Agboriotejoye:


PDP has actually instituted a case against the defectors. The condition in the constitution is clear. Stop supporting illegality because it is coming from your favourite politician. There is no division in PDP. What is in PDP is a disagreement over the post of national secretary and it is before a competent court. That has not split the party into two or stopped the proper working of the party.

My friend you are the one supporting illegality. then why not wait for the court to remove them as law makers before you start fuming. The constitutions say a thief is liable to some certain number of years in prison or at most a death sentence, so doses that give people the right to carry out jungle justice whenever they catch a thief. stop supporting illegality, the court will determine if the division and troubles in the party was enough for them to defect constitutionally. So before the court makes its pronouncement don't question why they are still law makers.

BondRiv:


Don't ask me stupid questions. Read your constitution. The speaker of the house has requested for the budget. The members of the house, presided over by him properly constitute the house and form a quorum.

Based on your constitution, do the members who decamped from PDP to APC constitute the properly constituted house?

fxexperts:
My friend you are the one supporting illegality. then why not wait for the court to remove them as law makers before you start fuming. The constitutions say a thief is liable to some certain number of years in prison or at most a death sentence, so doses that give people the right to carry out jungle justice whenever they catch a thief. stop supporting illegality, So before the court makes its pronouncement don't question why they are still law makers.

How is it the responsibility of the court to determine if the division and troubles in the party was enough for them to defect constitutionally?

What concerns the court with the reason some people chose to defect?

Is there anything like "defect constitutionally"?

What does that mean?

lexy2014:


How is it the responsibility of the court to determine if the division and troubles in the party was enough for them to defect constitutionally?

What concerns the court with the reason some people chose to defect?

Is there anything like "defect constitutionally"?

What does that mean?

Of course they can defect constitutionally without losing their seat. The constitution says any law maker who defect from the party under which they were elected to another party will lose their seat. but there is a clause there which state that if their is trouble / division in the party under which they were elected then they have the right to defect without losing their seat. the people trying to deceive you people will only quote the first sentence but will never quote the law. so, it is the court of law who has the absolute power to interpret the law and hear from all the parties and pass judgment as to who faulted the law and who did not. not all this social media biases judges who are all hoping for the constitution to bend to suit their own selfish motives.

This simp no hear, he is too afraid of wike.
As a governor you allowed one foolish minister God forbid!!!

fxexperts:
Of course they can defect constitutionally without losing their seat. The constitution says any law maker who defect from the party under which they were elected to another party will lose their seat. but there is a clause there which state that if their is trouble / division in the party under which they were elected then they have the right to defect without losing their seat. the people trying to deceive you people will only quote the first sentence but will never quote the law. so, it is the court of law who has the absolute power to interpret the law and hear from all the parties and pass judgment as to who faulted the law and who did not. not all this social media biases judges who are all hoping for the constitution to bend to suit their own selfish motives.

Can you pls quote the clause you are referring to?

Who are the you people you are referring to and who are the those trying to deceive?

fxexperts:
My friend you are the one supporting illegality. then why not wait for the court to remove them as law makers before you start fuming. The constitutions say a thief is liable to some certain number of years in prison or at most a death sentence, so doses that give people the right to carry out jungle justice whenever they catch a thief. stop supporting illegality, the court will determine if the division and troubles in the party was enough for them to defect constitutionally. So before the court makes its pronouncement don't question why they are still law makers.

No you're mixing things up. The penal code you're referring to actually clearly states that "on conviction". Only the courts have the powers to convict so you can't carry out such penalties when you don't have a conviction.
In the case we're looking out, they are clear constitutional provision that are being politicized.
It is just like saying if a president dies or is incapacitated, even though the Constitution says his deputy should be sworn in, you still need a Court order to declare the president's seat vacant before his deputy can be sworn in. I'm sure you'll see that as absurd.
The losing of seats is a clear and unambiguous constitutional provision.
So all these talk of going to court before the Constitution is enforced or obeyed is simply executive rascality or tyranny.

lexy2014:


Based on your constitution, do the members who decamped from PDP to APC constitute the properly constituted house?

Based on the constitution, yes, they are still members of the house. The speaker defected with them and only he can declare their seats vacant.

Judolisco:
what about people like fubara dat benefitted from d fruit of godfatherism?

That does not mean ,we should support evil.

Agboriotejoye:

No you're mixing things up. The penal code you're referring to actually clearly states that "on conviction". Only the courts have the powers to convict so you can't carry out such penalties when you don't have a conviction.
In the case we're looking out, they are clear constitutional provision that are being politicized.
It is just like saying if a president dies or is incapacitated, even though the Constitution says his deputy should be sworn in, you still need a Court order to declare the president's seat vacant before his deputy can be sworn in. I'm sure you'll see that as absurd.
The losing of seats is a clear and unambiguous constitutional provision.
So all these talk of going to court before the Constitution is enforced or obeyed is simply executive rascality or tyranny.

But the constitution gave a condition under which they can defect without losing their seat, and now they are saying they followed the constitution in defecting, so how then now can you say they did not follow the constitutional way of defecting. that can only be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction.

Ubongikouwem:


How will he Bleep wike up? U guys don't even know what's breeding on ground till then.

This so called CSOs are his top enemies

Wike is not God...

Ferrous:


He should fight against the Godfatherism that brought him to power? Why didn't he reject it and come on his own?

You can go and ask him that, the deed has been done already, I will support Fubara to fight Wike so that tomorrow if Fubara tries the same I will fight him too, the goal is to end god fatherism, if god fatherism is not lucrative people will stop doing it...

maasoap:

Without Godfather, he wouldn't get one vote during the primary election. He was the lowest of the low

Yes that is why next time Wike will not force a leader on the people, let the people choose their leaders..

blueAgent:


That does not mean ,we should support evil.

you are selective in d evil you support... U can't plant onion and plug mango

BondRiv:


Based on the constitution, yes, they are still members of the house. The speaker defected with them and only he can declare their seats vacant.

On what basis can the speaker declare the seats vacant?

BondRiv:


Based on the constitution, yes, they are still members of the house. The speaker defected with them and only he can declare their seats vacant.

But sectiin 109 (1g) of the constitution is very explicit on the matter that a legislator can forfeit his seat if he or she defects..

So which constitution are you referring to?
..

fxexperts:
But the constitution gave a condition under which they can defect without losing their seat, and now they are saying they followed the constitution in defecting, so how then now can you say they did not follow the constitutional way of defecting. that can only be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction.

They are not in a position to conjure up the condition. The condition is not ambiguous like you people are trying to paint it. A division or factionalisation is when the main organs of the party are divided or mutilated. There is none of such on ground.
What you guys are inadvertently saying is just like the legislators in Plateau who are now relying on supreme Court precedent to claim they remain valid members of the house. They are simply conjuring up what is not in our laws.
If you support Rivers, then you must of necessity support Plateau as well

Brendaniel:


You can go and ask him that, the deed has been done already, I will support Fubara to fight Wike so that tomorrow if Fubara tries the same I will fight him too, the goal is to end god fatherism, if god fatherism is not lucrative people will stop doing it...

As far as Nigeria is concerned, godfatherism will never end. He should accept whatever comes with it in good faith.

lexy2014:


But sectiin 109 (1g) of the constitution is very explicit on the matter that a legislator can forfeit his seat if he or she defects..

So which constitution are you referring to?
..

It is not automatic. There is a process which must be followed and is provided in Section 109 (2) of the 1999 constitution (as amended). The Speaker is the one who gives effect to that provision, where the defection does not comply with the proviso in section 109 (1) (g).

Agboriotejoye:

They are not in a position to conjure up the condition. The condition is not ambiguous like you people are trying to paint it. A division or factionalisation is when the main organs of the party are divided or mutilated. There is none of such on ground.
What you guys are inadvertently saying is just like the legislators in Plateau who are now relying on supreme Court precedent to claim they remain valid members of the house. They are simply conjuring up what is not in our laws.
If you support Rivers, then you must of necessity support Plateau as well

The condition is not ambiguous but if they said they complied with it, you have no other option but to approach the court and get a judicial pronouncement.

That is because the speaker, who is empowered by the constitution to declare their seats vacant, if the defection does not comply with Section 109 (1) (g), also defected with them. No other person can assume that role. You have to go to court.

lexy2014:


On what basis can the speaker declare the seats vacant?

Failure to meet the requirements of the proviso in section 109 (1) (g).

The Speaker or a member shall first present evidence satisfactory to the House that any provisions of that subsection has become applicable in respect of the member. See S.109 (2) of the constitution.

Ferrous:


As far as Nigeria is concerned, godfatherism will never end. He should accept whatever comes with it in good faith.

godfatherism can end because it has a beginning, look I don't care about Fubara, what I care about is no man should decide a leader for me in a democratic era....

Brendaniel:


godfatherism can end because it has a beginning, look I don't care about Fubara, what I care about is no man should decide a leader for me in a democratic era....

That is a fantasy. Godfatherism exists all over the world.

BondRiv:


Failure to meet the requirements of the proviso in section 109 (1) (g).

The Speaker or a member shall first present evidence satisfactory to the House that any provisions of that subsection has become applicable in respect of the member. See S.109 (2) of the constitution.

What are the provisions of section 109 (1g)?

BondRiv:


It is not automatic. There is a process which must be followed and is provided in Section 109 (2) of the 1999 constitution (as amended). The Speaker is the one who gives effect to that provision, where the defection does not comply with the proviso in section 109 (1) (g).

But earlier, you emphatically said

BondRiv:

Based on the constitution, yes, they are still members of the house.

What is the process that must be followed?

When speaker as well defected, what happens to the process?

BondRiv:


That is a fantasy. Godfatherism exists all over the world.

It depends on what you classify as godfatherism, as long as nobody can pick a Leader for me in a democratic settings, I don't classify that as godfatherism.

I watched during the campaigns of the 2017 US presidential election, Donald Trump mocked Hilary and Obama about never achieving something for themselves(I can't really remember now)

Then Obama did a clap back campaign video for Hilary as president from the white house mocking Donald Trump and he said something like one thing Donald Trump will never achieve in his life is becoming US president with a mocking kind of laughter...

The rest is history, Obama as US president could not make Hilary or stop Trump from becoming president.

That is the kind of system I want in a democratic settings where whoever you call or assume a godfather no matter how powerful cannot override the decision of the people, his godfatherism should end in your party not the will of the people.....

That is why I said it depends on what you classify as godfatherism, Obama may have influenced the choice of Hilary becoming the candidates of democrats but Americans decide who will lead them, Governance is different from politics ....

lexy2014:


But earlier, you emphatically said

What is the process that must be followed?

When speaker as well defected, what happens to the process?

I won't go back and forth with you. I have answered all your questions. You just have to read and understand. Where the Speaker defected as well, then there is nothing anyone can do except by approaching the court.

The Speaker won't declare his own seat and that of the others on his side, vacant. Where the law has stipulated a procedure, you can't adopt another, else it is null and void.

Here are the relevant sections:

109.
(1) A member of a House of Assembly shall vacate his seat in the House if -

(g) being a person whose election to the House of Assembly was sponsored by a political party, he becomes a member of any other political party before the expiration of the period for which that House was elected:

Here is the important proviso - Provided that his membership of the latter political party is not as a result of a division in the political party of which he was previously a member or of a merger of two or more political parties or factions by one of which he was previously sponsored;
or
(h) the Speaker of the House of Assembly receives a certificate under the hand of the Chairman of the Independent National
Electoral Commission stating that the provisions of section 110

(2) The Speaker of the House of Assembly shall give effect to subsection (1) of this section, so however that the Speaker or a member shall first present evidence satisfactory to the House that any of the provisions of that subsection has become applicable in respect of the member.

BondRiv:


I won't go back and forth with you. I have answered all your questions. You just have to read and understand.

Here are the relevant sections:

109.
(1) A member of a House of Assembly shall vacate his seat in the House if -

(g) being a person whose election to the House of Assembly was sponsored by a political party, he becomes a member of any other political party before the expiration of the period for which that House was elected:

Here is the important proviso - Provided that his membership of the latter political party is not as a result of a division in the political party of which he was previously a member or of a merger of two or more political parties or factions by one of which he was previously sponsored;
or
(h) the Speaker of the House of Assembly receives a certificate under the hand of the Chairman of the Independent National
Electoral Commission stating that the provisions of section 110

(2) The Speaker of the House of Assembly shall give effect to subsection (1) of this section, so however that the Speaker or a member shall first present evidence satisfactory to the House that any of the provisions of that subsection has become applicable in respect of the member.

Did you actually read what u copied and pasted?

lexy2014:


Did you actually read what u copied and pasted?

I feel very sorry for you. What I posted has been analyzed in parts by me here. Sorry, I can't give you a brain. I can't! Heads like yours are just coconuts.

Brendaniel:


It depends on what you classify as godfatherism, as long as nobody can pick a Leader for me in a democratic settings, I don't classify that as godfatherism.

I watched during the campaigns of the 2017 US presidential election, Donald Trump mocked Hilary and Obama about never achieving something for themselves(I can't really remember now)

Then Obama did a clap back campaign video for Hilary as president from the white house mocking Donald Trump and he said something like one thing Donald Trump will never achieve in his life is becoming US president with a mocking kind of laughter...

The rest is history, Obama as US president could not make Hilary or stop Trump from becoming president.

That is the kind of system I want in a democratic settings where whoever you call or assume a godfather no matter how powerful cannot override the decision of the people, his godfatherism should end in your party not the will of the people.....

That is why I said it depends on what you classify as godfatherism, Obama may have influenced the choice of Hilary becoming the candidates of democrats but Americans decide who will lead them, Governance is different from politics ....

Godfatherism is godfatherism. There is no relativism. You can choose to like the one done in the US, that is your choice. What you cannot do is take it away from politics.

BondRiv:


I feel very sorry for you. What I posted has been analyzed in parts by me here. Sorry, I can't give you a brain. I can't! Heads like yours are just coconuts.

You are already getting emotional. Did you read this?...

(h) the Speaker of the House of Assembly receives a certificate under the hand of the Chairman of the Independent National
Electoral Commission stating that the provisions of section 110

Secondly, since you said the speaker defected and your copy and paste is about the role of the speaker, I asked u earlier, what should happen since the speaker is one of those who defected?

BondRiv:


Godfatherism is godfatherism. There is no relativism. You can choose to like the one done in the US, that is your choice. What you cannot do is take it away from politics.

Your problem, let Wike sha stay out Rivers state governance, he is not the governor, whatever agreement he had with Fubara should end in their party and not governance, next time he should learn not impose a leader on the people in an election...