rochas is not yet the governor, how can he freeze the state account.

dasa:

rochas is not yet the governor, how can he freeze the state account.

in what way did he freeze it? putting it in a refrigerator ?

he only voiced his opinion in a letter to the banks, its left to the banks to decide whether to honour it or consider it illegal and without any merit or authority.

Every citizen has a right to voice the opinion on any issue its left for the public or what so ever constituent to decide if they wud heed to the advise or move on.

pls dont lay even an iota of blame on Rochas.

Deep Sight:

@ 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.

To answer your questions:

1. You can't just rely on headlines. You can't be absolutely sure that Pakistan were not warned just before the invasion but might have agreed with the US to maintain ignorance to prevent public backlash. After-all some residents of said the armed forces warned them to stay indoors during the operation.
2. Even the National Assembly has to hurriedly change law to enable Jonathan become acting president.
3.Laurent Gbagbo's term as president expired 5 years ago. He lost an election that has not been validly cancelled.

Why are you trying to justify the unjustifiable? Even if your points were valid, if the law was raped somewhere for example Tutsi and Hutus in Burundi, we should do the same because there is a precedent. By your arguments, the holocaust performed by the Nazis was justifiable because it has the backing of the 'people' and was 'necessary' to take Germany back from the people who hijacked its economy. By the same token, all the pogroms in the north of Nigeria where justifiable because it enjoyed widespread support.

Like Edicolove stated, the only safe place for everybody is the law. Without the law, we are all doomed and will descend to the jungle of animal society where the fittest survive and the weakest are killed off. Rochas is setting a bad precedent. A 'governor-elect' will soon be giving order for the arrest of a 'sitting-governor'. It is surprising that Rochas a few years ago wanted to be president of Nigeria. I hope he no longer nurses that ambition.

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.

I do get your points and have already responded but you seem not to get it. All the scenarios you have raised have alternatives. I support goodluck but do not agree to the doctrine of necessity theory that was used to bring him in. There were alternatives but the insincerity of the day made the senators and government circles to pretend it didnt exist. There is a reason why true democratic nations adhere strictly to the law. The reason being that once you start to allude to this so called doctrine of necessity ideology and the end justifying the means, you open the flood gates for anything to happen. the law itself is not perfect but provides a sure meeting point for everyone. the constitution of a country is not a set of rules that everyone is happy with, rather it is a set of rules that everyone can live by in the spirit of coexistence. what is the guarantee that Obama will not use the same principle and commit havoc tomorrow? what is the guarantee our senators will not do something crazy tomorrow in the spirit of doctrine of necessity. the only safe haven is strict adherence to the law, even when it hurts.

This topic does not need all this claims, arguments and counter claims & counter arguments. The bottomline is d Banks are a private concern and may decide discreetly to shun Ohakim and his soon to expire regime if many of us are in d Bank's shoes we would do like-wise if not worse. The press release by Ohakim does not help matters, it appears to me as a man bent on self-inflicting himself.

Obviously it is no more news to anyone that Ohakim was not a honest Governor so by spoiling for a fight with a new administration is tantamount to assisting d authorities in handcuffing yourselves even b4 d EFCC plan to open your file.

I am pretty sure with Ohakim's antecedent,  Rocha does not have to dig deep to uncover d throve of illegality and misapropriation that has been going on for 4 years. If I were Ohakim I would let this lye low & quietly hand over to my successor without any fanfare rather with a discreet re-assurance from RRoch asthat he would not be witch-hunting his regime.

The issues discuss here are all non issues, d Banks no d scores and I expected them to have taken aappropriates steps saving d peoples money since d govt elect has communicated his fears & misgivings.
I also expect Ohakim to know that d bankers tone would change from dat of " oga sir" to ignorance, Ohakim should know these are d principles of life.

Nijja na wah oo. well Rochas do anything to protect ur state.

pluto04:

To answer your questions:

1. You can't just rely on headlines.

Nor can you rely on speculations. We can only go with what is given.

2. Even the National Assembly has to hurriedly change law to enable Jonathan become acting president.

The National Assembly did not change any law. I am a lawyer myself and avid current affairs follower: I know this for a fact. What law did the National Assembly change? They simply adopted the Doctrine of Necessity, declared Yaradua's broadcast as constituting a communication (whereas the constitution speaks about transmission of a letter to the Senate President) and pronto - Goodluck was unconstitutionally recognized as Acting President.

Now that was unconstitutional. Yet no one can deny that it was in the greater interest of Nigeria at the time.

3.Laurent Gbagbo's term as president expired 5 years ago. He lost an election that has not been validly cancelled.

Again, you are poor on facts. The fact of the matter is that according to the law in Ivory Coast, the Constitutional Council is the final arbiter of the election. That Council pronounced in favour of Gbago. Thus, if we speak strictly law, Gbago should have been sworn in and retained as president.

But the whole world is aware that the Constitutional Council was a fraud.

So there you go.

Why are you trying to justify the unjustifiable? Even if your points were valid, if the law was violated somewhere for example Tutsi and Hutus in Burundi, we should do the same because there is a precedent. By your arguments, the holocaust performed by the Nazis was justifiable because it has the backing of the 'people' and was 'necessary' to take Germany back from the people who hijacked its economy. By the same token, all the pogroms in the north of Nigeria where justifiable because it enjoyed widespread support.

Like Edicolove stated, the only safe place for everybody is the law. Without the law, we are all doomed and will descend to the jungle of animal society where the fittest survive and the weakest are killed off. Rochas is setting a bad precedent. A 'governor-elect' will soon be giving order for the arrest of a 'sitting-governor'. It is surprising that Rochas a few years ago wanted to be president of Nigeria. I hope he no longer nurses that ambition.

You have not been reading my posts. I am not justifying anything. I am simply trying to demonstrate that puristic legalism only occurs in an utopia.

There is no utopia on Earth.

Like i said before, I like Rochas, but when a man begins to show certain tendencies we must caution ourselves. Imo state is not the only state in transition. In ogun state, the governor elect came out to caution the sitting gov on the spending of state funds, but he never wrote a directive or any such letter to the banks because that is illegal. most of you here went against obj when he withheld Lagos funds. was that not a necessity? but it was illegal and the courts said so. even with the knowledge of the fact that Lagos state also acted wrongly. the law is the law and it must be sacrosanct. I was seeing him as a good south east candidate for the presidency but I have to watch closely now.

edicolove:

I do get your points and have already responded but you seem not to get it. All the scenarios you have raised have alternatives. I support goodluck but do not agree to the doctrine of necessity theory that was used to bring him in.

What then would you have preferred? Anarchy? What other options were available? Tell me. I hope you are aware that Yaradua was virtually a vegetable, and as such the required letter could NOT be sent. Even if they amended the constitution, it could not have retroactive effect, and as such it was a real log-jam.

So we cannot pretend as though law alone resolves all things. It does not.

And I repeat to you that there has never been and there still is not any single society in teh history of the world where puristic legalism has been practiced without exception or necessary deviation. That exists only in an utopia: or if you are religiously inclined, let me say that exists only in heaven.

There is a reason why true democratic nations adhere strictly to the law.

Please don't make me laugh. Can you point me to even just one such nation in this world. There is none. So long as the word we deploy is "strict". That word admits of no deviations, and in truth there are deviations everywhere in the world.

The reason being that once you start to allude to this so called doctrine of necessity ideology and the end justifying the means, you open the flood gates for anything to happen. the law itself is not perfect but provides a sure meeting point for everyone. the constitution of a country is not a set of rules that everyone is happy with, rather it is a set of rules that everyone can live by in the spirit of coexistence. what is the guarantee that Obama will not use the same principle and commit havoc tomorrow? what is the guarantee our senators will not do something crazy tomorrow in the spirit of doctrine of necessity. the only safe haven is strict adherence to the law, even when it hurts.

My friend, you did not answer the questions i set out for you. By what legal means could Laurent Gbago have been removed? Or Osama caught? Or Goodluck sworn in?

U never know how frustrating resuming office with no or little finance to run the state affairs can be till u found urself there. Rochas did the smart thing, talk of due process, no na today outgoing governor begin de loot state money and still go scot- free.

I have painstakingly answered your question but you choose to believe what you want. I am on the side of the law because it is the only guaranteed protection. cheers

I am on the side of the law, too, my friend. I earn my living as a lawyer, as I said to you earlier. I am simply trying to share with you a a philosophical reality that jungle situations tend to be resolved by jungle measures in situations where systems are not fully evolved. Deal with that: as it is a universal trusim.

By the way, you absolutely did not address the examples raised.

@edicolove, people power/support supercedes any law or constitution any country might have. 9 out of every 10 Imo citizen support the step Rochas has taken whether legal or not legal. Also like someone mentioned earlier, the banks are private entities and are not obliged to take this directive from the Gov. elect but have chosen to do so to protect their business interest and may be in sympathy for the plight of Imo citizens whom Ikedi Godson Ikiri Ohakim has continously looted, flogged and maltreated without any iota of respect.

We welcome the pro-activeness of Rochas, we do not want a reactive leader like you suggest. Waiting till he is sworn in and then to start probing Ohakim is a waste of time and state resources which we imolites can't  afford, we are already in debt to the tune of N120billion (thanks to Ohakim), our monthly internally generated revenue has shrunk to N530million and he also left us with educational, health and agricultural sectors which are in a very bad state (worse state since the creation of Imo in 1976).

We don't have time to probe past regimes and wasting precious state resources (follow the legal process ), he needs to get to work as soon as he is sworn in, he needs funds to do this and his actions is in our interest, WHETHER LEGAL OR NOT LEGAL. CASE CLOSED !

paulo882:

@edicolove, people power/support supercedes any law or constitution any country might have. 9 out of every 10 Imo citizen support the step Rochas has taken whether legal or not legal. Also like someone mentioned earlier, the banks are private entities and are not obliged to take this directive from the Gov. elect but have chosen to do so to protect their business interest and may be in sympathy for the plight of Imo citizens whom Ikedi Godson Ikiri Ohakim has continously looted, flogged and maltreated without any iota of respect.

We welcome the pro-activeness of Rochas, we do not want a reactive leader like you suggest. Waiting till he is sworn in and then to start probing Ohakim is a waste of time and state resources which we imolites can't afford, we are already in debt to the tune of N120billion (thanks to Ohakim), our monthly internally generated revenue has shrunk to N530million and he also left us with educational, health and agricultural sectors which are in a very bad state (worse state since the creation of Imo in 1976).

We don't have time to probe past regimes and wasting precious state resources (follow the legal process ), he needs to get to work as soon as he is sworn in, he needs funds to do this and his actions is in our interest, WHETHER LEGAL OR NOT LEGAL. CASE CLOSED !

GBAMS!

@edicolove, people power/support supercedes any law or constitution any country might have. 9 out of every 10 Imo citizen support the step Rochas has taken whether legal or not legal. Also like someone mentioned earlier, the banks are private entities and are not obliged to take this directive from the Gov. elect but have chosen to do so to protect their business interest and may be in sympathy for the plight of Imo citizens whom Ikedi Godson Ikiri Ohakim has continously looted, flogged and maltreated without any iota of respect.

We welcome the pro-activeness of Rochas, we do not want a reactive leader like you suggest. Waiting till he is sworn in and then to start probing Ohakim is a waste of time and state resources which we imolites can't  afford, we are already in debt to the tune of N120billion (thanks to Ohakim), our monthly internally generated revenue has shrunk to N530million and he also left us with educational, health and agricultural sectors which are in a very bad state (worse state since the creation of Imo in 1976).

We don't have time to probe past regimes and wasting precious state resources (follow the legal process ), he needs to get to work as soon as he is sworn in, he needs funds to do this and his actions is in our interest, WHETHER LEGAL OR NOT LEGAL. CASE CLOSED !

you can accept what you want. my only suggestion is that you dont use double standards, i will be watching out for you to see if you will complain when someone else uses non legal means and it affects you negatively. since you think it is ok, you must accept it when it doesnt favour you or you will be an hypocrite. 2 wrongs dont make a right. you dont correct a wrong with another wrong.

and please stop being assuming and speculative. did you conduct a poll to know how many people in Imo agree with this? people power is not determined by mob on the streets. that is why we have constitutional conferences. otherwise, the almajiris in the north would have been right to kill those corpers. you are talking like buhari who sits in an armchair and says everybody likes him. you should never make generalised statements because even the most loved people in the world have their enemies who dont like them. Rochas did not win by 90% so dont make such assumptions. i can guarantee you that before the end of his first year, he will have people talking about his flaws. thats the way the world is. just be truthful and just. those are the only virtues in life that can stand the test of time.

edicolove:


you can accept what you want. my only suggestion is that you dont use double standards, i will be watching out for you to see if you will complain when someone else uses non legal means and it affects you negatively. since you think it is ok, you must accept it when it doesnt favour you or you will be an hypocrite. 2 wrongs dont make a right. you dont correct a wrong with another wrong.

The constitution, law or whatever you call it, is a guideline as to how things should work but the final power lies with the ppl. The constitution is a mere document that can be changed by the people when they see it fit, it is not meant to overide the People power. With regards to ppl trying to use non legal means to achieve things, if it does not have the full support of the ppl , we will stop it ! at least we have shown that in Imo, and Rochas knows this very well that he risks being removed by the ppl of Imo if he does something unpopular.

edicolove:

and please stop being assuming and speculative. did you conduct a poll to know how many people in Imo agree with this? people power is not determined by mob on the streets. that is why we have constitutional conferences. otherwise, the almajiris in the north would have been right to kill those corpers. you are talking like buhari who sits in an armchair and says everybody likes him. you should never make generalised statements because even the most loved people in the world have their enemies who dont like them. Rochas did not win by 90% so dont make such assumptions. i can guarantee you that before the end of his first year, he will have people talking about his flaws. thats the way the world is. just be truthful and just. those are the only virtues in life that can stand the test of time.

You are not on ground here in IMO, so don't say what you don't know.  In Owerri (the state capital) and other areas, the feeling is that we will do anything to stop this tyrant (Ohakim). And who told you Imo ppl voted for Ohakim ? He was busy distributing money to traditional rulers and INEC officials in the open when he was supposed to be campaigning and trying to convince us why we should vote for him. He Ohakim knows clearly well that he is the most hated individual in IMO and all the votes he got was the one his unscrupulous INEC officials managed to award him (not from the IMO ppl ). Please don't say what you don't know cos you are not on ground in IMO.

rochas at the moment is not able to decide anything for the state govt. all he can do is to wait patiently till the 29th of may 2011 before he starts acting. all these noises will end as soon as he becomes the gov. this is my fear about these rulers. i want that time when criminal rulers will pay for their evils deeds while in office but we are yet to see that happen.

1025:

rochas at the moment is not able to decide anything for the state govt. all he can do is to wait patiently till the 29th of may 2011 before he starts acting. all these noises will end as soon as he becomes the gov. this is my fear about these rulers. i want that time when criminal rulers will pay for their evils deeds while in office but we are yet to see that happen.

Well he knows what he will get from Imo People if he is not what we expected, everyone is enlightened now and we are waiting, if he under performs or follows Ohakim's foot steps, we will show him the door like we did to Ohakim.

edicolove:


you can accept what you want. my only suggestion is that you dont use double standards, i will be watching out for you to see if you will complain when someone else uses non legal means and it affects you negatively. since you think it is ok, you must accept it when it doesnt favour you or you will be an hypocrite. 2 wrongs dont make a right. you dont correct a wrong with another wrong.

and please stop being assuming and speculative. did you conduct a poll to know how many people in Imo agree with this? people power is not determined by mob on the streets. that is why we have constitutional conferences. otherwise, the almajiris in the north would have been right to kill those corpers. you are talking like buhari who sits in an armchair and says everybody likes him. you should never make generalised statements because even the most loved people in the world have their enemies who dont like them. Rochas did not win by 90% so dont make such assumptions. i can guarantee you that before the end of his first year, he will have people talking about his flaws. thats the way the world is. just be truthful and just. those are the only virtues in life that can stand the test of time.

edicolove, "good morning and how was ur night'. Now, in considering this fact, the two things that u have to bear in mind is, 1 that the law is not ubiquitous and infallible, 2 that a generally accepted is legitimate. Okay, lets assume that someone was attacked by gun men in a secret place, at the point of death he was taken to the hospital but requesting for a police approval before treating him (when they know that there's no police station around), wouldn't it be normal for them to save the life first before requesting for the normal thing? Another thing is that as  a person on ground, we knew that rochas got upto 80% of the votes, so there's every tendency that majority of his supporters buttressed this policy, thereby, making it legitimate and democratic, cos the two policies is all about the choice and acceptance of the populace.

edicolove, "good morning and how was your night'. Now, in considering this fact, the two things that u have to bear in mind is, 1 that the law is not ubiquitous and infallible, 2[b] that a generally accepted is legitimate[/b]. Okay, lets assume that someone was attacked by gun men in a secret place, at the point of death he was taken to the hospital but requesting for a police approval before treating him (when they know that there's no police station around), wouldn't it be normal for them to save the life first before requesting for the normal thing? Another thing is that as  a person on ground, we knew that rochas got upto 80% of the votes, so there's every tendency that majority of his supporters buttressed this policy, thereby, making it legitimate and democratic, cos the two policies is all about the choice and acceptance of the populace. 

Congratulations! You have just approved and justified the killing of corpers in kaduna and bauchi states. Have you ever heard of the phrase, "the tyranny of the majority?"

edicolove:

Congratulations! You have just approved and justified the killing of corpers in kaduna and bauchi states. Have you ever heard of the phrase, "the tyranny of the majority?"

u sound hillarious! The killings in the north was carried out by a "sect", and a sect constitute a small section of the larger society, so their interest can not be widely accepted by the society and that makes it illegitimate. So, the killings can not be compared to the topic in discussion. Thanks!

u sound hillarious! The killings in the north was carried out by a "sect", and a sect constitute a small section of the larger society, so their interest can not be widely accepted by the society and that makes it illegitimate. So, the killings can not be compared to the topic in discussion. Thanks!

are you from the moon? the killings were not carried out by a sect. they were carried out by regular mob. the boko aram sect are only responsible for the bombings and shootings which have been mostly in borno state. they always claim their attacks.

Wat da Bleep is naija really turning into,without resumin at the govt house, this is really incredible

edicolove:

are you from the moon? the killings were not carried out by a sect. they were carried out by regular mob. the boko aram sect are only responsible for the bombings and shootings which have been mostly in borno state. they always claim their attacks.

no i'm from the jupiter. But u forgot to remember that killings was carried out by a certain group of party supporters which can be termed as "sect" and the party supporters never constituted the majority of the society.

@edicolove, I don't know why any sane person will stand up to defend the current constitution of The Federal Republic of Nigeria ? Our current constitution is a complete fraud! it does not by any means reflect the will of the majority nor protect their interest, it was particularly crafted to protect the interests of a few LOOTOCRACTS. A constitution that gives immunity from prosecution to a serving LOOTOCRACT public office holder does not protect the interest of the ppl at all.

I would suggest to the next National Assembly to put up Nigerian constitution for a debate, as it is a fraud and does not protect the interest of the common Nigerians. Until this is done, we will have a lot of cases where the ppl will jettison the constitution and act outside the law to protect their common interest since the constitution has failed completely to do this.

If it were possible to prosecute Ohakim for all the billions he carted away while he is still a sitting Governor, then Rochas will not have to go against the law to protect the interest of the majority

paulo882:

@edicolove, I don't know why any sane person will stand up to defend the current constitution of The Federal Republic of Nigeria ? Our current constitution is a complete fraud! it does not by any means reflect the will of the majority nor protect their interest, it was particularly crafted to protect the interests of a few LOOTOCRACTS. A constitution that gives immunity from prosecution to a serving LOOTOCRACT public office holder does not protect the interest of the ppl at all.

I would suggest to the next National Assembly to put up Nigerian constitution for a debate, as it is a fraud and does not protect the interest of the common Nigerians. Until this is done, we will have a lot of cases where the ppl will jettison the constitution and act outside the law to protect their common interest since the constitution has failed completely to do this.

man, u dont need to totally blame our constitution for this mishap, but u have to hang on the need to make out a space for emergencies like this "which i'm sure that delegated legislation/power can cater for", to be adequately treated with that doctrine of necessity. In all the constitutions of the world there are some places that needs some rehab to cater for the need of time and that makes the doctrine of necessity as the only viable option.

paulo882:

@edicolove, I don't know why any sane person will stand up to defend the current constitution of The Federal Republic of Nigeria ? Our current constitution is a complete fraud! it does not by any means reflect the will of the majority nor protect their interest, it was particularly crafted to protect the interests of a few LOOTOCRACTS. A constitution that gives immunity from prosecution to a serving LOOTOCRACT public office holder does not protect the interest of the ppl at all.

I would suggest to the next National Assembly to put up Nigerian constitution for a debate, as it is a fraud and does not protect the interest of the common Nigerians. Until this is done, we will have a lot of cases where the ppl will jettison the constitution and act outside the law to protect their common interest since the constitution has failed completely to do this.

man, u dont need to totally blame our constitution for this mishap, but u have to hang on the need to make out a space for emergencies like this "which i'm sure that delegated legislation/power can cater for", to be adequately treated with that doctrine of necessity. In all the constitutions of the world there are some places that needs some rehab to cater for the need of time and that makes the doctrine of necessity as the only viable option.

kasiem:

man, u dont need to totally blame our constitution for this  mishap, but u have to hang on the need to make out a space for emergencies like this "which i'm sure that delegated legislation/power can cater for", to be adequately treated with that doctrine of necessity. In all the constitutions of the world there are some places that needs some  rehab to cater for the need of time and that makes the doctrine of necessity as the only viable option.

I am not blaming it all on the constitution, even if our constitution was perfect, the Peoples power still have the final say and can overrule the constitution at anytime. I just couldnt understand why edicolove would stand so high to defend the Nigerian constitution in this case, seeing that our current constitution is riddled with signs of fraud in every angle. It does not at all reflect the will of the majority

it is wrong legally,  but technically possible! even Ohakim knows!.

paulo882:

I am not blaming it all on the constitution, even if our constitution was perfect, the Peoples power still have the final say and can overrule the constitution at anytime. I just couldnt understand why edicolove would stand so high to defend the Nigerian constitution in this case, seeing that our current constitution is riddled with signs of fraud in every angle. It does not at all reflect the will of the majority

never mind, edicolove is trying to stick to the antecedents of the laid down laws without taking into cognizance that the interests of the masses are paramount in times of emergency.

kasiem:

never mind, edicolove is trying to stick to the antecedents of the laid down laws without taking into cognizance that the interests of the masses are paramount in times of emergency.

I like his antecedents but he needs to apply a bit more common sense to the Law, allowing for those emergencies where ppl's will/common sense prevail, we all see this in our daily lives for example when driving on a motorway in a snowy/rainy day on a road that says you should go no slower than 50 miles/hr. Highway code (the law) stipulates that you do not go lower than 50miles/hr but common sense tells you the road conditions are not good enough for such speeds, in the interest and safety of you and other road users, you have to break the law and go below the legal speed.