Joshy4u:


section 109(1)(g) of the
Constitution which applies to members of the State Houses of Assembly.
From the foregoing section, it is crystal clear that a member of the Senate or
House of Representatives vacates his office once he defects to another
political party. The position taken by the Constitution accords with common
sense as a political party is known to represent a particular ideology. Suffice
it to say that the organisation and allocation of various positions in the House
depend on the strength of one’s political party.
The Court of Appeal interpreting this provision in Sunday Ifedayo Abegunde
v Ondo State House of Assembly & Ors5
followed the literal rule6
of
interpretation and declared thus:
In construing Section 68(1)(g) in the light of the
aforementioned judicial guidelines, it is self-evident that the
said section implies the following:
(i) A member of the House of Representatives is sponsored by
a political party to that legislative house.
(ii) A member of the House of Representatives who is so
sponsored, automatically vacates his seat if he becomes a
member of another political party before the expiration of the
lifespan of the House of Representatives for which he was
elected
(iii) A decampee legislator would escape the consequence in
(ii) (supra), if his membership of another political party is as a
result of division in the sponsoring party or merger of the
sponsoring political party or a faction thereof.
The Court continued:
It seems to me that the basic aim of the paragraph is to
forestall the erstwhile common phenomenon in our various legislatures changing their party and joining another party in
the legislature, which is popularly known as carpet-crossing.
The penalty for a member changing his party and becoming a
member of another party is to vacate his seat in the legislature.
One need not be a soothsayer to appreciate the simplicity and clarity
of language implored by the Constitution in expressing itself as
regards cross carpeting or defection in Nigeria coupled with the clear
interpretation given by the Court. In essence, once a lawmaker joins
another political party, he ceases to be a lawmaker. However, the
provision is followed by a proviso which requires judicial
involvement by way of judicial interpretation.


The same Umahi you called, even your demi-god Wike called for their sack that period.... you are the myopic half-baked brain.

Case close. Let`s wait till then.

Peacecore:
Manslaughter is a crime that has its punishment well stated in the constitution. So if someone commits it, he should just go and hand himself over to the prison warders for incarceration?

You're unaware that the constitution believes the offender is innocent until proven guilty in criminal trials. If the person knows he's guilty, the law asks him to submit himself to the police and give his statement. The police will charge him to court where he is free to plead guilty and be sentenced accordingly.

Kukutente23:

You're unaware that the constitution believes the offender is innocent until proven guilty in criminal trials. If the person knows he's guilty, the law asks him to submit himself to the police and give his statement. The police will charge him to court where he is free to plead guilty and be sentenced accordingly.

If @bolded is your submission why are u den sayin dat the 27 lwmkas are guilty before d court sayin so?

Peacecore:
If @bolded is your submission why are u den sayin dat the 27 lwmkas are guilty before d court sayin so?

You're mixing things up. The matter with the 27 lawmakers is not about guilt or innocent. It is a civil suit not a criminal trial. The constitution does not prescribe going to court to obtain an order before its wordings are obeyed. You only go to court where there are conflicts or disagreement in interpretation or application. There's none of such in this case save for that manufactured by mischievous people.

Kukutente23:

You're mixing things up. The matter with the 27 lawmakers is not about guilt or innocent. It is a civil suit not a criminal trial. The constitution does not prescribe going to court to obtain an order before its wordings are obeyed. You only go to court where there are conflicts or disagreement in interpretation or application. There's none of such in this case save for that manufactured by mischievous people.

Did the constitution mention `expect in a case of division in the party?` That`s where interpretation need comes into. The judiciary have to determine if there was a division in their political party for them to defect.

Peacecore:
Did the constitution mention `expect in a case of division in the party?` That`s where interpretation need comes into. The judiciary have to determine if there was a division in their political party for them to defect.

That's a lie. The judiciary is not needed to determine if there's a division or not. A division in a party is not hidden. PDP just did its NEC without any fracas. That shows a party that's functioning properly

Kukutente23:

That's a lie. The judiciary is not needed to determine if there's a division or not. A division in a party is not hidden. PDP just did its NEC without any fracas. That shows a party that's functioning properly

I laffd loud when i saw ur sentiment :DSo the judges are there to see that PDP is not divided in Rivers? That`s not how d law works bro!

Peacecore:
I laffd loud when i saw ur sentiment :DSo the judges are there to see that PDP is not divided in Rivers? That`s not how d law works bro!

It has to be national not Rivers. SC already said that.
At the national level, there's no division