bayooooooo:

The above quote is where the NASS derives the power to summon "any person", let's look at "any person":

What happens if "any person" in this above quote for House of Representative is the Senate President or vice versa? Can Tambuwal(House of Reps) order David Mark to appear before him? Is it enforceable? That "any person" even when interpreted loosely is still not applicable to everyone in Nigeria. The supreme court will have to interpret if that "any person" can be applied to the office of president.

It's my opinion that GEJ is not duty bound to appear and can not be compelled to appear before NASS. NASS also does not have the means of enforcing such a resolution. Can they also order CJN to appear? Shunning such an invitation more so when it does not have any precedent can not amount to impeachable offence. SO on technicality of law, GEJ is not duty bound to appear.


I made the above contribution in a similar thread. The only addition I have now is to appreciate the fact that GEJ is taking the right step. Civil litigation in a democracy especially in a renascent one as ours can only help give true meaning to the boundary or limits of powers of each arm of government. There is a reason why we have Supreme Court and is in part to adjudicate on matters of this nature. Let supreme court decides if any person, in this case, is truly the same as everyone.

Sun of god: GEJ - It was just an invitation. . . . . there was no obligation to attend.

Was it a court summons And you want to sue!!! Lol.

Your aides are giving you bad advice. . . . maybe you should start using 'Ask Jeeves'

ypzilanti: This is what happens when you vote a man you would not hire to run your generator as the man to run your country.

We are praying for you Mr. President. We know only prayers can save us now.

Go and explain yourself to the national assembly and stop wasting everyone's time. You are not the king of Nigeria. You are the President.

You have a right to refuse to speak when you get there and exercise your right to remain silent. It will make you look stupid to do that.. sha, oh. But as I have read it, the assembly do have the right to call you to a chat, Sir.

Goodluck running the country. No pun intended.

ypzilanti: This is what happens when you vote a man you would not hire to run your generator as the man to run your country.

We are praying for you Mr. President. We know only prayers can save us now.

Go and explain yourself to the national assembly and stop wasting everyone's time. You are not the king of Nigeria. You are the President.

You have a right to refuse to speak when you get there and exercise your right to remain silent. It will make you look stupid to do that.. sha, oh. But as I have read it, the assembly do have the right to call you to a chat, Sir.

Goodluck running the country. No pun intended.

bayooooooo:

The above quote is where the NASS derives the power to summon "any person", let's look at "any person":

What happens if "any person" in this above quote for House of Representative is the Senate President or vice versa? Can Tambuwal(House of Reps) order David Mark to appear before him? Is it enforceable? That "any person" even when interpreted loosely is still not applicable to everyone in Nigeria. The supreme court will have to interpret if that "any person" can be applied to the office of president.

It's my opinion that GEJ is not duty bound to appear and can not be compelled to appear before NASS. NASS also does not have the means of enforcing such a resolution. Can they also order CJN to appear? Shunning such an invitation more so when it does not have any precedent can not amount to impeachable offence. SO on technicality of law, GEJ is not duty bound to appear.


I made the above contribution in a similar thread. The only addition I have now is to appreciate the fact that GEJ is taking the right step. Civil litigation in a democracy especially in a renascent one as ours can only help give true meaning to the boundary or limits of powers of each arm of government. There is a reason why we have Supreme Court and is in part to adjudicate on matters of this nature. Let supreme court decides if any person, in this case, is truly the same as everyone.

(2) The powers conferred on the National Assembly under the provisions of this section are exercisable only for the purpose of enabling it to -

(a) make laws with respect to any matter within its legislative competence and correct any defects in existing laws; and

(b) expose corruption, inefficiency or waste in the execution or administration of laws within its legislative competence and in the disbursement or administration of funds appropriated by it.

ndu_chucks:

There is a strong probability that the courts will rule in favour of The President but not because of the reasons you stated above. We can always find impractical exceptions to this "any person" you talked about above. We can carry the definition of "any person" to ridiculous levels which I do not care to do here.

It suffices to say that even the constitution clearly defines the conditions under which "any person" can be summoned. This summon would be valid if it is for the purposes of any investigation under section 88. If so, I submit that even the President can be summoned.

section 88



I admit however, that it would be quite easy to show any court that the summons issued to the President would not be exercisable based on section 88 above.

oldtime: Now I know we chose a Fisherman for President. This is a confirmation of Prof. Ayittey. How on earth will he sue the House Just for a summon? Nigeria is finished, This guy was shocked everyone by refusing to lead by example in declaring his assets. (Only rogues do that) His aide called Nigerians a Mob, only goons do that and Now he will sue for an invitation to explain his efforts in the House. well, It serves them well. The pigs and the piglets are all swine. If they know what is right. They should impeach him and impeach themselves afterall we have a Bribe taker among them and a Financier of Boko Haram. Useless rulers who shamed us before Ghanian

http://www.akinbami..com/2012/07/sena-fraud-one-taker-of-bribes-and.html

betrani: Nigeria from my knowledge so far is the only country in the world where I ve seen or heard sa House Of Reps summoning a president! Na wah o! Its really amazin, amusin and joking! If na me I no go even answer them! Make I see hw these criminals go behave! Mumus them includin president wey even burder to answer them!

bayooooooo:

The question we are trying to answer is not whether the House has powers to summon or not. NASS has powers to summon as it affects business of governance. The question is, can the president be summoned? If summoned and he refused, can such summons be enforced? And finally, do that provisions of the constitution really affect the office of Mr President?

1.It's obvious and self explanatory that a summon issued to the President, Commander in Chief of Armed Forces can not be enforced. How are they going to compel him to appear before the committee either of the whole or designated ad hoc one? Means of enforcement does not exist. A threat that can not be carried out is called empty threat, null, void and of no use.

2.There is nothing in section 88 that either invalidates or confers additional powers on section 89 with respect to summons. If anything, section 88 actually restricted or limited powers of the NASS as it is obvious you can not be summoned on your private business. It does not strengthen section 89 to the extent of applying it to the office of President.

You rightly believe that the Supreme Court will likely rule in favor of Mr President, there are several reasons that can be advanced, not just a simple one as postulated in my post above. In coming days, if time permits, I can open a thread on a strictly legal perspective on why the pendulum of justice will swing victory to the President side in this case.

bayooooooo:

The question we are trying to answer is not whether the House has powers to summon or not. NASS has powers to summon as it affects business of governance. The question is, can the president be summoned? If summoned and he refused, can such summons be enforced? And finally, do that provisions of the constitution really affect the office of Mr President?

1.It's obvious and self explanatory that a summon issued to the President, Commander in Chief of Armed Forces can not be enforced. How are they going to compel him to appear before the committee either of the whole or designated ad hoc one? Means of enforcement does not exist. A threat that can not be carried out is called empty threat, null, void and of no use.

2.There is nothing in section 88 that either invalidates or confers additional powers on section 89 with respect to summons. If anything, section 88 actually restricted or limited powers of the NASS as it is obvious you can not be summoned on your private business. It does not strengthen section 89 to the extent of applying it to the office of President.

You rightly believe that the Supreme Court will likely rule in favor of Mr President, there are several reasons that can be advanced, not just a simple one as postulated in my post above. In coming days, if time permits, I can open a thread on a strictly legal perspective on why the pendulum of justice will swing victory to the President side in this case.

engineerd: Meanwhile in another news.....Cern scientists reporting from the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) have claimed the discovery of a new particle consistent with the Higgs boson.

cyril83: I have said this times withou numba,this inhuman,drunk GEJ is nothing but a useless tyrant,the simple meaning of his action is that nobody on earth can question his authority or movement,what a shame nigeria is still under military rule

ajani_ade: why surmon the president to a meeting when u can talk to him in aso rock or talk to his secretaries(miltaries).. Here in the usa, the committes meets with defence secretaries and all involved on a weekly bases....

President Goodluck Jonathan is said to be preparing a litigation against an invitation sent to him by the House of Representatives to brief it on his anti-terrorism strategies. This was disclosed yesterday by the House Committee Chairman on Federal Road Maintenance Agency (FERMA), Hon. Ofor Chukwuegbo.

According to Hon. Chukwuegbo, “the president is considering taking the House to court because of our invitation. His aides have advised him to do so.”

The House had, on June 19, summoned President Jonathan to appear before a joint closed-session and address it on his efforts to tackle the insecurity confronting the country.

The invitation followed a motion by Hon. Yakubu Barde, a member of the PDP. Hon. Barde, who had raised the motion under Matter of Urgent National Importance, said the incessant bloodletting by terror groups in parts of Nigeria needed to be stemmed in order to avoid a religious war.

ndu_chucks:

In the exercise of its oversight functions the House of Representatives or the Senate is empowered by sections 88 and 89 of the Constitution to summon “any person, authority, ministry or government department charged with the authority for executing laws and …disbursing or administering money appropriated or to be appropriated by the National Assembly”.

I agree with Delafruita that the word “any person” or “authority” includes the President. You stated that since no means of enforcement exists, such a summon amounts to an empty threat, null, void and of no use. I completely disagree with this postulation. The President stands the risk of impeachment if summons are ignored depending on the gavity of the "crime" being investigated.

No doubt, the President is vested with enormous powers by the Constitution. But he is not an absolute ruler. Do not forget that President Obasanjo appeared twice to answer the summons issued on him by the Oputa Panel on human rights violations. That the President cannot be summoned is not an issue, but a moot point, in my mind.

As I stated earlier, GEJ can argue that this particular summon is invalid because of section 88 and he may win this particular case.

Kobojunkie: Nigerian Journalists are good at making up the most stupid. Why in the world would the President SUE the National Assembly over a summons that pertains to National Security? This is the same President who went on national TV on June 24th to reveal that he has not seen the summons and would welcome it. Now, less than 2 weeks, he is suing? If anyone should be sued, I think the DailyPost needs to be for this.

comradefery: Most of the critics and abusers of the president either lack indept knowdge on how a government functions, or they are the same sectional jingoists who have chosen the vilification of the President as their pass time. The summon shows how the legislators prefer playing to the gallary, rather than show seriousness in their legislative functions!

comradefery: Most of the critics and abusers of the president either lack indept knowdge on how a government functions, or they are the same sectional jingoists who have chosen the vilification of the President as their pass time. The summon shows how the legislators prefer playing to the gallary, rather than show seriousness in their legislative functions!