₦airaland Forum

mrvitalis:
Good evening everyone

Say we have two (2) villages A and B.. Both villages have land worth 100 billion each, both villagw approach a bank to take out 50 billion naira each to be paid back after 10 years

1) Village A
Village A decide to use the money to build her road, market, schools, church, mosque, stadium and recreational centers, the village A becomes very beautiful and the talk of the state

Village B
Village B said we won't build road or schools, we would keep managing what we have instead... Calls back their sons and daughters

A son making shoe in ABA is given 500 million (loan interest free) to sent up his school factory in the village

A daughter into cloths is given 2 billion to set up a garment factory

Village set ups 70 of their sons and daughters like this with interest free loan to pay back after 5 years and they would pay 15% of their profit as tax to the village



Please after 10 years between Village A and B which would easily pay the loan and which would lose their land
Honest answer please

This is rather simplistic. No country in the world runs itself like this. 10 years without spending on infrastructure, and the citizens will be happy to wait?

Also, statistically, roughly 75% of all businesses established in Nigeria this year will fail within 5 years or less. I extrapolated that statistics from data from the UK, and Europe. That data is also likely similar for the US, Asia etc.

Using that statistics, it means in the case of your Village B, roughly N75 billion (could be more or less) of the N100 billion will have been lost by year 5.

Of the businesses set up in Village B that makes it past the 5th year, how many will make it up to the 10th year, your year of reference. We can only guess. It could be less than 10%. That means by year 10, village B may have lost around N90 billion of the N100 billion. And yet with no capital expenditure, the village's infrastructure will have completely collapsed, with its citizens living on the equivalent of hell on earth.

In the mean time, Village A that spent its money on good schools, roads, health facilities, and other infrastructure is now reaping the reward in terms of better living standards for its citizens, lower child mortality rate, healthier and better educated citizens that are able to partake in the global economy, take jobs abroad, work remotely from Nigeria, and in many cases create viable businesses that they are able to manage well and expand due to their better education and modern world view.

Over the 10 year period, which turned out better: Village A or B? Clearly Village A.

In any event, your 2 examples are extreme. The happy medium, and the choice of most countries in the world, is a combination of capital spending and encouraging the growth of business through government policies.

That is what Nigeria is practicing.

There is no country in the world that stops infrastructure development for any period, let alone 10 years like you suggest.

He was the Vice President's adviser, not the President's.

The Vice President nominates those he wants as his advisers, submits the names to the President, and if the President approves, the President appoints them.

RepoMan007:
What are the products? Under what sectors of the economy? You mean yahoo yahoo remittance abi?

Ok o.

Great.

If we can hit 6% in 2 years time, and hopefully 7 or 8% annual growth by 2029/2030, that would be magnificent.

A Nigerian economy growing at a 7 or 8% per annum over a sustained period will lift millions out of poverty.

The Governor did the right thing.

Great.

If subsidy had continued, some of these projects wouldn't have got off the ground.

ibabz:
Oh really? Let me just mention a few. OBJ met less than $3b in the external reserve and was able to increase it to over $30b when a barrel of oil was less than $20. It was during this period that excess crude oil account was created. They moved Nigeria out of indebted countries. Heavy investment in agriculture with their cassava revolution program. Setup most of the institutions we have today from ground zero without inflicting suffering and pains on the masses. See, I can go on and on. Just admit that Tinubu is a total failure.

Mr Obasanjo didn't perform any magic. He was lucky that he met more favourable conditions on ground.

-1999 - Mr Obasanjo inherited:
- Average daily oil production 2.15 million
- Population - only 125 million people
- No Boko haram, bandits, herdsmen palaver
- Large debts that Nigeria had the money to pay.

2023 - Mr Tinubu inherited:
- Average daily oil production - only 950 thousand
- Population - 220 million (nearly double OBJ's)
'-Extensive banditry, herdsmen - farmer clashes
-Large debts that Nigeria didn't have the money to pay back. Nigeria was on the verge of bankruptcy.

No President in the history of Nigeria has faced the severity of the economic conditions that Mr Tinubu inherited. As such no Nigerian President has been as tested as him. Hands down, the most reformist President Nigeria has ever had.

It is easy to paint Mr Obasanjo as a Saint. He wasn't. Where is the result of the $12 billion his regime claimed to have spent on power?

vikstandon:
Obasa is wise. He doesn't want same fate that befell Fubara to befall him. Fubara withdrew his case and armed his enemies.

The President may have genuinely advised Mr Obasa to withdraw the court case, but the President is not lawyer, so he can be forgiven for not knowing the implications.

The house of Assembly members only backed down out of respect for the President. It seems they genuinely did not want Mr Obasa to return under any circumstance.

So the conflict is still simmering in the background, and with Mr Obasa appearing not to change his style, it is only a matter of time before they again attempt to remove him.

Mr Obasa's lawyers will know this is a real possibility, and so I won't be surprised if they advised their client not to withdraw the case.

Withdrawal = Oti lo.

Ikaeniyan0:
He's breaking the deal by still going ahead with the court case. Meranda stepped down for him and he's suppose to withdraw the case.

I understand that, but I'm more interested in the legal precedents that the courts will set on the Lagos and Rivers issues.

Those precedents will clarify certain aspects of the governance of this country.

That is more important to me.

It is actually better for all concerned, and for Nigeria's legal jurisprudence for a case like this to be heard and decided by the courts.

Same with PDP going to court on the State of Emergency in Rivers State.

These are good cases for the courts.

We need Judicial precedents in both cases for us to know how these matters should be resolved in the future.

As for the Lagos Assembly case, it makes strategic legal sense for the speaker not to withdraw the case. In some ways, the continuation of the case acts as a form of protection from another impeachment. If he withdraws the case, the house may seek to impeach him again. That's the nature of politics.

Even if the decision at the Lagos High court goes against him, the speaker will have an opportunity to appeal. By the time appeals are concluded, he would be close to completing his term. The appeals may not even be concluded until after he finishes his term.

Actually, the past dry season has been the first time in several years that there has not been any marked reduction in the power availability in my area compared to the preceeding rainy season.

That is a good improvement, though it may well be that some other people's experiences are different.

The challenges in electricity generation and distribution in this country are multi decade old. The country needs to spend tens of billions of dollars every year for the next 10 years or more.

Nigeria simply don't have that sort of money.

So whatever improvements there is in that sector is going to be inadequate.

kettykin:
I can categorize the Nigerian banks into 3 or 4 categories of banks in Nigeria.

The super banks like Zenith Bank, GTBANK, UBA with profits above N1 trillion Naira

The mega banks like first bank, Eco bank, standard chartered bank, Access Bank ,Fidelity bank with profits above N100B

The normal banks like FCMB, Globus ,Titan, signature ,Parallex,Union, unity, providus, wema, etc.

While I appreciate Zenith Bank , GTBANK ,UBA bank for breaking through the N1 trillion annual profits threshold..

I don't believe that UBA has crossed the N1 trillion profit mark yet. Their 2014 was around N750, I think. I could be wrong though.

GTB scheduled their capital raising in 2 phases. With phase 2, they will have no difficulty raising whatever they need. 'Pound for pound', Gtb is the most profitable bank in Nigeria, and I think the largest by market capitalisation.

First Bank and Fidelity will have no problem raising whatever they need.

DeepSight:
Also its obvious to me you have not heard of the Castle Doctrine and Stand your Ground Laws as applicable in many states in the United States.

I think I probably know a little more than you assume.

None of Castle Doctrine or Stand your Ground apply in Nigeria.

And even in the US, the Castle Doctrine and Stand your Ground laws do not apply in all US states.

While Stand your ground applies in Florida and Texas, New York and Maryland, for example do not have stand your ground laws.

New York and Maryland laws on self defence bear some similarities with the Nigerian and English positions.

DeepSight:
When you read the words "depending on the jurisdiction" what occurs to you is that Nigeria is the only jurisdiction in the world right?
You are funny.
The person you were responding to does not even live in Nigeria.

Also its obvious to me you have not heard of the Castle Doctrine and Stand your Ground Laws as applicable in many states in the United States.

All my responses on this matter from the start relate to Nigeria, and the subject matter relates to Nigeria.

We are on a Nigerian site, discussing an issue within the Nigerian context. Also, we have more than one criminal.law jurisdiction in Nigeria.

How on earth was I supposed to know if someone was talking about the US if:

1) they did not indicate in their comment that they were talking about the US, and

2) there are 2 criminal law jurisdictions in Nigeria - the Penal code for Northern States, and the Criminal code for Southern states.

So when the commenter stated different rules in different jurisdictions, I didn't instinctively think he was referencing abroad since we have more than one jurisdiction in Nigeria. I actually assumed he was based in Northern Nigeria.

DeepSight:
I am not sure I agree with the opinion given. Depending on the jurisdiction you have the right to shoot any intruder dead on sight.

There is no where in Nigeria where you have a blanket right to 'shoot any intruder dead on sight'.

That will 100% land you a murder charge. That is serious. Don't do it.

Proportionality is at the centre of the legal principles guiding the right to self defence in Nigeria. Nigeria is not Florida or Texas.

Your response in any situation where you believe you face a real threat to your life or property must be proportionate to the actual level of threat that you face.

I believe there was a Supreme Court judgement a couple of weeks ago that raised a lot of dust on social media.

A farmer (I think in Benue) was attacked with a knife in his farm by a herds man. After being stabbed, the farmer struggled and succeeded in wrestling the knife from the herdsman. He proceeded to stab the herdsman who then died.

The Supreme ruled, agreeing with the Court of Appeal, that the farmer committed murder because once he wrestled the knife from the herdsman, he was no longer in an imminent threat from the herdsman and so proceeding to stab and kill the herdsman constituted murder, and not self defence.

This was just 2 weeks ago. That farmer now faces the prospects of spending decades in prison.

Though I disagree with the Supreme Court's decision in that case, you can see how what seems like self defence can lead to a ruinous consequence.

People need to be careful when engaging in self defence.

DeepSight:
Ol boy you funny oh. Someone sues you for something, and you "settle"out of court and do exactly what you were sued for, and you tell me there was no duress simply because the case was withdrawn and you then complied?

I think we can expect that Mr and Mrs Uduaghan will claim in court that they married out of free will, and that neither of them was coerced.

Once that fact is established, the gentleman Senator will have a mountain the size of Kilimanjaro to climb in order to persuade the judge that he was not an uncautionable defamer.

Some things that may or may not have happened, especially between a couple, are difficult to prove, even if they are true.

It is like saying a man raped his wife, when the wife and the husband said no such thing happened.

How easy is it going to be for the outsider making the allegation to prove it?

chidiokay:
What you just said, ask 10 lawyers in a room and you will come out more confused

whether oxford or luminary dictionary ... "Duress is Duress" no context makes it palatable the document is in public domain

Besides what does new english law say

If all lawyers unanimously agree on everything, there would probably be no need for courts to exist.

So it is natural that lawyers will in most cases disagree.

As to what the law says today, I wasn't commenting on whether Mrs Uduaghan would have won her case against Mr Uduaghan. The last Nigerian case I read about this issue was a 1970s case (I can't remember the full detail). It is no longer a common case in Nigeria, but my point was that it was not such an odd case that the court would have been unfamiliar with how to treat such a case.

My reference to English law (from which most of our oldest laws originate) was because such cases were reported more often in England.

In today's Nigeria, my first reaction would be that such case was unlikely to succeed. Unfortunately, we would never know what the outcome would
have been since the court didn't have the opportunity to tackle the matter because Mrs Uduaghan withdrew the case before it was heard.

Jakumo:
Chai ! You lawyers sabi nack grammar no be small ting. That said, legal practitioners are a necessary evil.

If I ever found myself forced to shoot an intruder and then have no time to transport the evidence away, it is a lawyer that I will call to persuade a judge that I had no choice.

2 things sir,

1. If you are confronted (very important word) by an intruder, you must respond in a proportionate (another important word) way. That is, your response must be comparable to the threat that you faced from the intruder. If the intruder is only armed with a kitchen fork for example, and you shoot him, you could end up in jail because a court may decide that the threat you faced did not justify the use a gun.

Another example : if an intruder comes into your property, grabs your TV, and slaps you on his way out. If you run into your kitchen, grab a knife, chase, catch up with, and stab the intruder in the back, you are most likely going to end up in jail, because at the time you stabbed him, he was no longer much of a threat to you, and so your stabbing him becomes an offensive rather than a defensive action. At the point at which you stabbed him, you were an attacker/protagonist.

2. Before using any gun, make sure you have a license to possess that gun. Otherwise, jail probably beckons.

I pray we never face any of these situations, since most people are not aware of these positions of the law.

I think some of these basic things should be thought as part of civics in secondary school.

Jakumo:
A mutual agreement between two individuals to marry is NOT a binding contract, and is subject to a change of mind by either party at any point before the wedding ceremony, after which either partner may initiate divorce.

To answer your question enquiring where the coercion or duress might be evident, please check the boded words in your own opinion above.

My point was not about whether or not she would have been successful in her court claim to enforce a marriage promise.

The point is whether Mr Uduaghan ultimately and willingly agreed to marry her. All the facts available in the public domain suggest that to be the case.

In law, to establish duress, you have to prove coercion, or what in ordinary parlance most people call 'force'.

My point is, the fact that someone sued you to marry them, and you both agreed to withdraw the court case, and later got married disproves any suggestion that you were forced into that marriage.

Mr Uduaghan is an adult. He chose to marry the woman. And besides, Mr Uduaghan has not alleged duress. Instead, it is a stranger, a 3rd party, who is alleging Mr Uduaghan was forced to marry the woman.

Even if this is not before a court, and the matter is instead before a village council of elders sitting under a tree, will the elders not ask the stranger
'what is your business?'.

A husband says he marries willing. You that you're not part of the marriage insist the husband was coerced. Isn't that odd.

Trust me, the Senator will either apologise, or pay through the nose for the statement he made.

Babaibeji2020:
E mean say she go sue me,sue all my guys(and we plenty ehhhh),sue our wives and most of our gurlfrends(for the unmarried comrades)......
Last in house birthday bash we had,hanty Natasha and her werey was our beginning and end.....

I think she will be selective, and go after those she can do the most damage to.

No point going after a youth copper earning N77,000 who overran his or her mouth on twitter. Ofcourse, I do not suggest that you fall in that category.

Her lawyer will generally assist her to select the right type of people to sue.

The lady appears to be someone who would not shy away from a fight, so I expect some people to be quaking in their boots, wondering if they will be her next target.

Jman06:
I trust senator Nwebonyi to put Mr Uduaghan, Natasha and their lawyers in their places. You can't intimidate an Ebonyi man in that manner!

Meanwhile, the said forced marriage is a public knowledge. We all saw Natasha's court injunction mandating Mr Uduaghan to marry her.

There was no court injuction mandating the man to marry her.

I believe Mrs Uduaghan sued Mr Uduaghan to compel Mr Uduaghan to fulfil hiis marriage promise. From what I read in the press, it appeared they settled the matter out of court and the case did not proceed to hearing.

Having willingly settled the matter, they then went ahead to marry each other. I believe that disproves any suggestion of coercion.

In other words, Mr Uduaghan, an adult male capable of independent thought decided that he would marry Mrs Uduaghan afterall, and did so.

Where then is the duress?

JASONjnr:
He should tell us what his wife did that he divorced her....

That has nothing to do with the defaming statement the Senator is alleged to have made.

The court will consider whatever happened between the man and his wife as immaterial to the case in hand.

xjiggy:
Bro, if somebody have to take you to court to enforce you promise of marriage..... you've been put under duress. Anything you're compelled to do against your will is done under duress. Period

It does not work like that in court sir.

JASONjnr:
The Man who married under duress should disclaim the facts....

Wasn't he forced with blackmail?

He should explain what happened that he divorced his wife that did absolutely nothing to him?

Natasha was his wife's friend.... Natasha came into his family and pushed his wife out and married him....

These sort of stories are for newspaper and gossip joints, or for inexperienced social media patrons. Not that I suggest that you are in any any of those categories.

However, in a court of law, no lawyer would present what you wrote up there to a judge as proof of duress.

A court is a serious place. It is not for gossip .

AmiableMosquito:
But the facts are there for everyone to see. Natasha literally sued her current spouse to court for breach of agreement after promise of marriage.

Actually, the facts are not there for everyone to see. The way things operate in a court is different from how people see things outside.

In old English law, it was not uncommon for a woman to sue a man to enforce a promise of marriage. So, what Mrs Uduaghn did is not as strange to the courts as many of you think. It certainly is not proof of duress.

It is difficult to see a credible legal escape for the Senator here.

If I was advising him I would suggest he offers an apology on that point alone, and move on.

It might be a little embarrassing for him, but it would be better than the alternative which is several years of legal battle with lots of money wasted.

In my experience though, most Nigerians do not like honest lawyering. They prefer to fight to the end.

PS. I won't be superised if Mrs Uduaghan sues several more people for throwaway statements they made about her on TV and social media.

We need 2 or more legal associations. A new law should be brought in to this effect.

We need to be free to choose the association that we want to join.

The NBA is a disgrace to the legal profession. It is an unfit monopoly.

They even fight, throw punches, and tear one another's clothes during NBA elections.

He doesn't sound like someone under duress.

Mr Fubara, na so e be

shotuns:
This country hasn't get it right yet, why would you give a company from a country that came to harvest, mine, park your resources free access to you most viable rail line direct access to shipping yards in Lagos? It means you gave a green light for them to be able to move the resources freely using the construction company as disguise. When are our leaders going to start taking responsibilities and stop eating fat at our expense.

The company that built the line is likely to do a better job running it.

And it is only a 3 year contract.

If they do a good job, the contract should be extended. Full stop.

Afterall, how many examples do we have of Nigerian contractors managing government assets properly. Not many.

kettykin:
Somethings don't add up . I thought they made huge profits. Nnpc is coming to the market and I am pretty sure dangote refinery will be the icing of the cake , so why is mrs duelisting

Going private gives the majority shareholder (I believe that's one of the Dantata families) the opportunity to take full control of the company.

Also, as a private company, MRS will no longer be obliged to publish detailed financial reports, though they will still file CAC Annual Returns.

As it is presently, a studious analysis of their annual reports can give you a lot of insight into many aspects of their business, including a rough estimate (might not be 100% accurate) of how much they pay Dangote refinery per litre of petrol and diesel during the course of the reporting year.

Also, MRS is the main channel through which Dangote refinery will sell its petrol to Nigerians, so I expect that relationship to grow stronger over the coming years.

However, once MRS goes private, information about the exact nature and extent of the relationship between the 2 companies, or the finances of MRS will be difficult to come by, by any pokenosing reporter or financial analyst.

By the way, going private is all within the law

The rich know the rules of the game, and they will always play to win.

Horrendous.

I can't even bring myself to read the narrative or see the photos of charred remains.

I think social media has contributed in extremely harmful ways to the complete collapse of morals and values in society.

Whatever the back story was, how could humans treat one another like this

That the VP has never met Sanwo Olu doesn't peove much.

I notice also that there was no denial of having met Ms Achimogu.

That said, meeting Ms Achimigo also doesn't mean money was passed to the former VP.

It is now up to Efcc to investigate and establish if there was any wrong doing.

CrystalMax:
That role is a sensitive one. I wish he appoints from an Igbo man or woman. He needs to start appeasing other tribes already

Let's be realistic, in the current atmosphere of underground mutual distrust between Yoruba and Igbo politicians, a Yoruba president is highly unlikely to appoint a person from the East to head INEC when he is facing re-election.

Neither will an Igbo President appoint a Yoruba person in similar circumstances.

Things might change in the future, but as of today, that is the reality in Nigeria.