₦airaland Forum

Living in Lagos, Abuja, Port-Harcourt, Calabar, Benin City, Ibadan, or many other cities in Nigeria, one might have the illusion that one is not living in a country at war. However this country has been at war since the emergence of Boko Haram around 2009, and its transformation into the "bandit" and the "Fulani herdsmen" phenomena. The scale of fatalities is no different from that in an all out war - tens of thousands have lost their lives and thousands more have been displaced. Which Nigerian Government will wake up to truly be concerned about this - as opposed to being obsessed with Yachts, SUVs and the like?

Compared to most of Europe, the USA is a land of bush people.

SharingIsLife:
Assuming the permission of Falseprophet1, I see Wike's oppression turning Fubara into one of the most popular and most loved governors in this dispensation.



This I have seen.

Greetings,

I am Special Attorney to his Eminence, Falseprophet1 and his enigmatic holiness, RevDesm0ndJuju.

Please note that the permission of the Falseprophet1 for his trademark refrain is to be sought ahead of usage with such permission being conveyed through me, his loyal servant.

For this infraction, you shall receive two hot pinches this night at the witching hour by witches loyal to the prophet.

In future, be guided accordingly, and we at the Temple of Falsity and Black Juju solemnly bid you a most frightening Christmas.

wirinet:
Just because you created something is not justification to be wrathful and vengeful, particularly for egocentric reasons. I gave birth to children ( which I created in a sense). If I decide to be wrathful and vengeful and every disobedience the commit, I would have killed them long ago.
That's why I said I like the character of Jesus, he was a pacifist and never wrathful or vengeful, that character belongs to Yahweh and Allah.

Generally true, but I must add that -

1) Jesus was not entirely pacifist. He was quite the rebel against the religious establishment of his day. Taking a whip to traders in the temple, calling the Pharisees a brood of vipers and children of Satan, and saying - "I bring not peace but a sword" - - - none of this is pacifism.

2) To the general extent that his teaching was pacifist, pacifism is an irresponsible ideology.

God is wrath with the devil, but instead of him to take his personal beef with the devil, he decides to take it on man, who was not even involved with their beef to start with.

Your God is just to wrathful for someone like me. I am not a wrathful person. Anyone with negative emotions, I avoid.

Gbam. You talk am wella.

wirinet:
That's what you choose to believe.
Jesus never told his disciples he was God to be worshipped, that was Paul.

I doubt that even Paul taught the pagan doctrine of the Trinity.

Jesus never created any hierarchy in his organization, he sat on the floor together with his disciples, he never sat on a high chair. He did not create Bishops, elders, pastors. He said you can talk to God directly and don't need to talk to God through bishops, popes, pastors, etc.
He eat from the same table with his followers. He never personally owned any property. He never denigrated women, he did not see them as inferior.

All these I mentioned above were introduced by Paul and not Jesus.

Pauline Christianity leaves much to be desired indeed, and in some parts, is downright reprehensible.

Righteousness2:
Satanic talk from the put of Hell!

Satan's prophets unleashed all over the places to dilute the word of God and package people for Hell!

Beware of these wolves in sheep clothings.
These are the very Endtimes and the devil has unleashed his soldiers everywhere.
Beware! Your Soul is the target!

What was the propitiatory sacrifice on the cross if not a ritual of human sacrifice for remission of sins.

What is holy communion which includes the eating of the flesh of Christ and the drinking of his blood if not another ritual.

Do you even know the meaning of the word "ritual" at all?

/ˈrɪtʃʊəl/
noun
a religious or solemn ceremony consisting of a series of actions performed according to a prescribed order.

https://www.google.com/search?q=meaning+ritual&oq=meaning+ritual&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i22i30l2j0i15i22i30l2j0i22i30l10.7887j1j7&client=ms-android-transsion&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

See also:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ritual

abhosts:
Most of these traditional monarchies have outlived their usefulness and should be scrapped. This is 2023 and not 1923 for God's sake.

What about the British Monarchy. What do you think of scrapping that one too.

sirpharrell:
I had already seen that you are knowledgeable and taken in some of your points. But because you started abusing me first, I had to talk down on you too. That's the rule here. They don't argue without throwing abuses and if you abuse me, I abuse you back.

You are right that the letter of defection is not the only evidence.
I should have said the most satisfactory evidence.
But in practice, these guys will deny in court that they have defected.
But with the letter, they can not deny.

Accept my apologies for the earlier intemperate words.

sirpharrell:
Yes, I see the point you're trying to make.
The constitution dies not specifically say it is only the letter of the member.
Satisfactory evidence can be interpreted both ways.
There is a reason why the letter ifrom the member is deemed Satisfactory evidence.
The member can deny that he did not defect even with all those things you listed.
It happened in Ebonyi state where the whole world knew that they had defected from PDP to APC with enough video evidence.
That is the basis upon which PDP is now challenging the eligibility of the current governor.
He was the speaker of the Assembly then and since he successfully argued in court that he did not defect, PDP are now arguing that at the time he was nominated to run for governor under APC, he was still a member of PDP.
But the member can not deny the letter he wrote. The letter is incontrovertible.

Well if we are to stay consistent, such a member can equally claim that any such letter is forged.

sirpharrell:
You say you are 20 years at the bar but see what you are writing.
That the speaker can attach any other evidence of defection apart from the letter from the member?
Na waoh.
I think I should just stop at this point.

Please see my post above. I have cited Section 109. And yes, its exact words are "evidence satisfactory to the house."
With this, show your own honesty and retract this.

sirpharrell:
You are a lawyer and you are making arguments on a document you have not even read. You ought to know better.
Since you said you are a lawyer, can you answer these questions:
1. Assuming that Edison is the rightful speaker, can he declare the seats of the 27 vacant without receiving and reading in plenary the letters of defection from those members?
2. Can a member lose his seat upon defection if the speaker has not declared the seat vacant or the court has ordered that he so vacates the seat?

Right. I am back. Here, I reproduce Section 109 of the Constitution in full. Kindly note the bold words.

Section 109 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria
(1) A member of a House of Assembly shall vacate his seat in the House if -

(a) he becomes a member of another legislative house;

(b) any other circumstances arise that, if he were not a member of that House, would cause him to be disqualified for election as such a member;

(c) he ceases to be a citizen of Nigeria;

(d) he becomes President, Vice-President, Governor, Deputy Governor or a Minister of the Government of the Federation or a Commissioner of the Government of a State or a Special Adviser;

(e) save as otherwise prescribed by this Constitution, he becomes a member of a commission or other body established by this Constitution or by any other law;

(f) without just cause he is absent from meetings of the House of Assembly for a period amounting in the aggregate to more than one-third of the total number of days during which the House meets in any one year;

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

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 of this Constitution have been complied with in respect of the recall of the member.

(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.

(3) A member of a House of Assembly shall be deemed to be absent without just cause from a meeting of the House of Assembly unless the person presiding certifies in writing that he is satisfied that the absence of the member from the meeting was for a just cause.

Interpretation.

You can see clearly that nowhere is it required that the Speaker receives a letter of defection contrary to your claims. Via Subsection 1(g) we can see that a member vacates his seat where -

"being a person whose election to the House of Assembly was sponsored by a political party, he becomes a member of another political party before the expiration of the period for which that House was elected:

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."

We further see that all that is required is that the Speaker provides "evidence satisfactory to the house" of that defection. Thus, any evidence may be provided, including videos of their own words, statements and reception into the APC.

I hope we are clear now, and in the spirit of intellectual honesty, you will be as honest as I have been, and concede the point.

sirpharrell:
You are a lawyer and you are making arguments on a document you have not even read. You ought to know better.

I said my bad already. That's honesty. Besides, I dont take this place as seriously as I would a court room. Quite often we do light banter here.

Since you said you are a lawyer, can you answer these questions:
1. Assuming that Edison is the rightful speaker, can he declare the seats of the 27 vacant without receiving and reading in plenary the letters of defection from those members?
2. Can a member lose his seat upon defection if the speaker has not declared the seat vacant or the court has ordered that he so vacates the seat?

I will revert. I would like to quote and cite.
BRB.

sirpharrell:
On the contrary, my position is that if a law is constantly breached because of the loopholes contained in that law, then that law ought to be amended to remove those loopholes and make the law easier to implement.
With the current provisions, people will continue to defect and keep their seats. That is clearly against what the law intends but it will continue to happen because of the loopholes in the law.

I find this reasonable.
But to be clear, this is not to say I agree with you on the matter of the defection not being effective in terms of rendering the seats vacant.

Unlike you and most people that only seek implementation of the law on the people you don't like, I have been highlighting the loopholes in the law long before the Rivers episode.

Easy on the presumptions please. You don't know me. That's how you presumed to lecture someone who is 20 years at the bar on the meaning of "ex parte."

Easy up.

sirpharrell:
Yes

Yes, they have but the letter is of no consequence by the current provisions of the law.
INEC can not act on the PDP letter.
The only thing that INEC can act on is a letter from the speaker or a valid court judgement.
Edison wrote to INEC too but I am sure that he did not attach any letter from the members. That is the only recognised evidence that they have defected.
Without attaching the letters from the members, his letter to INEC will be just a mere love letter.
It will be like writing to INEC that a member has died without attaching the death certificate.

I doubt the bold is correct. The defection is too well attested in the public space (and by the repetitions of the Faction of 27 themselves) to be denied by either INEC or anyone else. Besides, have you checked to see if the law actually states that the Speaker must attach letters to his communication with INEC. I haven't checked, to be clear.

Surely he can attach anything else - such as videos of their reception into the APC for instance.

sirpharrell:
If the word "shall" means automatic, can you give me one example where a member lost his seat automatically upon defection. Apart from Abaribe, there has been hundreds of other defections.
The onus is on the speaker to declare the seat vacant. So how is that automatic?
Senator Dave Umahi's seat was only declared vacant by the senate president just last week, after four months of his taking up a ministerial appointment.
People like you just come online to abuse other people who have superior knowledge instead of learning. You can hardly learn that way.
The constitutional provisions on defection is laced with several loopholes and that is why defection has not abated.
Everyone knows the law but the loopholes make it possible for people to defect and get away with it.
Unless the law is amended, we will continue to witness people defecting and still keeping their seats.
The 27 Rivers lawmakers are not the first and will not be the last.

Your line of reasoning seems to be that if a law is consistently breached then it is not the law. That is absurd.
Many Muslims drink alcohol. Therefore Islam does not prohibit the drinking of alcohol. This is what you are effectively saying.

Kukutente23:
As I've said before, I take your info that the letter was read on the floor.
In all the cases you mentioned, that of Abaribe is understandable since he defected close to election and it's obvious the seat was up for election too.
For the others, the Speaker is acting illegally. It is obvious you have no knowledge of law. The law clearly states that where the word "shall" is used, it confers mandatory on the bearer to carry out the action. There's even a supreme court judgement that backs the use of "shall" up.

To claim that the word "shall" is not automatic shows your ignorance.
Your logic can be stretched to say it is not automatic that the president presents the budget to the house. If he chooses not to, you can go to court.
It can also be stretched to say the president does not need to be sworn in before taking office. If you don't like it, you can go to court.
Heck, the president does not even need to win the majority votes and 25% in 24 states to win an election.
All the examples I gave you, the word "shall" was used in those sections of the constitution. Go and confirm.
So what you're advocating for is simply lawlessness by claiming it is not automatic. That's how illogical your stand is.
The Speaker is expected to be law-abiding since they make laws. But political wimps like you can't tell the difference between law and politics.

Very well said.

sirpharrell:
It should be the party that should write to INEC that their member who won election had defected.

But PDP has also written to INEC.

sirpharrell:
How does the court declaring Edison the speaker mean the same thing as declaring the 27 seats vacant?
It was not even a judgement but an exparte order that Edison got.
I know you don't know the difference but I'll try to break it down.
The exparte order has a maximum lifespan of 14 days.
That is why the other party didn't worry to appeal the order because it will soon expire.
The issue of declaration of seats vacant was not part of the exparte order.
It is a very bad habit to be arguing blindly on an issue that you obviously know nothing about.

Please don't presume I dont know what ex parte orders are. I am a lawyer. However I will admit I did not read the order prior to my initial comment. So my bad on that. Nevertheless this is why I proceeded to couch my subsequent reply in the words I did - note that I said -

"That pronouncement could only be issued with the implicit understanding that the faction of 27 were functus officio."

Please note the word "implicit."

This is also why I then took it one step further, by pointing out that so long as Edison has been recognized as the speaker, and has declared those seats vacant, then the deed is done.

PS: Although interim orders generally have a time limit, in practice once they are made "pending the hearing of the motion on notice" they remain in effect until such a hearing.

sirpharrell:
Which court declared which seats vacant? Why can't you just stop commenting on an issue you obviously know nothing about? The matter is not even in court yet.

Tell me how it arrived at its recognition of Edison Ehie as the speaker. That pronouncement could only be issued with the implicit understanding that the faction of 27 were functus officio. There could be no other rational basis.

Secondly, even if you dispute this, so long as -

1. The court has recognized Edison Ehie as the speaker
2. Edison Ehie has declared their seats vacant -

Then the deed is fully done, regardless.

It would now be up to the faction of 27 to dispute this in court.

wirinet:
Nigerians are just too insincere. They don't believe in such things as honour, dignify and doing things right. They only believe in manipulating the system for greed and personal gain. No country can survive with such hobbesian value system.

The case would take years to snake all the way to the supreme court. By then the matter would have become irrelevant.

Correct. But he seems to suggest only the Supreme Court can do this. That's arrant nonsense. Any high court can, and at least one has already.

jaephoenix:
1. Do you have evidence for that?

The laws of causality and common reason lead us to know that there must be an ultimate source of all other existing things.

2. What is the source of that source?

It is necessarily self-existent, and this is deduced in logic and philosophy.

sirpharrell:
See how ignorant you are, yet you don't want to cool down and learn.
Senator Ifeanyi Ubah was elected under YPP, not Labour Party.
He has already written a letter to the Senate President which was read in plenary.
Take note of the process. He wrote a letter to the Senate President and the Senate President read the letter in plenary. I hope you understand what plenary means sha.
The Senate President has not yet declared his seat vacant.
Now, if YPP feel aggrieved, they will approach the high court to state that there is no division in their party to warrant the defection.
Normally, the case will get up to the Supreme Court and YPP will most likely win.
That is how it works. No legislator loses his seat AUTOMATICALLY whether the case is controversial or not.

The court has been approached and it has declared those seats vacant. This decision stands until overturnd by a higher court.

Kukutente23:
You're the confused and uncoordinated one. The process in the constitution uses the word "shall" which is a mandatory word. It does not say the process is at the whim of the speaker of the House.
The case of YPP you're claiming. I hope you're aware he has only announced his defection on the pages of newspaper. If he announces it on the floor of the House, then the speaker MUST declare his seat vacant. Anything else is an illegality. You're allowed to claim whatever outside but once you do it on the floor, your seat becomes automatically vacant. If the speaker does not declare it so, he's violating the law and YPP can seek redress for that violation in court.
Your problem like most govt defenders is an inability to know the difference between right and wrong in the face of the law simply because of your political inclination.
It's pitiable

And the High Court of Rivers State has so pronounced. A decision which remains binding until overturned.

sirpharrell:
You are even reinforcing what I said. The Supreme Court declared the seats vacant after the speaker refused. Which means it is not AUTOMATIC. There is a process which takes time. Do you know how long it will take for the matter to go from the High Court to the Supreme Court? Most times, the tenure is even expired before the Supreme Court declares the seat vacant. Get this into your head, I have not said that they shouldn't vacate their seats but it is not AUTOMATIC as some lawyers are deceiving ignorant people like you.

You are talking crap bro.

theamazonguru:
And part of the script is to demolish a state infrastructure - the state house of assembly.

To know this,you must be a member of the inner caucus.
Weldone sir.

When fighting a wild mad man, you need to deploy wild mad tactics.

Zonefree:
She's not wearing bra. Her dilapidated breasts are romancing her tummy.

She for just button the jacket and plead with the man. You don't just shout and argue with your lecturer and expects him to succumb to your silliness.

God bless the Lecturer for eradicating nuisance in our society.

Sharrap, accursed antediluvian worm-slave!

airsaylongcome:
While it is widely used in scientific literature, it is also valid and correct in for use in general writing. I get you resistance though

Noted and thanks again! It will sound odd in my ears though (probably from custom). "Fish" will be easier on my ears.

RingRoadCartel:
Why isn't this guy married? Why doesn't he have a kid? At this age?? Something ain't right.

Please understand: neither marriage nor children are compulsory or for everyone.

airsaylongcome:
Incorrect. If they are different species, then fishes is correct

Thank you. Wasn't aware. But looking it up, I see that it's really for scientific usage that that flies. Nonetheless I will stick with just "fish" in all circumstances. Just reads better for me, and remains permissible.

doggedfighter:
You seem to know about fishes.

You have a pond ?

The bold word has no plural. Even one thousand of them are fish. Not fishes.

GOTVee:
Even though I'm a born again Christian, I hope they are all arrested and locked up for disturbing the peace in Rivers state

You are not a born again Christian. You are a son of Beelzebub and a nephew of Asmodeus. You feast on corpses of people killed in Satanic rituals by day and you take the forms of bats, vipers and red eyed malicious rats by night. Your foster father is a prince of hell, Nyesom Wike.

jaephoenix:
I'm a physician. During med school, I noticed many things in my clinical trainings. Many people dying even after copious prayers. Some were pastors and notable men of god that supposedly did miracles. I asked myself where all the Bible quotes about healing went to. Jusr before I did my Sponsio Academica, lost my dad. This man was a vibrant Christian. Left his booming alcohol business to become a Christian and from there his health dwindled….
Then I started digging. Asked several questions, which was either ignored by my mum or I was told to ask the pastors, who turned out to be clueless. The butt of those questions were these
1. If Yahweh loved us, why give us a very contradictory and lie infected book like the bible, and then disappear from the scene. I mean since the days of the Bible where he was popping up and throwing down fire and lightning from up above, dude has gone mighty silent.
2. How come the most 'christianized' countries happen to be the most miserable? From Latin America to Africa, poverty is the norm. And the relatively atheistic societies are the most successful, like the Scandinavian countries, Iceland, China, Eastern Europe etc. Despite the fact your bible said righteousness exalteth a nation and even said the prayers of the heathens are abominations, yet those heathen get more successful while the people that pray more to him get more miserable. Case in point in Nigeria. We call US, UK, Canada sinful and irreligious cos of their LGBTQXXX, yet we abandon Nigeria that abhors LGBTQXXX to flee to those 'cursed' countries (like many Christians call them)
3. Miracles only happen in TVs and social media. Never happens in hospitals where the real sick people are. For some reasons, pastors only do their miracles in their churches, but avidly avoid these hospitals, even if the hospitals are right beside them. In fact, many churches now have hospitals, and run clinics on Sundays. Even pastors and churches contribute money for surgeries for their members. I mean they could simply heal those members with a word, just like good old Jesus, thus saving them from giving us doctors their hard-earned money, and also saving the member and his family the physical pain and stress of the sickness. Only miracles we hear about are the unconfirmed healing from HIV, sickle cell etc. Have you ever seen them make an amputee limb regrow? Lol 😆 . That one would be difficult for them to arrange, especially on live tv

4. The Bible story on creation is so funny. There are many sticky points than a chocolate bar.
A. Christians believe atheists are wrong to assume everything on earth was not created, but they forget the fact their bible said Yahweh created the world from….. nothing. And where did Yahweh himself pop out from? Yup. Nothing. He just existed
B. Your creation story said Yahweh created plants before the sun. Interesting…
C. Chapter 1 reports that the fruit trees were created before the man, while chapter 2 indicates they were made after him. Genesis 1:20 says the fowl were created out of the waters; Genesis 2:19 alleges they were formed from the ground.
D. Contradictions are also seen in the biblical story of a worldwide flood. According to Genesis 6:19-22, God ordered Noah to bring “of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort . . . into the ark.” Nevertheless, Genesis 7:2-3 relates that the Lord ordered Noah to take into the ark the clean beasts and the birds by sevens, and only the unclean beasts by twos.
E. Genesis 8:4 reports that, as the waters of the flood receded, Noah’s ark rested on the mountains of Ararat in the seventh month. The very next verse, however, says the mountaintops could not be seen until the tenth month.
F.Genesis 8:13 describes the earth as being dry on the first day of the first month. But Genesis 8:14 informs us the earth was not dry until the twenty-seventh day of the second month
You can see other gaffes in the Bible here https://www.nairaland.com/7659505/book-bible-gaffes

4. The Bible is a poor moral source.
A. Yahweh committed more murders than Satan. Matter of fact, I can't remember any killing by Satan but an loving god committed all sorts of genocide, from innocent babies, told Israelites to rip babies from preggo women etc. He even said people wearing different materials in the same cloth should be killed.
B. The Bible upholds slavery and even warns slaves to be obedient to their slavemasters just like they are obedient to him. He gave 10 commandments, yet ignored saying anything bad about slavery or misogyny. What does that tell you?
C. Its also a sin to work on Sabbaths which may be Saturdays or Sundays, depending on your Christian persuation.
D. Its a sin to wear different fabrics

5. So Yahweh created the whole world, right?
There's Eden. He then made a tree of knowledge, and guess what? Planted it right in the middle of the garden. As an all knowing god, Yahweh knew Adam was gonna fail but planted this forbidden tree right in the middle of the garden with luscious fruits, to distract and tempt Adam. Gave him a partner that would make the temptation very hard to pass up. Then to make matters worse, he allowed Satan(an omnipresent and omnipotent being) to finish the job of tempting Adam? Then when man fails, he turns around to blame him of making the wrong choice? And then went ahead to rain curses in the poor dude.
Are you seeing how Yahweh stacked up the odds against poor Adam. Almost as if he wants the dude to fail.

Here is an analogy. You(yahweh) sent your son(Adam) to school(garden of eden) and paid a bully(Satan) to distract and beat the child, so he'll fail in school? I used the word 'paid' because he Satan is an upgraded being, having those powers handed to him by Yahweh. Whats his target? A puny Adam, a regular mortal with no powers whatsoever

6. The story of creationism has no historical backup. And evolution can be supported by biology, genetics, archeology etc. There was even no mention of dinosaurs in the Bible even though they roamed for thousands of years

Has it occurred to you that a necessary source of all things must still exist, and that is God - and that that source of all things is NOT Yahweh - Yahweh simply being a barbaric mountain imaginary deity of the Jews?