GEJ don turn celebrity... Neva knew being a retard could make one this popular.... Otuoke man and his BH infested parliament...

when obasanjo, yar adua and the others were there, did you say this? idiot

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

Delafruita]
one thing i really abhor is when inorant people are let lose to display
their very apparent st.upidity.i honestly dont have an issue with their
st.upidity,my real issue is with when they attempt to pass on fallacies
borne out of their st.upidity as fact.
what eactly is the function of the legislature?the constituition
empowers them to make laws and at the same time empowers them to perform
oversight function.one of the laws the legislature is epected to pass
is the appropiation bill without which government grinds to a halt.the
constituition in section 88 and 89 empowers them to summon ANY
PERSON,BODY OR INSTITUITION for which appropiation has been made.it is
THEIR DUTY to summon the president and if the retardeen wasnt such a
clueless qiankpong,it wouldnt be such a big issue.he is been summoned
along with his service with regards to the bokoharam menace which kills
people daily.this should be another opportunity for him to warm himself
into the good books of nigerians by potraying himself as a president who
is willing to follow the path of humility when their lives are at
stake.answering the summon of the representatives of the people show
that jonathan feels the pains of the people.its an opportunity for him
to unite all nigerians in the fight against boko haram.i dont understand
the kind of dumb advisers the retardeen has.these aides are runing his
presidency

re-read your comment and judge yourself is Nigeria parastatals, ministry, of company? nigeria is a country and Jonathan is the head os a country, the house only have power to summon head of ministries and not head of govt. olodo house. let them make better law and stop creating problem in america obama will address the congress and not the congress summon obama. get you fact right!

Delafruita:
section 88 subsection 1 a & b is explicit in its intentions
it says-
(1) subject to the provisions of this constituition,each house of the national assembly shall have power by resolution published in its journal or in the official gazette of the government of the federation to direct or cause to be directed an investigation into
(a) any matter or thing with respect to which it has power to make laws;and
(b) the conduct of affairs of any person,authority,ministry or government department charged,or inteneded to be charged with the duty or responsibility for
(i) executing or administering laws enacted by the national assembly;and
(ii) disbursing or administering moneys appropiated or to be appropiated by the national assembly.

from subsection b(ii) above it is evident that the framers of the constituition intended that the organ responsible for disbursing the appropiated monies i.e. the presidency which is headed by the president can be summoned to the national assembly to explain how such monies have been spent.we all know a hefty sum was appropiated to security recently so i believe the house has the right to summon the president

** claps** but I am afraid a lot are not ready to use their heads in these things.

comradefery: Besides, that section 88 dwells more on the Power of the National Assembly to conduct investigations, but here they summoned the president for the purpose of security briefing which i consider ridiculous, as we have the I.G, the Chief of Army Staff, the Defence Minister, the NSA, and the Director of SSS!

Correction - the I.G, the Chief of Army Staff, and Defense Ministers, The NSA, and SSS all get their orders from the President. If you read the section on the creation of these other offices, you will see that it clearly states that orders have to be approved by the President- all decisions still have to go through the president-- , hence the president is in fact the Chief of Security in Nigeria and this is why it makes sense to call on him to explain what is happening.

Note that this practice did not start with this president as I already see some of you already playing the VICTIM CARD on his behalf when in fact this plan has been in place long before Jonathan Goodluck even dreamed of running for President.

why is he going to court? 'omo elefo gbe efo re wa' may God help us.

^^^ Welcome to Nigeria.

Ibrahim mr fish: Why is he affraid 2 show his face?Dis guy is truely a joke.

Your take is that he is afraid? Review your source of info and stop sharing your ignorance!

oga presido, u better dont allow us to start regretting for casting our vote for u ok!

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.

1. Notwithstanding the wordings of section 88, the summon is not applicable to the office of the president until a competent law of jurisdiction rule otherwise. In law, any doubt at all put an irremovable question mark on the whole stuff. Let's take for example a similar imbroglio between Obasanjo and Atiku when Atiku declared for Advanced Congress of Democrats and later emerged as the presidential candidate of Action Congress. Based on the wordings of constitution, Obasanjo as the leader of PDP declared his seat Vacant. The rest as they say is now history.

2. "Risk of impeachment" got me laughing. My brother, impeachment is more political than legal if the procedure in the constitution is anything to follow. You don't have to run foul of constitution to be impeached. Reference the impeachments of Peter Obi, Ladoja and Joshua Dariye that were upturned by Supreme Court. Their impeachments were ruled illegal and unconstitutional. Not to talk of Ayo Fayose who was practically bundled out of office. Bottom line, impeachment does not have to be legal to sail through. It's politics and if well played, the logical conclusion would be achieved.
Now using a portion of Constitution that's is to be tabled before the supreme court to interpret as the sole excuse to commence impeachment proceedings is not only laughable but a hard politics to play. The impeachment option is not viable as the house will be the one running foul of the law in this case.

3. Obasanjo attended Oputa panel because he had no choice other than to do it (The panel was set up by OBJ not NASS). He used it to mount pressure and sway public opinion against IBB et al who refused to show up. There was no part of constitution that made it mandatory for him to attend. Neither were there sanctions in the event that he failed to turn up. What has happened to Buhari, IBB, Abubakar etc that did not appear before the panel? Nothing! In a presidential system of government, I stand to be corrected, there is no place in the world where the parliament issue summons on the President. If you have instances, please quote them for the benefit of all to learn. When the house issued the summons on GEJ, why didn't they put a specific deadline on it? What if GEJ happens not to be ready till the end of his term since there is no urgency of flouting a deadline? What's the essence of a summon that the fellow being summoned would pick a convenient date for himself? How would one establish that such a summon has not been honored ? How would that now constitute a basis for impeachment? It does not have a logical flow sequence.

The powers of NASS to issue summons on anyone as presently itemized in 1999 constitution (as amended) do not apply to Mr.President. It's unconstitutional and amounts to legislative rascality that must be stopped by all legal means necessarily hence the rightful step of approaching the judiciary to give true meaning to that section. Until supreme court rules, the summons is as unconstitutional as illegal and thus null, void and of no material effect.

kennytidistar: Delafruita]
one thing i really abhor is when inorant people are let lose to display
their very apparent st.upidity.i honestly dont have an issue with their
st.upidity,my real issue is with when they attempt to pass on fallacies
borne out of their st.upidity as fact.
what eactly is the function of the legislature?the constituition
empowers them to make laws and at the same time empowers them to perform
oversight function.one of the laws the legislature is epected to pass
is the appropiation bill without which government grinds to a halt.the
constituition in section 88 and 89 empowers them to summon ANY
PERSON,BODY OR INSTITUITION for which appropiation has been made.it is
THEIR DUTY to summon the president and if the retardeen wasnt such a
clueless qiankpong,it wouldnt be such a big issue.he is been summoned
along with his service with regards to the bokoharam menace which kills
people daily.this should be another opportunity for him to warm himself
into the good books of nigerians by potraying himself as a president who
is willing to follow the path of humility when their lives are at
stake.answering the summon of the representatives of the people show
that jonathan feels the pains of the people.its an opportunity for him
to unite all nigerians in the fight against boko haram.i dont understand
the kind of dumb advisers the retardeen has.these aides are runing his
presidency

re-read your comment and judge yourself is Nigeria parastatals, ministry, of company? nigeria is a country and Jonathan is the head os a country, the house only have power to summon head of ministries and not head of govt. olodo house. let them make better law and stop creating problem in america obama will address the congress and not the congress summon obama. get you fact right!

your answer is this

bayooooooo:

1. Notwithstanding the wordings of section 88, the summon is not applicable to the office of the president until a competent law of jurisdiction rule otherwise. In law, any doubt at all put an irremovable question mark on the whole stuff. Let's take for example a similar imbroglio between Obasanjo and Atiku when Atiku declared for Advanced Congress of Democrats and later emerged as the presidential candidate of Action Congress. Based on the wordings of constitution, Obasanjo as the leader of PDP declared his seat Vacant. The rest as they say is now history.

2. "Risk of impeachment" got me laughing. My brother, impeachment is more political than legal if the procedure in the constitution is anything to follow. You don't have to run foul of constitution to be impeached. Reference the impeachments of Peter Obi, Ladoja and Joshua Dariye that were upturned by Supreme Court. Their impeachments were ruled illegal and unconstitutional. Not to talk of Ayo Fayose who was practically bundled out of office. Bottom line, impeachment does not have to be legal to sail through. It's politics and if well played, the logical conclusion would be achieved.
Now using a portion of Constitution that's is to be tabled before the supreme court to interpret as the sole excuse to commence impeachment proceedings is not only laughable but a hard politics to play. The impeachment option is not viable as the house will be the one running foul of the law in this case.

3. Obasanjo attended Oputa panel because he had no choice other than to do it (The panel was set up by OBJ not NASS). He used it to mount pressure and sway public opinion against IBB et al who refused to show up. There was no part of constitution that made it mandatory for him to attend. Neither were there sanctions in the event that he failed to turn up. What has happened to Buhari, IBB, Abubakar etc that did not appear before the panel? Nothing! In a presidential system of government, I stand to be corrected, there is no place in the world where the parliament issue summons on the President. If you have instances, please quote them for the benefit of all to learn. When the house issued the summons on GEJ, why didn't they put a specific deadline on it? What if GEJ happens not to be ready till the end of his term since there is no urgency of flouting a deadline? What's the essence of a summon that the fellow being summoned would pick a convenient date for himself? How would one establish that such a summon has not been honored ? How would that now constitute a basis for impeachment? It does not have a logical flow sequence.

The powers of NASS to issue summons on anyone as presently itemized in 1999 constitution (as amended) do not apply to Mr.President. It's unconstitutional and amounts to legislative rascality that must be stopped by all legal means necessarily hence the rightful step of approaching the judiciary to give true meaning to that section. Until supreme court rules, the summons is as unconstitutional as illegal and thus null, void and of no material

for once bayoooo is making sense. Good one!

u guys should let GEJ be.

bayooooooo:

1. Notwithstanding the wordings of section 88, the summon is not applicable to the office of the president until a competent law of jurisdiction rule otherwise. In law, any doubt at all put an irremovable question mark on the whole stuff. Let's take for example a similar imbroglio between Obasanjo and Atiku when Atiku declared for Advanced Congress of Democrats and later emerged as the presidential candidate of Action Congress. Based on the wordings of constitution, Obasanjo as the leader of PDP declared his seat Vacant. The rest as they say is now history.

2. "Risk of impeachment" got me laughing. My brother, impeachment is more political than legal if the procedure in the constitution is anything to follow. You don't have to run foul of constitution to be impeached. Reference the impeachments of Peter Obi, Ladoja and Joshua Dariye that were upturned by Supreme Court. Their impeachments were ruled illegal and unconstitutional. Not to talk of Ayo Fayose who was practically bundled out of office. Bottom line, impeachment does not have to be legal to sail through. It's politics and if well played, the logical conclusion would be achieved.
Now using a portion of Constitution that's is to be tabled before the supreme court to interpret as the sole excuse to commence impeachment proceedings is not only laughable but a hard politics to play. The impeachment option is not viable as the house will be the one running foul of the law in this case.

3. Obasanjo attended Oputa panel because he had no choice other than to do it (The panel was set up by OBJ not NASS). He used it to mount pressure and sway public opinion against IBB et al who refused to show up. There was no part of constitution that made it mandatory for him to attend. Neither were there sanctions in the event that he failed to turn up. What has happened to Buhari, IBB, Abubakar etc that did not appear before the panel? Nothing! In a presidential system of government, I stand to be corrected, there is no place in the world where the parliament issue summons on the President. If you have instances, please quote them for the benefit of all to learn. When the house issued the summons on GEJ, why didn't they put a specific deadline on it? What if GEJ happens not to be ready till the end of his term since there is no urgency of flouting a deadline? What's the essence of a summon that the fellow being summoned would pick a convenient date for himself? How would one establish that such a summon has not been honored ? How would that now constitute a basis for impeachment? It does not have a logical flow sequence.

The powers of NASS to issue summons on anyone as presently itemized in 1999 constitution (as amended) do not apply to Mr.President. It's unconstitutional and amounts to legislative rascality that must be stopped by all legal means necessarily hence the rightful step of approaching the judiciary to give true meaning to that section. Until supreme court rules, the summons is as unconstitutional as illegal and thus null, void and of no material effect.

Let me first state that there is nothing wrong with inviting the President, but to do so with a tone of arrogance or disrespect to the office of the President or his person, would be outright wrong and ill advised.

The way and manner the leadership of House of Reps went about the summon was not proper, in my view, and smacks of arrogance - the kind of arrogance exhibited by thieves wey don belle full and have lost their minds.

Having said the above, under the powers of NASS to appropriate money, the lawmakers have the constitutional right and indeed duty to summon anybody to come before it for explanation. In this regard, since the House of Reps has the powers to appropriate money for security, it follows that it has the powers to call on Mr. President to explain certain issues that have to do with lives and security of the people of Nigeria, under section 88 and 89.

Additionally, the three arms of government are equal and under the principle of checks and balances in the constitution, the House is empowered to summon the president in time of national crisis as we have found ourselves with the current security situation.

In my humble opinion, this is not the time for the executive arm to be fighting the legislative arm in court over petty issues such as this. We are at war by all standards, and every arm of the government must join hands and fight this war together if we want to win.


Bayooooooo, you state that notwithstanding the wordings of section 88, the summon is not applicable to the office of the President. It appears as if the President and the AG do not believe as you do. If they did, they would simply ignored the summon. I submit to you that the President is going to court to claim that this particular summon is invalid but not that the President is exempted from summons by the House of Rep. In due time, we'll find out the real deal. This is my last post on this issue.

as una dey here dey argue, another $10million don disappear from our treasuries, both from inside hole wey dey inside NASS accounts and de ones wey dey for Aso rock accounts. dalu o