Mynd44:




These are the words of the Superman court



Meaning even the rule of law itself is subject to National Security not the other way

Hence why Guam is done.

Hence why Boko Haram members can be held and locked up for years without trial

SmartyPants:


Okay, let's understand principles.

1. Limitations and Derogations

In human rights, sure, there is the concept of limitation of rights, and there is the concept of derogation (suspension of certain rights in time of emergency).

In no uncertain terms, derogation is not permitted under the African Charter. State parties thereto, therefore cannot under any circumstances claim to suspend human rights pending the restoration of national security. There is a plethora of cases to this effect.

Even where derogation is allowed (in other human rights systems outside Africa), there is a particular legal procedure that must be followed before any such right can be derogated from. The requirements are stringent, and rarely ever used.

What is allowed in the African context, is the limitation of rights. And this must not be arbitrary, it must be done in line with existing laws, and not at the whim of the president or his agents.


2. Guam is the worst example you could use because it actually illustrates my point. The reason those alleged terrorists are held in Gam is not that there is not enough space on mainland USA. IT is because their law does not permit the torture and indefinite detention of individuals that goes on at Guam. Since Guam is not on mainland USA, the executive use it to bypass their own constitutional human rights protections.

If you have been following the news, every president pledges to shut it down because there is no legal justification.

The rule of law can never be suspended inany democracy, no matter what. That is a ludicrous idea.

DonaldGenes:


Spits on Nigerian court! Very typical

Mynd44:


Every time National issues pop up and people throw up International treaties and charters, I get bored and Tried.

Every country is sovereign in its laws and governance and can decide to go against a charter it signed. The only laws a country is subject to are its own laws as made by the legislature or as declared by the judiciary.

The FG held Dokubo for years and the supreme court said they can because he was considered a national threat.

That is precedence and that is the basis of the law in this case or did you see the judge mentioning the AU charter or the UN charter?

SmartyPants:


Well, good! When the judge there makes reference to the suspension of human rights, notice he does not rely on any Nigerian provision. He merely says, "such is not new". That is because such is foreign to our constitution, though it is known to International Law. But since you wish to exclude international law from the conversation, then tell me, what is the statutory basis of the suspension of any right?

What is the status of legal precedent as compared to Constitutional provisions?

Peruse:

Section 1: Supremacy of the Constitution
Sections 33-46: Fundamental Human Rights

http://www.nigeria-law.org/ConstitutionOfTheFederalRepublicOfNigeria.htm

Then tell me which law in Nigeria permits all the excesses you have defended.

Mynd44:


Every time National issues pop up and people throw up International treaties and charters, I get bored and Tried.

Every country is sovereign in its laws and governance and can decide to go against a charter it signed. The only laws a country is subject to are its own laws as made by the legislature or as declared by the judiciary.

The FG held Dokubo for years and the supreme court said they can because he was considered a national threat.

That is precedence and that is the basis of the law in this case or did you see the judge mentioning the AU charter or the UN charter?

Mynd44:


Supremacy of the Constitution.

The fact is that for you to even have a rule of law, you need to have national security.

There are times things are not stipulated by law yet are applicable case-in-point, "doctrine of necessity"

I am afraid this part will only lead to derailing of this thread. We kinda have to stop

Richy4:
I am interested in the tax expect of the matter.. if twitter was supposed to pay taxes and they were not, why is that?...

No wonder there are zero infrastructure... Pictures of bad roads keep surfacing on social media about the state of roads in Nigeria.. if a giant like Twitter isn't paying...

DonaldGenes:


Spits on Nigerian court! Very typical

SirLakes:


It is Twitter's tax that will bring sanity to the country and also restore the decayed infrastructure.

What have they been doing with the one they've been collecting?


Wow!

SmartyPants:
Egwuatu held that when national security is threatened, the issues of fundamental human rights take a second stage

Such statements should make all shudder. Does this lawyer even understand what fundamental human rights are - as opposed to the broader concept of human rights?

SmartyPants:
Egwuatu held that when national security is threatened, the issues of fundamental human rights take a second stage

Such statements should make all shudder. Does this lawyer even understand what fundamental human rights are - as opposed to the broader concept of human rights?

We have a long way to go.

Edit:

Egwuatu is the judge not the lawyer - my mistake.

SmartyPants:


Well, good! When the judge there makes reference to the suspension of human rights, notice he does not rely on any Nigerian provision. He merely says, "such is not new". That is because such is foreign to our constitution, though it is known to International Law. But since you wish to exclude international law from the conversation, then tell me, what is the statutory basis of the suspension of any right?

What is the status of legal precedent as compared to Constitutional provisions?

Peruse:

Section 1: Supremacy of the Constitution
Sections 33-46: Fundamental Human Rights

http://www.nigeria-law.org/ConstitutionOfTheFederalRepublicOfNigeria.htm

Then tell me which law in Nigeria permits all the excesses you have defended.

MyExpression:


This stance is quite scary.

Even in war times, which is worse than "threat" of national security, the media, children and medical personnel are not shot at.

The precedence this judge is setting with this speech, is a misleading information that may lead to more actions against a civil society.

Richy4:


I can't educate you on the benefits of tax...
Just your comment shows that you have zero knowledge about it and what it does.. I can't afford the luxury of wasting my time starting from ground zero.. cheers

MyExpression:


This stance is quite scary.

Even in war times, which is worse than "threat" of national security, the media, children and medical personnel are not shot at.

The precedence this judge is setting with this speech, is a misleading information that may lead to more actions against a civil society.

asapeola:


The children and hospitals that Israel and even US have been shooting at, who is gonna stand up for them? Even in Nigeria, our Air force jets have couple of times shot at IDPs, what did u do abt it? Please be real!

DonaldGenes:


Spits on Nigerian court! Very typical

MyExpression:


Charles Taylor, Muhammad Gaddafi, Sadam Hussain....amongst others; these are national leaders that have been convicted by the ICJ for war crimes and gross violation of human right.

Why didn't they simply delist their nation from the UN or AU

That the Nigerian ministry of Defence is not been prosecuted doesn't make it right.

DonaldGenes:


Spits on Nigerian court! Very typical

helinues:
Has SERAP ever won a single case against government?

They have been told to SHARAP

Montaque:
The news article was written by a government supporter. Nowhere in his article did he quote excerpts of the judgement. Instead he carried his base feelings into interpreting the judgment. I will read the judgment itself to know it's ratio. Not these whitewashed article