action as illegal as order was being issued from ‘the Office of the Governor-Elect’ which does not exist in the Nigerian constitution and that the action was causing tension in the state.

According to the statement, Chief Okorocha’s order was passed to the banks through his Chief of Staff, one Prince Eze Madumere.


The state said further: "The action of Chief Okorocha is already grinding government machinery to a halt. As I talk to you now, civil servants in the state are becoming restive because the banks, evidently acting under the instruction of Chief Okorocha, have refused to release cheques for their April salaries. Yet Chief Okorocha and his handlers are sending out text messages, telling the civil servants that salaries cannot be paid because the governor used all the money for his campaigns."


The statement further said that aides of Chief Okorocha with a Senator recently went to the office of the Imo Broadcasting Corporation (I.B.C) to ransack computers and files in search of contract papers on projects handled at the corporation in the last four years."




The Imo State government described the actions as acts of perfidy and unconstitutional as there is no office of the governor-elect in the Nigerian constitution, saying the state government was unafraid of probe, but that the Chief Okocha should do that only when he assumes office on May 29.

bamosagie:

Freezing of accounts: Your action is illegal, Imo govt tells Okorocha
By Okorie Uguru 22 hours 20 minutes ago
Font size:   

The Imo State government has slammed the state’s governor-elect, Chief Rochas Okorocha, for instructing the state government’s bankers not honour cheques from the current government of Chief Ikedi Ohakim until after the handover on May, 29.




In a release signed by the state’s Commissioner for Information, Mr. Elvis Agukwe, the government described the action as illegal as order was being issued from ‘the Office of the Governor-Elect’ which does not exist in the Nigerian constitution and that the action was causing tension in the state.

According to the statement, Chief Okorocha’s order was passed to the banks through his Chief of Staff, one Prince Eze Madumere.


The state said further: "The action of Chief Okorocha is already grinding government machinery to a halt. As I talk to you now, civil servants in the state are becoming restive because the banks, evidently acting under the instruction of Chief Okorocha, have refused to release cheques for their April salaries. Yet Chief Okorocha and his handlers are sending out text messages, telling the civil servants that salaries cannot be paid because the governor used all the money for his campaigns."


The statement further said that aides of Chief Okorocha with a Senator recently went to the office of the Imo Broadcasting Corporation (I.B.C) to ransack computers and files in search of contract papers on projects handled at the corporation in the last four years."




The Imo State government described the actions as acts of perfidy and unconstitutional as there is no office of the governor-elect in the Nigerian constitution, saying the state government was unafraid of probe, but that the Chief Okocha should do that only when he assumes office on May 29.

this is funny. why can't Ohakim the simply issue a counter order, directing the banks to disregard that of Okorocha? The former is, after all, still the substantive governor.

Mai Suya:

this is funny. why can't Ohakim the simply issue a counter order, directing the banks to disregard that of Okorocha? The former is, after all, still the substantive governor.

he(ohakim) is no more popular among the people that he's ruling, so they're just regarding as a governor for formality sake that's are not finding it reasonable take orders from a person who has less than 20 days to stay.

Experience is the best teacher, after previous handover in this democratic dispensation Okoracha did what he has to, unfortunately for Ohakim the banks knows they will have to deal with Rochas after may 29, common sense dictate whose instruction the banks are interested in.

Reading a lot of these comments makes me sad for Nigeria. No matter how good it sounds, an illegality is an illegality. No one should ever justify it because it might look like a good thing today but become the bases for disaster tomorrow. The law must be strictly kept at all times. If Rochas is sworn in and wants to probe Ohakim, he if free to but you people should never ever support things done outside our constitution because you will be supporting something that someone will use tomorrow to cause immense damage. The so called doctrine of necessity is not a good thing for the same reason. Rochas should not lay a bad precedence. All those who tend to act illegally in the guise of concern for the people always end up wrongly. Check history. From Stalin to Napoleon to Hitler to Buhari. The constitution should always be supreme.

@ediclove, dont be sad at all. The paramount thing in this matter whether the policy was generally accepted by the people and there's no way that a law accepted by the people being governed be justified as illegal,cos legitimacy is being acquired through the popular acceptance of a policy by the people. Okay, in that case obama is guilty of murder, for killing a perceived criminal without going through the due legal process. The rule of law states that someone until proven guilty by a court of law is still a suspect, but the USA government charged osama to any for any offence and they killed him.

edicolove:

Reading a lot of these comments makes me sad for Nigeria. No matter how good it sounds, an illegality is an illegality. No one should ever justify it because it might look like a good thing today but become the bases for disaster tomorrow. The law must be strictly kept at all times. If Rochas is sworn in and wants to probe Ohakim, he if free to but you people should never ever support things done outside our constitution because you will be supporting something that someone will use tomorrow to cause immense damage. The so called doctrine of necessity is not a good thing for the same reason. Rochas should not lay a bad precedence. All those who tend to act illegally in the guise of concern for the people always end up wrongly. Check history. From Stalin to Napoleon to Hitler to Buhari. The constitution should always be supreme.

@kasiem

@ediclove, dont be sad at all. The paramount thing in this matter whether the policy was generally accepted by the people and there's no way that a law accepted by the people being governed be justified as illegal,cos legitimacy is being acquired through the popular acceptance of a policy by the people. Okay, in that case obama is guilty of murder, for killing a perceived criminal without going through the due legal process. The rule of law states that someone until proven guilty by a court of law is still a suspect, but the USA government charged osama to any for any offense and they killed him.

This is the very reason constitutions are made. You are contradicting yourself and putting yourself in bondage by these kind of statements. You can never make a law based on people sentiments. there are consequences for laws. that is why a body has to sit and deliberate to pass a law. you dont consider something a good thing just because the people are happy with it. The same people could turn around tomorrow and detest it. a country not governed by the rule of law will always fail and sometimes with serious consequences. Ojukwu fought for a good cause in 1967 and had the backing of the people but the consequences are still being felt. if there had been a long deliberation, maybe the approach would have been different. Those who perpetuate jungle justice will themselves turn out to be victims of it. It is just like you justifying the murder of a thief by a mob. you forget tomorrow it might be your brother.

Again you contradict yourself, because by your assertion, even Ohakim is innocent until proven guilty. the law must be applied to all in the same measure otherwise there is no justice. the assumption by anyone including Rochas that Ohakim is guilty is wrong as far as the law goes.

@edicolove, i dont think that u understood my point very well. I put up that quote on rule of law to show u how the USA government went wrong with the way the killed osama but due the doctrine of necessity they are been considered to be right. When making laws there are provisions being made for the doctrine of necessity to come into play in places were the law fail to adequately address and also in times of emergency. So, this kind of case can be tackled as an emergency owing to the depleting state of the account and the need to save it from total collapse and law having failed to address such issues means that there's need for that law of necessity. Yea, laws of necessity are not made to last for a long period but for cases of urgency, and there's no way that the populace will become disenchanted with it cos they were the ones that accepted it for that period. Another thing is that the war that Ojukwu fought( though it's still being felt) saved the igbos a greater disaster, if the igbos never reacted in the face of the genocide that was going on in the north then, there would've been far more casualties that we recorded.

It might have been a necessary evil act. The end justifies the means.

One thing that amazes me about people on NL is that they are never objective yet they claim they are on the side of good. Most people make comments here based on sentiments. When they like a person, they defend his wrongs and promote his good no matter what. They accuse politicians but act exactly like politicians. That was how bb supporters kept defending all the undemocratic characteristics of Buhari until the last mayhem. The law is the only sure platform for anyone to stand. if you stand on anything else, you will eventually fall flat as history has shown again and again. that is why you have the Ghadafis of today. The end never justifies the means. That is a panacea for chaos. Men are not perfect including Rochas. that is why the only safe place for all of us is the law. There is absolutely no guarantee that Rochas will be better than Ohakim. We are all hoping and believing but in reality, there are no guarantees. Hitler was a revolutionist who was adored by his people. the rest as they say is history. The only thing that can guarantee some measure of safety is adherence to the law. it is alarming to see people supporting acts outside the law. anything outside the law is jungle justice. The so called law of necessity is an aberration and i hope someday, someone will not use that precedence to perpetuate chaos. That my friend is human characteristics at its best. I like Rochas but believe me, if he starts with a disdain for the law, it will come back to bite him.

Well he has to obey the law until it is changed.

@ Ediclove -

You make arguments while deliberately refusing to address the very poignant examples raised by kaisem. I thus am not able to discern any substance in the wordy but insubstantial posts you have made above. For the avoidance of doubt let me just make this clear: I do not support illegality, and it is not my view that kaisem is advocating illegality either. Far from it.

The simple point sought to be made is that the puristic legalism you are advocating amounts to expecting an Utopia. Let me assure you that there has never been any place in the history of statecraft where absolute and untainted puristic legalism has been practiced without flaw. Your arguments are thus most black-and-white, and thus unsuitable, given that we live in a world with many muddied grey areas.

Now i do not want you to make another post which will skillfully evade the clear and succint examples rasied. Therefore simply answer me in short, concise and succint words the following questions. Do not beat about the bush -

1. Was the invasion of Pakistani airspace without permission ffrom the Pakistani government lawful?

2. Was it necessary?

3. Was the Acting Presidency of Goodluck Jonathan birthed according to the strict letter of the law?

4. Was it necessary?

5. Was the dislodgement of Laurent Gbago in Cote-de-ivoire carried out in a lawful manner?

6. Was it necessary?

Point: Puristic legalism does not always address jungle situations thrown up by jungle politics. There is an old saying that drastic situations require drastic remedies. There is also another old saying that the law was made for man, and not man for the law.