₦airaland Forum

I will start by thanking Easyy for starting up this thread. Dont know people are thinking what am thinking

Nigeria is practicing Democracy for the sake of it without benefiting any dime from it.
Democracy in itself is not an end but a means to an end.
I will rather live in Libya under Gadafi than in Democratic Nigeria. People are looting the treasuring and parading to be democrats, of what use is it to anybody that we are practicing democracy when they have not eaten.

Our Democracy will only begin to be worthwile when Nigerian leaders no matter their party begin to pursue National interest. Otherwise we can forget it.

I fell in love with Duke the day I read a qoutation by him on wikipedia which says

What got the military out of power was not democracy but the dreadful state of the economy. If we, the democratic government, cannot deliver food for the mass of people we can forget about democracy.(1)"

I saw sincerity in every bit of that statement.

No matter your democratic or political values, the priority should be National interest.
This accounts for why Western Governments no matter the party in power always has the same foreign policy. NATIONAL INTEREST

its not important!!!!
Why is census result and who is more populous an issue? because we want to rely on allocation and not create economy for our state.
You know what I call that? National Laziness.

even Atiku becomes president tomorrow it will not stop OBJ from being who he is, so anybody who thinks he wants to get back at OBJ and then vote Atiku is being naive.

well u have said it all. if u learnt to manage women while your mates were doing so u would not have made a first class. but i think you got your priorities right.
my advice for you is associate with as many girls as possible with an innocent mind of not wanting to date them, and don't do too much to have them. Sit back and watch somehow you will come across one who you will be convinced deserves your love.

Bradonfly:
Am guy with ears to the ground, I read and listen, am not in Aso to know, Am not Hausa neither am I from the west. am only asking why is OBJ after Atiku desperately? weighing the two accusing fingers. who should be out of this game? OBJ should, lets try another thief

Sorry u missed it, Nigeria will not try another thief.
Like Afam said u claim not to take side and then go on to side Atiku. They should both go.
Lets have someone fresh in Aso Rock.

The blaim should go to Nigerian politicians who are so desperate, the moment u dont say what they want to hear they start forming factions here and there. People should stop finding excuses to blaim OBJ. Blaim Nigerian politicians who cant be ethical one bit.
Its not easy being president expecially in a complex country like Nigeria.

Look at how many political parties we have
PDP, PPP, DPPP what is that all about?
None have any values, None

Do you know the implication of having a factional PDP? they can even conduct a parallel election and Nigeria will have two Presidents, what will that translate into? ANARCHY

The issue of police not going after every political party is conflict resolution for you, If INEC not recognising them is enough to silence them why waiste men and resources to go after them?
But that is not the case with PDP, think of a factional PDP with Audu Ogbeh, Solomon Lar, and Atiku Abubakar their head. God knows what will happen.

Thenwe will not have devided presidency but 2 presidents.

asoderock:
I beleive the man is inconpetent for the job. Apart from being tarciturn, he is also not medically fit(has kidney problems). You can see it in his face and manner. The job is being forced upon him.

Do you wanna go play a 12 sets of squash with him??

you are a waste of space on this thread. Iweala is not even in Nigeria or any political party. So why?

edisco:
OBJ has no ambition and is leaving in may[color=#006600][/color] WHO SAY?
BROS EBI LIKE SAY DAT MUGU NA YR BROS SO U WAN TALK SAY ALL DAT HIM MOVES NO READ MEANINGS TO U? ABEG THANK GOD FOR OUR SAVIOUR ATIKU FOR STOPING THIRD TERM.

How?

Well Atiku and Buhari will not wish their past to be remembered.

Yaradua on the other hand little is known of his past, only those in Katsina can sincerely say what he is about. But I was impressed by Yaradua's sense of diplomacy when he granted an interview with the BBC.
Also his latest reply which has quenched the speculation on his health is also something to talk about. He challenged all those who say he is not strong to a game of squash, what a humourous way to reply to what is rather a damaging rumour on your health.

dakmanzero:
saddam is dead. hurray.

I'm hungry. I need to eat. Cant eat saddam's death.

CNN is a big action film for us down here, people. How many of these global events actually affect your life. Quite a few, actually, in ludicrously indirect ways, but I'm sure saddam's death is NOT one of them. So a dude with a silly mustache was hanged. Big deal. People are hanged, crucified, blown up, gassed and beheaded every day. Welcome to Humanity.

Those who refuse to learn from history end up being lessons of history.
If we learn of the clandestine activities of these world powers we will realize how important we must defend our national interest no matter the language we speak or our religion.

People are just so funny in this country, please where is this talk of political parties being the only ones to screen candidates coming from. Why can't politicians apply common sense before they talk.

Political parties owes it as a responsibility to itself to make sure their candidates are fit for purpose, however they can field fraud stars if they so wish but at their own risk.

But INEC on the other hand owes it as a responsibility to ensure people standing elections are credible and have no choice going by the constitution to disqualify any person found wanting.

If Abacha were alive today he would have floated a political party if he wanted because the money is there. It will be laughable to expect such party to screen him out. Thus allowing the job of implementing section 137 of the constitution to political parties is deliberately allowing politicians to use their money to walk arround the constitution and that is not acceptable. Thus INEC must do screening or verification.

Radiant:
U need to hear them sweet and sensational words huh?

How come you get to understand everything I say?

more emotion icons on this page than words, whats responsible? the topic?

Mariory:
And Cross River has a budget that is smaller than some Northern States. Not to mention other oil producing states. So where does all that oil money go in those states?

30th on the ranking of states allocation, last in niger delta with rivers and delta states each collecting as much as 3 times that of cross river state

Radiant:
lmao. . . Ika, mind you o, some guys go like you more if you sabi suck

Absolute spot on, thats me

Oh dear !!! hear comes a new style
Ika why not start a thread on that one.

don't know about yours but my girlfriend is perfect.

Bush is no better either, he is trying to deploy 30,000 more troops in Iraq to the chagrin of everyone else including The Legislature led by the democrats and the US Army. In fact the whole world is against it. I think Bush has so many failures in his government to worry about than to meddle into our polity.

If Atiku likes he should go and strike a deal with George Bush to syphone oil however he is only waisting his time because the US and UN will not preside over our election. Nigeria is a sovereignty which has choice of relations with US and UN. They have been of no use to us so to hell with them.

This is for Mariory who finds every opportunity to deffend the west for reasons only he would know.  The war in Iraq is all about oil period.

Blood and oil: How the West will profit from Iraq's most precious commodity

The 'IoS' today reveals a draft for a new law that would give Western oil companies a massive share in the third largest reserves in the world. To the victors, the oil? That is how some experts view this unprecedented arrangement with a major Middle East oil producer that guarantees investors huge profits for the next 30 years
Published: 07 January 2007
So was this what the Iraq war was fought for, after all? As the number of US soldiers killed since the invasion rises past the 3,000 mark, and President George Bush gambles on sending in up to 30,000 more troops, The Independent on Sunday has learnt that the Iraqi government is about to push through a law giving Western oil companies the right to exploit the country's massive oil reserves.

And Iraq's oil reserves, the third largest in the world, with an estimated 115 billion barrels waiting to be extracted, are a prize worth having. As Vice-President Dick Cheney noted in 1999, when he was still running Halliburton, an oil services company, the Middle East is the key to preventing the world running out of oil.

Now, unnoticed by most amid the furore over civil war in Iraq and the hanging of Saddam Hussein, the new oil law has quietly been going through several drafts, and is now on the point of being presented to the cabinet and then the parliament in Baghdad. Its provisions are a radical departure from the norm for developing countries: under a system known as "production-sharing agreements", or PSAs, oil majors such as BP and Shell in Britain, and Exxon and Chevron in the US, would be able to sign deals of up to 30 years to extract Iraq's oil.

PSAs allow a country to retain legal ownership of its oil, but gives a share of profits to the international companies that invest in infrastructure and operation of the wells, pipelines and refineries. Their introduction would be a first for a major Middle Eastern oil producer. Saudi Arabia and Iran, the world's number one and two oil exporters, both tightly control their industries through state-owned companies with no appreciable foreign collaboration, as do most members of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, Opec.

Critics fear that given Iraq's weak bargaining position, it could get locked in now to deals on bad terms for decades to come. "Iraq would end up with the worst possible outcome," said Greg Muttitt of Platform, a human rights and environmental group that monitors the oil industry. He said the new legislation was drafted with the assistance of BearingPoint, an American consultancy firm hired by the US government, which had a representative working in the American embassy in Baghdad for several months.

"Three outside groups have had far more opportunity to scrutinise this legislation than most Iraqis," said Mr Muttitt. "The draft went to the US government and major oil companies in July, and to the International Monetary Fund in September. Last month I met a group of 20 Iraqi MPs in Jordan, and I asked them how many had seen the legislation. Only one had."

Britain and the US have always hotly denied that the war was fought for oil. On 18 March 2003, with the invasion imminent, Tony Blair proposed the House of Commons motion to back the war. "The oil revenues, which people falsely claim that we want to seize, should be put in a trust fund for the Iraqi people administered through the UN," he said.

"The United Kingdom should seek a new Security Council Resolution that would affirm,  the use of all oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people."

That suggestion came to nothing. In May 2003, just after President Bush declared major combat operations at an end, under a banner boasting "Mission Accomplished", Britain co-sponsored a resolution in the Security Council which gave the US and UK control over Iraq's oil revenues. Far from "all oil revenues" being used for the Iraqi people, Resolution 1483 continued to make deductions from Iraq's oil earnings to pay compensation for the invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

That exception aside, however, the often-stated aim of the US and Britain was that Iraq's oil money would be used to pay for reconstruction. In July 2003, for example, Colin Powell, then Secretary of State, insisted: "We have not taken one drop of Iraqi oil for US purposes, or for coalition purposes. Quite the contrary,  It cost a great deal of money to prosecute this war. But the oil of the Iraqi people belongs to the Iraqi people; it is their wealth, it will be used for their benefit. So we did not do it for oil."

Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary at the time of the war and now head of the World Bank, told Congress: "We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."

But this optimism has proved unjustified. Since the invasion, Iraqi oil production has dropped off dramatically. The country is now producing about two million barrels per day. That is down from a pre-war peak of 3.5 million barrels. Not only is Iraq's whole oil infrastructure creaking under the effects of years of sanctions, insurgents have constantly attacked pipelines, so that the only steady flow of exports is through the Shia-dominated south of the country.

Worsening sectarian violence and gangsterism have driven most of the educated élite out of the country for safety, depriving the oil industry of the Iraqi experts and administrators it desperately needs.

And even the present stunted operation is rife with corruption and smuggling. The Oil Ministry's inspector-general recently reported that a tanker driver who paid $500 in bribes to police patrols to take oil over the western or northern border would still make a profit on the shipment of $8,400.

"In the present state, it would be crazy to pump in more money, just to be stolen," said Greg Muttitt. "It's another reason not to bring in $20bn of foreign money now."

Before the war, Mr Bush endorsed claims that Iraq's oil would pay for reconstruction. But the shortage of revenues afterwards has silenced him on this point. More recently he has argued that oil should be used as a means to unify the country, "so the people have faith in central government", as he put it last summer.

But in a country more dependent than almost any other on oil - it accounts for 70 per cent of the economy - control of the assets has proved a recipe for endless wrangling. Most of the oil reserves are in areas controlled by the Kurds and Shias, heightening the fears of the Sunnis that their loss of power with the fall of Saddam is about to be compounded by economic deprivation.

The Kurds in particular have been eager to press ahead, and even signed some small PSA deals on their own last year, setting off a struggle with Baghdad. These issues now appear to have been resolved, however: a revenue-sharing agreement based on population was reached some months ago, and sources have told the IoS that regional oil companies will be set up to handle the PSA deals envisaged by the new law.

The Independent on Sunday has obtained a copy of an early draft which was circulated to oil companies in July. It is understood there have been no significant changes made in the final draft. The terms outlined to govern future PSAs are generous: according to the draft, they could be fixed for at least 30 years. The revelation will raise Iraqi fears that oil companies will be able to exploit its weak state by securing favourable terms that cannot be changed in future.

Iraq's sovereign right to manage its own natural resources could also be threatened by the provision in the draft that any disputes with a foreign company must ultimately be settled by international, rather than Iraqi, arbitration.

In the July draft obtained by The Independent on Sunday, legislators recognise the controversy over this, annotating the relevant paragraph with the note, "Some countries do not accept arbitration between a commercial enterprise and themselves on the basis of sovereignty of the state."

It is not clear whether this clause has been retained in the final draft.

Under the chapter entitled "Fiscal Regime", the draft spells out that foreign companies have no restrictions on taking their profits out of the country, and are not subject to any tax when doing this.

"A Foreign Person may repatriate its exports proceeds [in accordance with the foreign exchange regulations in force at the time]." Shares in oil projects can also be sold to other foreign companies: "It may freely transfer shares pertaining to any non-Iraqi partners." The final draft outlines general terms for production sharing agreements, including a standard 12.5 per cent royalty tax for companies.

It is also understood that once companies have recouped their costs from developing the oil field, they are allowed to keep 20 per cent of the profits, with the rest going to the government. According to analysts and oil company executives, this is because Iraq is so dangerous, but Dr Muhammad-Ali Zainy, a senior economist at the Centre for Global Energy Studies, said: "Twenty per cent of the profits in a production sharing agreement, once all the costs have been recouped, is a large amount." In more stable countries, 10 per cent would be the norm.

While the costs are being recovered, companies will be able to recoup 60 to 70 per cent of revenue; 40 per cent is more usual. David Horgan, managing director of Petrel Resources, an Aim-listed oil company focused on Iraq, said: "They are reasonable rates of return, and take account of the bad security situation in Iraq. The government needs people, technology and capital to develop its oil reserves. It has got to come up with terms which are good enough to attract companies. The major companies tend to be conservative."

Dr Zainy, an Iraqi who has recently visited the country, said: "It's very dangerous ,  although the security situation is far better in the north." Even taking that into account, however, he believed that "for a company to take 20 per cent of the profits in a production sharing agreement once all the costs have been recouped is large".

He pointed to the example of Total, which agreed terms with Saddam Hussein before the second Iraq war to develop a huge field. Although the contract was never signed, the French company would only have kept 10 per cent of the profits once the company had recovered its costs.

And while the company was recovering its costs, it is understood it agreed to take only 40 per cent of the profits, the Iraqi government receiving the rest.

Production sharing agreements of more than 30 years are unusual, and more commonly used for challenging regions like the Amazon where it can take up to a decade to start production. Iraq, in contrast, is one of the cheapest and easiest places in the world to drill for and produce oil. Many fields have already been discovered, and are waiting to be developed.

Analysts estimate that despite the size of Iraq's reserves - the third largest in the world - only 2,300 wells have been drilled in total, fewer than in the North Sea.

Confirmation of the generous terms - widely feared by international non government organisations and Iraqis alike - have prompted some to draw parallels with the production-sharing agreements Russia signed in the 1990s, when it was bankrupt and in chaos.

At the time Shell was able to sign very favourable terms to develop oil and gas reserves off the coast of Sakhalin island in the far east of Russia. But at the end of last year, after months of thinly veiled threats from the environment regulator, the Anglo-Dutch company was forced to give Russian state-owned gas giant Gazprom a share in the project.

Although most other oil experts endorsed the view that PSAs would be needed to kick-start exports from Iraq, Mr Muttitt disagreed. "The most commonly mentioned target has been for Iraq to increase production to 6 million barrels a day by 2015 or so," he said. "Iraq has estimated that it would need $20bn to $25bn of investment over the next five or six years, roughly $4bn to $5bn a year. But even last year, according to reports, the Oil Ministry had between $3bn and $4bn it couldn't invest. The shortfall is around $1bn a year, and that could easily be made up if the security situation improved.

"PSAs have a cost in sovereignty and future revenues. It is not true at all that this is the only way to do it." Technical services agreements, of the type common in countries which have a state-run oil corporation, would be all that was necessary.

James Paul of Global Policy Forum, another advocacy group, said: "The US and the UK have been pressing hard on this. It's pretty clear that this is one of their main goals in Iraq." The Iraqi authorities, he said, were "a government under occupation, and it is highly influenced by that. The US has a lot of leverage,  Iraq is in no condition right now to go ahead and do this."

Mr Paul added: "It is relatively easy to get the oil in Iraq. It is nowhere near as complicated as the North Sea. There are super giant fields that are completely mapped, [and] there is absolutely no exploration cost and no risk. So the argument that these agreements are needed to hedge risk is specious."

One point on which all agree, however, is that only small, maverick oil companies are likely to risk any activity in Iraq in the foreseeable future. "Production over the next year in Iraq is probably going to fall rather than go up," said Kevin Norrish, an oil analyst from Barclays. "The whole thing is held together by a shoestring; it's desperate."

An oil industry executive agreed, saying: "All the majors will be in Iraq, but they won't start work for years. Even Lukoil [of Russia], the Chinese and Total [of France] are not in a rush to endanger themselves. It's now very hard for US and allied companies because of the disastrous war."

Mr Muttitt echoed warnings that unfavourable deals done now could unravel a few years down the line, just when Iraq might become peaceful enough for development of its oil resources to become attractive. The seeds could be sown for a future struggle over natural resources which has led to decades of suspicion of Western motives in countries such as Iran.

Iraqi trade union leaders who met recently in Jordan suggested that the legislation would cause uproar once its terms became known among ordinary Iraqis.

"The Iraqi people refuse to allow the future of their oil to be decided behind closed doors," their statement said. "The occupier seeks and wishes to secure,  energy resources at a time when the Iraqi people are seeking to determine their own future, while still under conditions of occupation."

The resentment implied in their words is ominous, and not only for oil company executives in London or Houston. The perception that Iraq's wealth is being carved up among foreigners can only add further fuel to the flames of the insurgency, defeating the purpose of sending more American troops to a country already described in a US intelligence report as a cause célèbre for terrorism.

America protects its fuel supplies - and contracts

Despite US and British denials that oil was a war aim, American troops were detailed to secure oil facilities as they fought their way to Baghdad in 2003. And while former defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld shrugged off the orgy of looting after the fall of Saddam's statue in Baghdad, the Oil Ministry - alone of all the seats of power in the Iraqi capital - was under American guard.

Halliburton, the firm that Dick Cheney used to run, was among US-based multinationals that won most of the reconstruction deals - one of its workers is pictured, tackling an oil fire. British firms won some contracts, mainly in security. But constant violence has crippled rebuilding operations. Bechtel, another US giant, has pulled out, saying it could not make a profit on work in Iraq.

In just 40 pages, Iraq is locked into sharing its oil with foreign investors for the next 30 years

A 40-page document leaked to the 'IoS' sets out the legal framework for the Iraqi government to sign production- sharing agreement contracts with foreign companies to develop its vast oil reserves.

The paper lays the groundwork for profit-sharing partnerships between the Iraqi government and international oil companies. It also lays out the basis for co-operation between Iraq's federal government and its regional authorities to develop oil fields.

The document adds that oil companies will enjoy contracts to extract Iraqi oil for up to 30 years, and stresses that Iraq needs foreign investment for the "quick and substantial funding of reconstruction and modernisation projects".

It concludes that the proposed hydrocarbon law is of "great importance to the whole nation as well as to all investors in the sector" and that the proceeds from foreign investment in Iraq's oilfields would, in the long term, decrease dependence on oil and gas revenues.

The role of oil in Iraq's fortunes

Iraq has 115 billion barrels of known oil reserves - 10 per cent of the world total. There are 71 discovered oilfields, of which only 24 have been developed. Oil accounts for 70 per cent of Iraq's GDP and 95 per cent of government revenue. Iraq's oil would be recovered under a production sharing agreement (PSA) with the private sector. These are used in only 12 per cent of world oil reserves and apply in none of the other major Middle Eastern oil-producing countries. In some countries such as Russia, where they were signed at a time of political upheaval, politicians are now regretting them.

The $50bn bonanza for US companies piecing a broken Iraq together

The task of rebuilding a shattered Iraq has gone mainly to US companies.

As well as contractors to restore the infrastructure, such as its water, electricity and gas networks, a huge number of companies have found lucrative work supporting the ongoing coalition military presence in the country. Other companies have won contracts to restore Iraq's media; its schools and hospitals; its financial services industry; and, of course, its oil industry.

In May 2003, the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), part of the US Department of Defence, created the Project Management Office in Baghdad to oversee Iraq's reconstruction.

In June 2004 the CPA was dissolved and the Iraqi interim government took power. But the US maintained its grip on allocating contracts to private companies. The management of reconstruction projects was transferred to the Iraq Reconstruction and Management Office, a division of the US Department of State, and the Project and Contracting Office, in the Department of Defence.

The largest beneficiary of reconstruction work in Iraq has been KBR (Kellogg, Brown & Root), a division of US giant Halliburton, which to date has secured contracts in Iraq worth $13bn (£7bn), including an uncontested $7bn contract to rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure. Other companies benefiting from Iraq contracts include Bechtel, the giant US conglomerate, BearingPoint, the consultant group that advised on the drawing up of Iraq's new oil legislation, and General Electric. According to the US-based Centre for Public Integrity, 150-plus US companies have won contracts in Iraq worth over $50bn.

30,000 Number of Kellogg, Brown and Root employees in Iraq.

36 The number of interrogators employed by Caci, a US company, that have worked in the Abu Ghraib prison since August 2003.

$12.1bn UN's estimate of the cost of rebuilding Iraq's electricity network.

$2 trillion Estimated cost of the Iraq war to the US, according to the Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.

WHAT THEY SAID

"Oil revenues, which people falsely claim that we want to seize, should be put in a trust fund for the Iraqi people"

Tony Blair; Moving motion for war with Iraq, 18 March 2003

"Oil belongs to the Iraqi people; the government has,  to be good stewards of that valuable asset "

George Bush; Press conference, 14 June 2006

"The oil of the Iraqi people,  is their wealth. We did not [invade Iraq] for oil "

Colin Powell; Press briefing, 10 July 2003

"Oil revenues of Iraq could bring between $50bn and $100bn in two or three years,  [Iraq] can finance its reconstruction"

Paul Wolfowitz; Deputy Defense Secretary, March 2003

"By 2010 we will need [a further] 50 million barrels a day. The Middle East, with two-thirds of the oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize lies"

Dick Cheney; US Vice-President, 1999

Hohohoho America is rebuilding Iraq!!!!!!!!! Who is fooling who? Tell me why they will wish the war to end. Maybe now we should better understand why Bush is sending in 30,000 more troops when the whole is calling for withdrawal.
I personally think there could even be conspiracy between those who used their mobiles to video the taunting of Saddam so as to incite more violence.
The more the violence the longer they stay.

If only Iraqis are wise they will reconcile fast so as to make further stay of America illegal.

thanks demmy but why cant it zoom out to show further details?

@Nigeriaone

No disrespect though but I beg to suggest that the picture I see here is a fraud. why?

1. the original source of this map is supposed to be interactive such that when you click the UP, DOWN, LEFT, RIGHT arrows the map moves in that particular direction but what we got here is obviously a copy or cut and paste pics.

2. The writings that suggest that its a nigerian pics like the "Nigerianone.com", "onitsha" or "asaba" does not look to me like they are embeded in the original map. Such that the creators are different. the onitsha and asaba and the arrows I guess where made with drawing tools in microsoft word after that pics has been copied and dumped on an MS word page.

3. besides the footnote to this map suggests its a 2007 google imagery. I quickly went to google to search if anything like digital map of Nigeria exists but would not find any.

However if you think I have been talking trash could you please give us the link to the web page where this digital map exists. Cos if it does actually exist and its actually digital we would be able to zoom the onitsha section and see streets like Upper Iweka.

Looking forward to you positive response.

He should go and arrange his documents and get the court to squash his indictment by EFCC. Thinking he will bully or blackmail Prof. Maurice Iwu into passing him if he does not not do his homework well is absolute waste of time.

Who says INEC has no such power, better go and read the constitution for yourself and not that quoted by Garba Shehu.

Section 137 of the constitution gives INEC the power to disqualify anybody found wanting of Fraud by a court of Law or Panel of enquiry. So what are u saying?

137. (1) A person shall not be qualified for election to the office of
President if -
(a) subject to the provisions of section 28 of this Constitution, he
has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a country other than
Nigeria or, except in such cases as may be prescribed by the National
Assembly, he has made a declaration of allegiance to such other
country; or
(b) he has been elected to such office at any two previous elections;
or
(c) under the law in any part of Nigeria, he is adjudged to be a
lunatic or otherwise declared to be of unsound mind;
or
(d) he is under a sentence of death imposed by any competent court of
law or tribunal in Nigeria or a sentence of imprisonment or fine for
any offence involving dishonesty or fraud (by whatever name called) or
for any other offence, imposed on him by any court or tribunal or
substituted by a competent authority for any other sentence imposed on
him by such a court or tribunal; or
(e) within a period of less than ten years before the date of the
election to the office of President he has been convicted and
sentenced for an offence involving dishonesty or he has been found
guilty of the contravention of the Code of Conduct; or
(f) he is an undischarged bankrupt, having been adjudged or otherwise
declared bankrupt under any law in force in Nigeria or any other
country; or
(g) being a person employed in the civil or public service of the
Federation or of any State, he has not resigned, withdrawn or retired
from the employment at least thirty days before the date of the
election; or
(h) he is a member of any secret society; or
(i) he has been indicted for embezzlement or fraud by a Judicial
Commission of Inquiry or an Administrative Panel of Inquiry or a
Tribunal set up under the Tribunals of Inquiry Act, a Tribunals of
Inquiry Law or any other law by the Federal or State Government which
indictment has been accepted by the Federal or State Government,
respectively; or
(j) he has presented a forged certificate to the Independent National
Electoral Commission.
(2) Where in respect of any person who has been -
(a) adjudged to be a lunatic;
(b) declared to be of unsound mind;
(c) sentenced to death or imprisonment; or
(d) adjudged or declared bankrupt
(e) any appeal against the decision is pending in any court of law in
accordance with any law in force in Nigeria, subsection (1) of this
section shall not apply during a period beginning from the date when
such appeal is lodged and ending on the date when the appeal is
finally determined or, as the case may be, the appeal lapses or is
abandoned, whichever is earlier

Whose responsibility is it to implement that aspect of the constitution? Turaki Vanguard? He should go and research what manner of man Prof. Maurice Iwu is before he tries to bully him. It will not work. The next moment you will tell me am gullible or my eyse are closed thats all what you guys in Atiku camp know how to say.

sorryI meant to say hanged, however I do think US just killed him in a desperate attempt to proove they are succeeding.

I think the UK has innitiated for itself an exit strategy from Iraq. Mark my words with Gordon Brown suggesting that the manner in which Saddam was hanged is deplorable which goes a long way to corroborate the statement by John Prescott that whoever was behind the execution of Saddam should be ashamed of themselves.
I will not be suprised to see Blair handing over to Brown and Brown danming all consequences to announce immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq just as the current PM of spain did when he took over from Mario Aznar.
People if you see that don't be suprised because it could as well be a well thought out plan between Blair and Brown to resolve an issue which has turned out to be a failure.

Watch out!!!!!!!

Well don't have enemies, maybe rivals yes

BigB1 & Kituan -- IBB rivals (these guys love IBB with the much passion I hate him. Its a free world and thus they have the right to love whoever)

Donzman ------ Atiku rival

Superman ----  Have problems working out what he says

Friends --- All Nairalanders including my rivals

Take my girl friend to the moon.

They have not even done the screening, Atiku wants to blackmail INEC even before the screening starts. If he has nothing to hide he should be afraid of nothing. Why pass a verdict to a process that is yet to be. This guy is so annoying.

Forget all this trash, White men are fraudulent too, the only difference is that their's is perpetrated by the state and backed by the law. ABC News that reports those trash will not report how banks collude with African leaders to loot the continent.
Howmany of our resources are stashed in the western bank why are they not saying anything about it?

Only recently UK discovered acts of Fraud in a deal between UK and Saudi and refused to investigate it because it will jeopardise business interest. We are talking of an issue that involves the British government called of by the chief judge in the house of lords. So forget it they are all corrupt as well.

Crownvilla someone will soon tell you, you dont understand
Understand what that the Government did not do a feasibility study before embarking on the project? that the Government did not know that the legislation available will not permit them to distribute it and thus look for an alternative? Why commit N50b to a project that will fail if its not a decoy to syphon money.
They are waisting theretime, whatever Nigeria is we are all bearing the brunt somehow no matter how highly placed.

@ McKren you do not have a proper understanding of the problems