₦airaland Forum

stan smart: "Determination must be made as to the proximity and danger to an opponent. If contact is made, and is deemed dangerous, then a red card may be brandished." - an extract of eufa rules. eufa/fifa need to re-write d rules and include the intent of the player into d rules because d rules were made irregardless of the intent of d player which is a flaw but by d book dats a red.

The rules are there for them. The worst he would have gotten according to the rules is a yellow card and not straight red card. This is fifa rules guiding dangerous play:
[b]Page 26
Playing in a Dangerous Manner
Playing in a dangerous manner is defined as any action that, while trying to play the ball,threatens injury to someone (including the player himself)
It is committed with an opponent nearby and prevents the opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury. The action becomes an offence only when an
opponent is adversely affected. A scissors or bicycle kick is permissible provided that, in the opinion of the referee, it is not dangerous to an opponent.
Page 27
Playing in a Dangerous Manner
Playing in a dangerous manner involves no physical contact between the players. If there is a physical contact, the action becomes a offence punishable with a direct free kick or penalty kick. In case of physical contact, the referee should carefully consider the high probability that
misconduct has also been committed.
Page 28
Playing in a Dangerous Manner
Disciplinary sanctions:
if a player plays in a dangerous manner in a “normal” challenge, the referee should not take any disciplinary action if the action is made with obvious risk of injury the referee should caution the player if a player denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity playing in a dangerous manner the referee should send off the player
Restart of play:
indirect free kick from the position where the offence occurred* if there is contact, a different offence has been committed, punishable by a direct free kick
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_12_fouls_misconduct_en_47379.pdf[/b]

econity: dangerous play has nothing to do with intentional or unintentional play.

You need to educate yourself about the rules guiding officiating of a football match. Go to this site http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_12_fouls_misconduct_en_47379.pdf and educate yourself.

econity: you are on point my guy. UK press only took note that Nani was focusing on the ball but forgot to tell us that he was not the only one in the pitch at that moment.
Nani himself knows the gravity of his offence that was why he was pretending to be hurt the most. Because it is Queen's team that is why it is now termed the most ridiculous red card. Shame.

I can see that you are a refree. Would you kindly interpret these?
Page 26
Playing in a Dangerous Manner
Playing in a dangerous manner is defined as any action that, while trying to play the ball,threatens injury to someone (including the player himself)
It is committed with an opponent nearby and prevents the opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury. The action becomes an offence only when an
opponent is adversely affected. A scissors or bicycle kick is permissible provided that, in the opinion of the referee, it is not dangerous to an opponent.
Page 27
Playing in a Dangerous Manner
Playing in a dangerous manner involves no physical contact between the players. If there is a physical contact, the action becomes a offence punishable with a direct free kick or penalty kick. In case of physical contact, the referee should carefully consider the high probability that
misconduct has also been committed.
Page 28
Playing in a Dangerous Manner
Disciplinary sanctions:
if a player plays in a dangerous manner in a “normal” challenge, the referee should not take any disciplinary action if the action is made with obvious risk of injury the referee should caution the player if a player denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity playing in a dangerous manner the referee should send off the player
Restart of play:
indirect free kick from the position where the offence occurred* if there is contact, a different offence has been committed, punishable by a direct free kick
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_12_fouls_misconduct_en_47379.pdf

elampiro: Time for me to sign out.

The game is over. All world big media cannot be wrong. They all reported that the red card was controversial. Yahoo news, CNN, BBC, Supersports, etc. Many of other club fans immediately agreed that the officiating was poor and biased in favour of Madrid. Even Mourinho said he didn't think it was a red card. Also, many ex-internationals and coaches believe it should be at most a yellow card. So let's leave it.

My fellow Man United fans, there is a bright future for this team. Ferguson should try and retain all the players, they will rule the world. They should start by claiming the EPL this season. With the performance last night, even when it was 10 men, United showed class and there is a bright future. With such performances, I don't see City catching us. I personally, prefer the EPL to champion league this season, just to prove a point that City will always be our baby in football.

Have a nice time.

Spot on. He needs to keep these set of players. They are already bedding for next season. The team has completely changed from the team that started the season leaking goals. They have blended well.

Kgdavid: sorry bro but the bolded is just rubbish. wat exactly do you propose shuld have been done differently? from the off the team was set up to defend so the only possible change would have been an attacking one. bringin on an extra defender at 60 mins against real is the definition of suicide cuz then the pressure would be unbearable and with world class players they would be bound to score.you must realize that it took every single one of our 11 men to effectively defend as we did in the first half. wen real had the ball we exerted pressure from the front and squeezed them resulting a good number of misplaced passes and makin it easier for our defenders to repell real's players. losing one man simply granted them all the space they needed at the back....the two goals are evidence of that....the space that was available for that cross on the first goal simply was not there wen nani was on and modric certainly wouldnt have had that space to shoot prior to the sending off. there was nothin Fergie could do to respond to the modric substitution cuz like i said the only possible change would have been to throw on an attacker which is at happened wen real began to defend their lead. besides it was Modric for Khedira my friend...straight swap! there was no tactical change there! they threw on Pepe and we threw on Rooney. im strugglin to understand this rubbish yu wrote about sir alex playing to the crowd rather than reacting to the modric sub. in fact i am struggling to keep calm here. wat do u even mean?? are yu saying this because he encouraged the crowd to yell more? that is simple morale boosting 101....the great man knew we were in trouble and turned to the crowd- the famed 12th man advantage of every home team(in this case 11th man) for support. please go and write long stories about something else cuz yu sir do not know what yu are talking about here.

I concur with all you have written. How long would they have defended if he had brought in a defender in 52nd minute to defend one goal against Real Madrid with so many world class players. I bet you if he had done that, one way or the other the goal will definitely go in. It could even be an own-goal in this situation. For crying out loud, it was a midfielder that was sent off and not a defender. He did the right thing by telling Welbeck to finally drop into midfield and watch what will happen before knowing the next substitution to make.

oses4u: To all those questioning the decision,
(1) Do u knw dat it took the referee about 3mins to take dat decision
(2) Within those 3minutes he got some advise from other referees(4) @the sides of the pitch.
(3) It was a unanimous decision from all d officials officiating the game. So pls these are professionals that officiate games week in and out.
In my own case the referee was rite. Man Utd better luck nxt time. --- frm a chelsea fan.

How did you know that it was a unanimous decision? According to the rules it was never a red card offence. Here u go:
Sending-Off Offences
There are seven offences for which a player, substitute or substituted player can be sent off and shown the red card if he:
1. is guilty of serious foul play
2. is guilty of violent conduct
3. spits at an opponent or at any other person
4. denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)
5. denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick
6. uses offensive or insulting or abusive language and/or gestures
7. receives a second caution in the same match
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_12_fouls_misconduct_en_47379.pdf

elampiro: I tell you if the laws were to be followed that way, most matches will be ending with three red cards to both sides. Then countless of penalties. How often do we hear ball to hand? is that a law? But referee use their discretion to waive such when a player unintentionally handle the ball in the 18 yard box. Yesterday, although a goal bound shot was removed with a hand by Madrid in their 18 yard box, the referee didnt award a penalty. Why the double standard? if you want to be hard, be hard in all decisions, if you want to be lenient, also ensure that in all decisions.

The rules also say, when there is a contact on a player in the 18 yard box without winning the ball, a penalty should be awarded. The referee ignored that too. So why won't United complain?

You are getting me wrong. What i am saying is that Nani does not deserve a red card according to fifa rules. I am saying that the worst he could have gotten was a yellow card. Example: i have never seen a situation where a player is trying head a ball and an opposing player also raised his foot to control a ball and the player that raised his boot to control the ball is given a straight red card. I have never seen that. There is never a place where "Ball to hand" is stated in fifa laws. It is stated that when your hand(s) is raised away from your body. That is why no refree will give anything when a ball hits a player when his arm is within his body. Decisions are to be taken according to the rules. Go check this http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_12_fouls_misconduct_en_47379.pdf and see some pictures as well and also see the seven offences for which a player, substitute or substituted player can be sent off and shown the red card

Kingjames: Tell that to the oceans If u were watching with ur mind & not wt sentiment, u'll kw dt Nani was actually simulating on the ground as if he had epilepsy attack in an attempt to con the ref. Did I hear pain? When you marched an opponent's chest wt the pin of ur boot on air who shld be in more pain? I respect u and expect u shld reason more than this. Btw I love nani as a player and hv always supported him but not on this one buddy.

Go and study the laws governing dangerous play.

elampiro: That wasn't a red card offence. Most of the you are just commenting out of sentiments. This is what fifa law states:
Page 26
Playing in a Dangerous Manner
Playing in a dangerous manner is defined as any action that, while trying to play the ball,threatens injury to someone (including the player himself)
It is committed with an opponent nearby and prevents the opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury. The action becomes an offence only when an
opponent is adversely affected. A scissors or bicycle kick is permissible provided that, in the opinion of the referee, it is not dangerous to an opponent.
Page 27
Playing in a Dangerous Manner
Playing in a dangerous manner involves no physical contact between the players. If there is a physical contact, the action becomes a offence punishable with a direct free kick or penalty kick. In case of physical contact, the referee should carefully consider the high probability that
misconduct has also been committed.
Page 28
Playing in a Dangerous Manner
Disciplinary sanctions:
if a player plays in a dangerous manner in a “normal” challenge, the referee should not take any disciplinary action if the action is made with obvious risk of injury the referee should caution the player if a player denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity playing in a dangerous manner the referee should send off the player
Restart of play:
indirect free kick from the position where the offence occurred* if there is contact, a different offence has been committed, punishable by a direct free kick

The above rules are always there. Have you not been watching football to understand how these rules are executed on the pitch? If rules are to be used at the surface, why did United not awarded penalties for two handballs and foul for Man United in the Madrid 18 yard box. The rules said, when there is a contact. United players was brought down but the referee ignored it.
In the first, leg the Madrid last man brought down Evra's goal bound move towards one on one with the goal keeper. Why was the rule on last man committing foul not implemented?

That happens when you appoint a low profile refree for a high profile game such as this. The level of understanding of the laws by the refrees depends on how long hes been officiating and how many big games he has officiated. If the laws are not to be followed to the letter, then the question is "why did they establish those laws in the first play"? They should have allowed the refrees to use they discretion when officiating and if that is the case controvercies over decisions wouldn't have arose. Laws are made to be followed.

[quote author=mathewalab]


Ma una stop all this wrong comment about the refree, there are rules guiding the game: why on earth will there be tackle at al, to cause issuance of red card.

Please accept defeat and plan for future game.

And to all of una MAN Utd fans wey dey hala foul, should shut up before I issue una GREEN OOOOOOOOOOOO sorry RED card.


Ma una stop all this wrong comment about the refree, there are rules guiding the game: why on earth will there be tackle at al, to cause issuance of red card.

That wasn't a red card offence. Most of the you are just commenting out of sentiments. This is what fifa law states:
[b]Page 26
Playing in a Dangerous Manner
Playing in a dangerous manner is defined as any action that, while trying to play the ball,threatens injury to someone (including the player himself)
It is committed with an opponent nearby and prevents the opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury. The action becomes an offence only when an
opponent is adversely affected. A scissors or bicycle kick is permissible provided that, in the opinion of the referee, it is not dangerous to an opponent.
Page 27
Playing in a Dangerous Manner
Playing in a dangerous manner involves no physical contact between the players. If there is a physical contact, the action becomes a offence punishable with a direct free kick or penalty kick. In case of physical contact, the referee should carefully consider the high probability that
misconduct has also been committed.
Page 28
Playing in a Dangerous Manner
Disciplinary sanctions:
if a player plays in a dangerous manner in a “normal” challenge, the referee should not take any disciplinary action if the action is made with obvious risk of injury the referee should caution the player if a player denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity playing in a dangerous manner the referee should send off the player
Restart of play:
indirect free kick from the position where the offence occurred* if there is contact, a different offence has been committed, punishable by a direct free kick[/b]
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_12_fouls_misconduct_en_47379.pdf

I totally concur with him cos the last time i went to the Drivers License Center at Ikeja on a Monday, the staff that came to office early came around 9.45am. This will cover fro their lateness to work. Those saying that it should be for Muslims that take Fridays up for their Jumat prayers, what do you have to say to Christians who take up about 1 - 2hrs daily for fellowship in all government parastatals?

Does anybody remember the magazine "Dauda The Sexy Guy"?

Still in the market.

What about Becks Beer, Pepper Meat pie, or this popular song during Easter "Judasi ole, o pa Jesu je ole" with children holding sticks/clubs running after and beating a built image of Judas which is being pulled by somebody.

Katsumoto: Now that explains it better.
Akintola rallied politicians who were not reckoned with in the West. Tell us, how many elections did TOS Benson, Akinloye, Akinjide, Fani-Kayode, Rosiji win in the West? After the 66 coup, how many of these people were even heard of again? I knew you had to biased for a reason, now I know what that reason is. Some of the articles that you posted were written by Yomi Akintola, Ladipo Akintola, and Fazil Ope-Agbe, an Akintola leuitenant.

And for your information TOS Benson joined NNDP after having disagreements with Michael Okpara in NCNC.

TOS Benson defends himself against Fazil Ope-Agbe distortions of history. Enjoy it.
RIGHT OF REPLY: The Akintola controversy


Friday, November 14, 2003

Ope-Agbe’s distortions of history, by Otunba TOS Benson

MY reputation as a politician of note in the first republic has been brutally bruised with untruths, and avoidable distortions of history, by Fazil Ope-Agbe in an article in the Vanguard, titled: Akintola Fought For The Yoruba People. The piece ran for two days from August 8. Ope-Agbe’s version of the history of the politics of the first republic was heavily jaundiced. The references made about me assaulted my values, as a politician, with good principles. I write to set the record straight, about the tainted roles, he ascribed to me. My name was mentioned at least eight times in the said article. I cannot therefore, ignore the unwholesome role of prospective arsonist or anarchist, which he claimed falsely, that I offered to play.

Protracted in-fighting between the AG and the breakaway NNDP of S. L. Akintola led to a break down of law and order, the second time in Western Nigeria. The first time was in 1962 when a state of emergency was declared for six months and Chief M. A. Majekodunnii was appointed the Administrator for Western region. The 1965 state of lawlessness in the region was dubbed: "Operation Wetie". People and property were doused with gasoline and set on fire. The AG Secretariat in Ibadan, was torched. I had quit the NCNC in a dispute with Okpara when the party failed to nominate me to compete in Federal Elections in December 1964. Ayo Rosiji a leading member of the party was also, a former star of the AG. The big lie is that Ope-Agbe wrote that I proposed that the NNDP should organize its own operation wetie in my Lagos constituency to hit back at the "NCNC" — which was accused, I believe, wrongly, of organizing the Mayhem. In fighting between the members of the AG and NNDP, was responsible for the operation wetie crisis in the West. The NCNC which was the opposition party in the West, only cashed in on the crisis, on the side of the NNDP.

I categorically state that I did not make any proposal to torch AG offices in Lagos, which the author said was rejected — as counter productive - by both Rosiji and Akintola. The only witnesses to this bit of Ope - Agbe’s history, which has not hitherto been reproduced in print, are dead. I have never read nor heard of the author’s charge before now. It is a puzzle that it took him about forty years to invent his story, which associated me with thuggery. Its purpose must have been to counter the equally false postulations in glory of Awo by Ganiyu Dawodu in a book, titled:

"Who Won The 1951 Western Nigeria Election - Zik or Awo?’ True Awoists will not find comfort with the writings of Ope-Agbe on SLA and what he did for the Yoruba. For the author clothed SLA as the political angel who dragged the Yoruba — through partnership with the North - into the mainstream of national politics.

Ope Agbe says that Awo was rigid and uncompromising to the extent of putting his own whims and interests above the general interests, and needs of the Yorubas. He saw no good at all in Chief Awolowo’s desires and principles, and believes that Awo’s extreme regionalism crippled his own ambition for national leadership. On the other hand, SLA was the man for outreach to the North and South-East. His article generally was a disservice to be sought after unity of the Yoruba race. The wounds of the Awo- SLA conflict persist in some form. Afenifere and (Igbimo Omo Yoruba) Yoruba Council of Elders, remain two political poles apart. My wish is to see Yoruba fly a united political and cultural flag, within the context of one Nigeria. I believe that the author wrote in bad faith as a surviving agent of satanic politics in Yorubaland.

In 1954, I led the campaign in the Western Region against Action Group and NCNC won the majority. The people appointed ministers from Western Region were Okotie Eboh from the Mid-West, Kola Balogun and Adegoke Adelabu from Yoruba area of Western Region. Although, I was the Chairman and Leader of NCNC Western Working Committee (Lagos — Asaba) but I was not appointed a minister because there was no provision in the constitution to that effect, hence I was appointed Federal Government Chief Whip. When Adelabu was removed as a minister in 1955, he was replaced with J. M. J. from Ibadan constituency. In 1959, none of the three parties; NPC, the NCNC and AG won the overall majority hence the NCNC had an alliance with the NPC to form the Government at the Center. Okotie Eboh was again appointed a minister from the Mid-West while from the Yoruba Area of the West, JMJ and Akinfosile and myself, T. 0. S. Benson from Lagos, were appointed Ministers. The snag in the constitution against the appointment of ministers from Lagos was removed in 1957 London Constitutional Conference.

It amounts to living in a dream world for Ope-Agbe to posit that ... Chief T. 0. S. Benson of Ikorodu, Chief Olu Akinfosile of Okitipupa and J.M. Johnson of Ibadan who were in charge of federal portfolios that belonged to the West were not true and legitimate representatives of that region. It is naively for him to so postulate. The NPC/NCNC alliance of 1954 to 1959 continued to 1964. The author blames Awo whom he wrote "was obsessed" with leading the nation, for not opening up to the stretched hands of the North for partnership in a coalition — which SLA did. Let me state that Awo made attempts at forging an alliance with the North contrary to the position of Ope Agbe. But in his attempt at forging this alliance, the AG played a double political game when the party sent Rosiji to the Sardauna to negotiate NPC/AG alliance and at the same time sent Gbadamosi to Zik for NCNC/AG alliance. The end of the road came for the AG when Sardauna phoned Zik to find out NCNC’s readiness for the alliance following AG’s overtures to the NPC and Zik replied to him that the Action Group was also negotiating with him. At this point the Sardauna was annoyed with the AG’s double deal and dismissed further discussions with the AG hence the NPC/NCNC alliance was sealed. This clarification is for Ope-Agbe to note.

It is not correct, as Ope-Agbe wrote, that "... Chief T. 0. S. Benson the NCNC’s mainstay in Lagos had quit the party in high dungeon over the open support of the Eastern House of Assembly for Boniface Ofokaja’s rebellion; and open defiance of the minister over the appointment of Mr. Segun Smith as News Editor of the NTA. Ofokaja’s shattered ambition had nothing to do with my exit from the party. I was the Third Vice President of the NCNC. My relationship with the President of the party after Zik, and Premier of the Eastern region, Dr. Michael Okpara, was uneasy and full of friction. I should, at this stage, tell the story of the final straw that severed the political bond between Okpara and I. I was in USA with my consort on medical grounds; when Okpara fixed a date of the start of the NCNC Campaign in Western Nigeria. He appointed me to lead the campaign. I replied in a cable, that I could not make it on the prescribed date. We were undergoing a series of medical tests. Okpara concluded that I did not want the party to win in the West and that I was playing games. Another incidence was during our campaign tour when Okpara and I were on our way to Ogbomosho and Okpara expressed his wish to become the Prime Minister in 1964. I told him that it was not possible because we formed UPGA in order to bring Awo from prison and make him the Prime Minister as was the case in Ghana where Nkrumah emerged from prison. Because of this and particularly my objection to his ambition of becoming prime minister in 1964, he led a campaign for the party to substitute me with Maduagwu Moronu, an Oba man from the East, who was one of my constituency secretaries, as candidate for my Yaba Federal seat.

Okpara appointed Ogunsanya, my town’s man to head my nomination committee, but Ogunsanya, not wanting to be seen to be opposing me appointed Akinyemi Obe whom though I sponsored to become a lawyer, carried out Okpara’s plan. At the close of nominations, two contestants emerged. So, I boycotted the nomination committee and quit the party to contest as independent UPGA and I won the election. In essence, Moronu was not fair to me as his leader. He betrayed me politically by allowing himself to be used by Okpara to achieve his plot to unseat me. I took care of Moronu, I was nice to him and even bought him a car worth 300 pounds at BEWAC. From the foregoing, Ope-Agbe can better understand that he was wrong to accuse me of not allowing Moronu to contest the election.

The case of Boniface Ofokaja and Segun Smith was entirely, another Kettle of fish. What Ope-Agbe has done is to weave it into his text in such a manner, as to confirm his theme that NCNC Yoruba Ministers did little for their Kinsmen. At best they were Satellite of Igbo colleagues. Not so. His general theme is that only SLA genuinely cared and catered for the welfare of Yorubas in the West; while those of Yoruba ministers who "appropriated" the cabinet seats meant for heartland Yorubas, did little for the West. Again, it is not true.

I was accused by the group led by my parliamentary secretary, Chief Mbazulike Amechi and R.B.K. Okafor, of promoting only the interests of the Yorubas in the various arms of my ministry. I denied the charge but made the same accusation against Dr. Okechukwu lkejiani, Chairman of board of the Nigerian Railway Corporation, Nzegwu, the General Manager and Raymond Njoku the Minister of Transport in charge of the railways. I said specially that they had loaded the Railway hospital and offices in the railway generally with Ibos to the exclusion of Yorubas and other tribes. There was an internal party tribunal on the matter. I was not the loser, when the verdict was pronounced. The matter of Boniface Ofokaja losing the post of NTA News Editor to Segun Smith was one of the matters I disposed of. My Ministry of Information even published a pamphlet on the Matter titled: Is Benson Igbophobist? I still have a copy. Ofokaja was a brilliant news- reader with a sonorous and firm voice that was richly loud. But his rank was that of News Assistant. Smith was already a News Editor in the NBC, which managed the newly established TV station. When the contract of the American GM of the NTA expired, he recommended Ofokaja who was much junior in the organization to the post of News Editor. Other staff in the organization, ranked after Smith, were all Easterners - mainly Igbos — and very senior to Ofokaja. They were Philip Okereke, Edet Charles, Ochi Ogbuaku, Rex Eleazor, Godwin Ironkwe, Charles Emerue, and West Camerounian, Sony Dikpoko, and Yebovi. Late Dr. K. 0. Mbadiwe campaigned for Ofokaja. The premier of the East later gave him a high post in the Eastern Nigeria Broadcasting Service in Enugu. They made politics out of nothing and it is most unfortunate that Ope-Agbe is bringing up this matter at this time, but however, I have no choice but to reply to him.

They however, failed to tarnish my image, as a detribalized nationalist. Ope - Agbe obviously concocted the ugly story about Cyprain Ekwensi, Director of Information, and roped me in, in bad light. He claimed that Ekwensi jumped over him for promotion to Higher Information Officer.

Instead of him, Ekwensi had recommended two junior staff Moses Ihonde and Azeez Garuba. According to him ..... with Chief T. 0. S. Benson, an NCNC as Minister of Information, Ekwensi had been able to throw his weight around to the extent of treating the Permanent Secretary, Mr. F. I. Ajuniogobia, as his subordinate".

That was plain mischief The inference is that he, a Yorubaman, would not get justice from me a Yoruba minister, because my party was anti-Yoruba. He never complained to me nor his permanent secretary; for my action, about his alleged running battles with his Director (Ekwensi), whom he said suppressed him as an act of vengeance; for his refusal to join him in reporting Mr. Ajuinogobia to me, as Minister, for interfering with publicity. He claimed that Ekwensi "could toy with me" because I was an NCNC. I do not know how possible it is for the Public Service Commission to make promotions without an input by the permanent secretary of any particular ministry. Ope -Agbe, as a Yoruba man and a Grammarian never complained to me, or to his permanent secretary for us to put things right. Being an Akintola man, he was afraid of his own shadow. He had to wait until Rosiji came on board as minister, to raise the issue of his succession. Yet, the Commission, as he admitted, refused to reverse itself In my days as minister, no staff of my ministry would dare to toy with me for political or ethnic reasons. I did not tolerate nonsense. I was not a tribal leader. I have remained detribalized, as every one knows; and I was a senior member of a national party.

I consider the article which I complained of as an irritating piece of worthless propaganda that gave praise only to the Akintola faction, of what used to be the AG; which was torn apart after the Schism that was nurtured at the conference of the party in 1961, which exploded in 1962. All the pieces in Ope-Agbe’s rambling history were designed to show SLA’s NNDP in a federal outlook, while the rump of the AG under Awo and Adegbenro was regionally based, although Awo wanted badly to rule the Federation. In the process of stitching his story together, Ope-Agbe maligned both the living and the dead. I cannot call Dr. K. 0. Mbadiwe to witness because he is dead. He accused Dr. Mbadiwe of plotting to displace Chief Festus Okotie Eboh as minister of Finance. But Professor Ben Nwabueze is alive. He devastated him with false projections about the tussle between him and Professor S. Biobaku in the political battles that resulted from attempts to fill the Chair of VC. of the University of Lagos, which was vacated on transfer by Professor Eni Njoku. I must recall that during that struggle, Adams starved Prof Biobaku. Nwabueze and Ekwensi must speak out in their cause, and not allow the taleteller to get away with fiction. Moses lhonde, one of the two men claimed to have superseded Ope-Agbe is alive. He has produced three books on the politics and personalities of the first republic. He should not allow the spin yarns of Ope-Agbe to stand, unchallenged.

Akinloye is entitled to his own version of the statement about the January/February 1952 Carpet crossing affairs at Ibadan. But the fact is that Ibadan NCNC Mabolaje allies contested with the AG and won six seats in Ibadan. Five of them led by Akinloye and Aboderin crossed to the Action Group (AG), but Adelabu remained with the NCNC. In 1954, Adelabu cleared the whole six seats in Ibadan during the election to the Federal House of Representatives thus showing his supremacy over Akinloye and Aboderin in Ibadan.

In 1959, Chief Adisa Adeoye, a lawyer who stepped into Adelabu’s shoes in Ibadan cleared the whole eight seats in Ibadan for the NCNC and he is still alive. I am saying this categorically because I led the campaign for these two elections. Adelabu had died on the 23rd of March 1958.

This country does not require spin writers of history. We want works that will advance the cause of healing the political wounds of the Yorubas in the past half a century. The article shows that these wounds are still bleeding. For the sake of decency, I will not like to say that Ope Agbe is a liar, but suffice it to say that he is a composer, fabricator and manufacturer of untrue stories.

Of late spin authors have been active on the pages of the Vanguard. The most prominent is Taiwo Akintola, who is a staff of the BBC. He reopened old political wounds with his article titled: "Awolowo/Akintola: The Tango Between Vision And Compromise". The article ran in the Vanguard of August 15 and 18. He is obviously an Awo man. He says SLA made grievous mistakes but did not elaborate. He also criticized Chief Okotie-Eboh for the break up of Western Nigeria, to create the Mid-West region. Okotie Eboh’s children have replied to him. I do not think that tit-bits about past politics will help us. Lagos was the center of political gravity before Abuja. So, I would rather urge the University of Lagos, University of Ibadan and Ahmadu Bello University to consult together and undertake omnibus works separately about the politics of the first republic. They should share out spheres, which each will deal with. Let us hear three sides of the same story, so that the complete truth will be out. I recently had to give my own version of events in the West in 1951 in reply to a book by Ganiyu Dawodu.

The Deputy Political Editor of Vanguard, Bolade Omonijo - thinks that sometimes I exaggerate my importance - Political Notes; Vanguard of September 26. For somebody who was 2nd Vice-President of the NCNC, Chairman of NCNC Western Working Committee, a Councilor in Ikorodu Town Council 1955 to 1958, Councilor and Deputy Mayor of Lagos 1950 to 1953, Leader of the Opposition in Western House of Assembly, Member of the Lagos Executive Development Board - 1951 - 1959, Member of the House of Representatives for Lagos, and Nigeria’s lst Minister of Information, my status at the time, speaks for me. I do not need to exaggerate any thing. This is why I have advocated that more books be written of the era.

http://news.biafranigeriaworld.com/archive/2003/nov/14/0275.html

Governor Fashola is stating the obvious. I know why this. It is simply because many of the contributors on this thread doesn't understand simple English "SURVIVE" and what type of taxes are paid to state governments and federal governments.
1. When Fashola said survive without oil, he simply means the state will continue continue to exist and not die economically because of the huge amount the state generates from taxes. Unlike other states who basically live on oil money (monthly allocation) alone with the money they generate from taxes is so poor.
2. How many states can boast of 300,000 tax payers compared to 3,000,000 Lagos state tax payers? Non.
3. Some people are even confused about which government collects Personal Income Tax (PAYE) and Corporate Tax (Profit tax). It is PAYE that the state collects while Federal government collects Corporate tax which is collected on profit made by corporate organization and also VAT. Why then are some people saying that Lagos state cannot survive without oil money?
Lets put every argument in proper perspective. If oil dries in Nigeria today, does it now mean that there will be no oil companies working in Nigeria? No. Since state government doesn't collect corporate tax, they only collect PAYE. Would you compare the staff strength of Banks, Insurance companies, Manufacturing companies, Communication companies, Entertainment/Media houses with that of "Oil Companies"? Staff strength of banks that have many branches is far more than that of the so called "Oil Companies" you are talking about. GTBank alone has about Seventy+ branches in Lagos alone. Which oil company has up to ten branches in Lagos? I don't think i know of any.
United State of America is not an oil producing country but they own Mobil Exxon, Chevron and some other oil companies. This simply means that even if oil dries up in Niger-Delta, it is not going to affect Lagos State income significantly because it doesn't mean we'll have nothing to do with all those oil companies.
The monthly allocation collected from federal government in not based on oil money alone. What about the money collected from other sources (VAT and some other taxes) by the federal government? That is why they call it "Revenue Allocation" meaning all the revenue generated by the federal government and not restricting it to only revenue from oil. It is a fact that Nigeria earned =N=5.5trillion from non oil sector between January and August 2012. Check here http://www.compassnewspaper.org/index.php/special-desk/business-news/8257-non-oil-revenue-nigeria-earns-n55-trillion-in-eight-months.
Governor Fashola is stating the facts. You can only disprove what you are saying with facts and figures, not just being sentimental about the whole issue.

Stiil available

Still in the market

Fabville: Still available

Still available.

Still available

ode remo: THE least the seller could do is to make effort to secure the C.OF.O for wopping price tag of 140mill., this at least will assure buyers confidence
and who knows speed up the sale.
just a tot.

To my understanding, land certificate is even more valid than C of O. There is no need for C of O.

2 x 1 storey buildings for sale at Ayilara Street, Surulere, Lagos State. The two buildings are beside each other and belongs to a single owner. They are opposite Abarty Barracks and very close to Funsho Williams Avenue. One of the building has 4 x 2bedroom flats and a shop while the other has Room and parlours and three big shops. Title Document: Land Certificate. Price: =N=140Mill (Asking) Direct brief to the seller. Call Femi on 08036953300 or 08094889448