₦airaland Forum

Wazobobia:
Tomorrow 24th is the D-Day between PDP Sim Fubara and APC Tonye Cole Supreme Court Judgement in Abuja.


Both are Ijaws.
Anyhow you turn it na still Ijaw.


Tonye is Tamuno-Tonye meaning the decision of God in my Ijaw.
Fubara is Ibi-Fubara meaning Goodluck.


Ijaw our past, Ijaw our present, Ijaw our future..

Ijaw our final home.


@General Ditari, President, Nairaland Ijaws.

So what? Small-minded fellow.

It was already decided in Rivers State that the governorship should go to other tribes, including them. So how does that solve your problems?

If the supreme court rules in his favour, then Fubara will pack his things. Shakara go end.

Joseph Johnson, the Commissioner of Information stated that Fubara's side was abiding by the peace resolutions, but how many times were they told by the speaker to re-present the budget? How many times? Is it not yet time for the state to have a budget?

They are trying to play smart and dragging their feet.

Fubara is confused. Re-present that budget.

Good step, but go beyond the declaration. Those terrorist elements should meet their maker or be brought to justice through the courts.

IfnobeGod20:
Own up that you goof in your statement. An act of maturity is owing up to one's responsibility and accept one's shortcoming. Looking for grammatical error to circumvent your error won't save you from your monumental mistake.
I have taken time to schooled you the difference between the two words but still looking for what wasn't lost.
As I have umpteenth times said, the assembly reserved the right to institute impeachment proceeding against the governor if they have found any gross misconduct against him but that must be done according to the law of the land. Wanting to go through the back door to impeach the governor was what infuriated the people against the governor and that made hoodlums to set part of the assembly on fire. It's never today impeachment proceeding had been instituted against governors in Nigeria. The same Rivers state assembly instituted same against Amaechi during his term by 5 lawmakers, that almost claimed the life of one of the lawmakers. Just because they wanted to follow same anti-law process. Many waters had passed under the bridge. Stop looking at this one as different.

With your coconut head that believes a lawyer in court can "claim" beyond reasonable doubt in a civil trial, you want to school someone? Wonders shall never end.

If you are coming to me, you are getting schooled.

You'll learn.

Good! They are enforcing the law. I thought they had gone to sleep.

A State High Court Sitting in Port Harcourt, the Rivers State capital, has struck out a suit filed by the Rivers Elders and Leaders Forum challenging the constitutionality of President Bola Tinubu’s “peace pact” between the Rivers State Governor, Siminalayi Fubara; and his predecessor, Nyesom Wike.

The presiding judge, Justice Chinwendu Nwogu, struck out the case on the grounds of the state High Court lacking the jurisdiction to hear the matter.

At the commencement of court hearing, counsel for the claimant argued that all respondents in the matter are yet to be served court summons and the matter cannot to heard when all parties are not served.

After the session, the lead counsel for the complainant, Emmanuel Rukari, expressed reservations on the decision of the state high court.

Also, counsel for Rivers Elders and Leaders Forum, Anabs Sara-Igbe, said the Forum would appeal the decision of the high court.

The Rivers Elders and Leaders Forum led by Former Governor of Rivers State, Rufus Ada-George had condemned the “peace pact” reached by Fubara and Wike’s camps after Tinubu’s intervention, saying the agreement was undemocratic and harmful.

https://www.channelstv.com/2024/01/23/court-strikes-out-suit-challenging-legality-of-rivers-peace-pact/amp/

EmekaA125:
With this, Kanu will be discharged and acquitted.

Not at all. His criminal trial where he is facing terrorism and treasonable felony charges will continue. The evidence of his deeds are well known.

melodyogonna:
But how is this different from my deduction? Isn't extraordinary rendition illegal? If both the federal high court and the supreme court agreed he was extraordinarily renditioned then they both basically agree method of arrest was illegal. But while the appeal court says the case can proceed based on the illegal nature of it, the supreme court says the illegal nature doesn't mean the case can't proceed.

I believe the supreme court's stance here is dangerous to democracy, it just gave some more power to the federal government.

Get the facts right.

It was the Court of Appeal that dismissed the charges based on the illegality of the extraordinary rendition.

While, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, thereby overruling the decision of the Court of Appeal. It stated in its lead judgement that there is no Nigerian law that prohibits the use of “illegally obtained evidence for the trial of a defendant.”

The Supreme Court is right. That is the position of the law.

Figurative.

melodyogonna:
I can't claim to be a lawyer. So what does it really say, at least in relation to my confusion?

Basically, the Supreme Court stated that Kanu’s forcible repatriation from Kenya by the Nigerian government did not take away the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to hear the matter, unlike the decision of the Court of Appeal.

Instead, the defendant (Kanu), who claims his rights have been violated should seek a remedy by instituting a civil suit, but his criminal trial for terrorism and treasonable felony doesn't stop.

Just foolishness. Men and women are not the same, but these elements won't listen. Only to give an innocent young man a borehole when they are finally ready to settle down.

melodyogonna:
I don't understand this Supreme Court judgement. Does it mean the federal government can illegally arrest somebody and the case will proceed without the court addressing the illegality of the arrest? Isn't that giving too much power to the federal government? This is ridiculous sha

You truly do not understand the judgement. At least, you were sincere.

This fellow must be held accountable for all the destruction of properties and loss of lives, he occasioned.

Sometimes I wonder why we have the police in this country. They are always reluctant to enforce the law.

lagosrd:
Someone that finds it difficult to learn wants to teach others.

If you can't answer my question, don't mention me again. Pride is impeding your learning process. Take your advice.

IfnobeGod20:
I don't blame you I blame those that wasted their hard earned resources to train you in school. They should have invested the money in a profitable venture, that would have yielded great return for them by now.
After you went off board to say the House Assembly need not show cause why they want to impeach a governor while the constitution clearly stated it as one procedure to alert the governor or deputy on what they have done against the law. Well, I know your kind, never own up to mistake but still want to exert your own belief to appear right. You cannot go far with that attitude my brother. E gbe je fori, e fo kan ba le and learn.

It seems you are slow. Are those writings in your native language supposed to mean something to me? Are we from the same tribe? Go and learn the basics of communication. This is not your village square.

The long and short of it, is that you are somebody I will teach because you don't know anything.

You don't even know there is a difference between the words "claim and "prove" in law.

When people with something upstairs mention me, I usually know. No offense.

Nothing spiritual about this.

IfnobeGod20:
Sorry I didn't go to evening school like you. The word prove and claim are synonyms and can be used interchangeably depending on the one that comes to your mind per time.
When you claim in law, you're not required to provide evidence but when you prove, you're bound to provide evidence.
Since I caught you pants down, you're now looking for grammatical error. Sorry owned goal you scored.

You learnt in your morning school that the words claim and prove are used interchangeably in law? What a pity.

So you "claim" beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal trial? Coconut head.

They are not the same and not used interchangeably in law. Go back to school.

To claim and prove are two different things. You lose reliefs for any claim not proved. Only a dounce like you will make a claim in court without proof. Then why are you in court? Mumu. Also, you never "claim" beyond reasonable doubt, you prove.

Anyway, run along, dumbo. I'm not taking students at this time from your bush school.

lagosrd:
When you won't read, get educated about legal rulings and better go meet a lawyer who is conversant with court ruling on deflection from one party or the other.

That thing you think you know is not sufficient and cannot be useful in legal decisions no matter how much you love political godfathers .
Did you see what happened in plateau, Kano etc.

Stop day dreaming ....

An empty vessel beating about the bush and could not answer my simple question. Just take your own advice.

Tochi3:
..looting format activated..

..wicked Wike style

Small-mindedness.

He didn't explain why he branded it illegal. I have always considered that sale absurd.

IfnobeGod20:
They must claim beyond reasonable doubt that their defection was as a result of factions in PDP at the national level and that faction had rendered the party inactive. The odds are against them if PDP want to get at them.

See the element that will disgrace someone. Keep disgracing yourself. I will school you.

Claim beyond reasonable doubt as per criminal trial abi?

Claim ke. This must be new. I have never heard of anyone "claiming" beyond reasonable doubt. You prove.

What a Clown.

Crying more than the bereaved. Check now you have no nexus to the state.

Ensure the prosecution of all those involved.

IfnobeGod20:
I love disgracing your kind because you always feel you know but you know nothing. This is what Nigerian constitution says on how to impeach a governor or his deputy in Nigeria according to section 188. Please I challenge you to quote any contrary one. Olodo rabata ojueja lo mo je.

Confused sheep. Another shepherding duty.

There is no point wasting time and energy on you because while you have the section of the constitution, you lack an understanding of the subject matter and the process leading to this.

Where you not aware that after members of the State House of Assembly signed the impeachment notice against the governor, the assembly was razed by fire? Who told you all the processes of S.188 has been completed? If it was, wouldn't the governor be out of office? They began it but the governor and his minions denoted explosives in the building to impede the process.

Go and get a grasp of the whole issue. It is obvious you don't know anything about it.

Meddlesome interloper.

Minime10:
Is Justice Omotosho a visiting judge in Nigeria? Is he at home at all with the Provisions of the Constitution, more particularly Sections 106 (d); 109 (1) (g)?
What does the Constitution say about lawmaker who defected from their erstwhile political party that sponsored them to office, when there is no division in the party?
Omotosho should stop fooling himself.

You have stated sections of the constitution, now apply it to Rivers State. That is where most people fail. Justice Omotosho delivered a sound judgement.

IfnobeGod20:
They need not state his offence? Some of you always think you know everything but in the long run you but know nothing. Always at the side of wrong thing and still want the country to move forward. Check below the procedure to impeaching a governor in Nigeria and stop this your novice thing.

Go and read the constitution, not blog posts and opinions. They don't have to but can choose to explicitly state his offence(s). It suffices that his actions constitutes a misconduct.

You don't know the law, yet you don't want to learn.

IfnobeGod20:
It is within the purview of the legislative arm to institute impeachment proceeding on governor or his deputy but such must be done by following procedure and the first step on the governor was to serve a notice of impeachment on him, but that wasn't done. Even to the lawmakers, who are those that signed his impeachment notice and what was his offence that they need to state along their notice to the speaker of the house? Please can you direct me to such news that emanate from the house concerning the impeachment move against the governor?

The proper procedures were followed. The speaker stated that at the time. That is old news. I won't do your research for you. They don't have to state his offence. Only the legislature can decide if the governor's acts for his impeachment amount to misconduct and proceed.

A statement bereft of wisdom. Illogical on all fronts.

Yankiss:
These idiotic lawbreakers should appeal to supreme court and await their verdict. There is nothing like vicarious ruling in court processes or vicarious judgment.

They cannot appeal. The decision of the Court of Appeal is final with respect to such matters.

A flagrant disregard for the law and court. Should they carry out their plans, I expect their arrests and prosecution. The Commissioner of Police of the state should be informed of this development and on alert with his men to enforce the law.

He never mentioned what the "non-academically related issue" was. Anyway, the right thing should be done.

lagosrd:
Can someone please tell the governor that he should sir up. Those people are impostors , they have resigned their membership of the party that brought them in in the public and the law is the law, let him tell them they are all illegals. And they can't have a word when a legitimate governor is sitting. Don't let any Abuja scare you .. you can't loose out . It's. 50-50 game

You have no idea.

By your reading of the constitution, who has the power to declare the seats of those legislators vacant, if their defection does not comply with its provisions? I am waiting for your answer.

Some of you don't know anything and come here to spew rubbish.