₦airaland Forum

dukie25:
@emboldened
So Babachir has appeared before the senate?

Is that what you interpreted the bolded to mean?

freeze001:
Lawal was properly invited, there was an acknowledgement of the invitation to his office which Sani mentioned while addressing their crappy clearance letter on the floor of the Senate. He chose not to honour their invitation so how is that the fault of the Senate?

So the President lied to the Senate that Lawal was not given fair hearing?

freeze001:
That is why I asked you: Has the Senate now complied with the so-called principle of fair hearing which allegation of non-compliance was debunked by Senator Shehu Sani? Why the suspension now? What has changed between January and now? There is no indication that any new information arising from any investigation informed this suspension, rather a panel has just been set up for that purpose so why now? It is not the practice of this administration to suspend its cronies before investigation but they rather do their thing and issue letters of clearance so what is special now?

That is the Change we voted for.

dukie25:
What new information made Buhari to suspend Babachir? Is Buhari not acting on the same information he had in December?
Why was Babachir left until now?

It may not necessarily be availability of new information, but according to that paragraph in the letter, it was a technical error on the part of the Senate committee to not allow Lawal stand before them and defend himself.

That paragraph holds the key to understanding what happened then and why Lawal is suspended now.

Don't forget Lawal wasn't sleeping on his feet.

dukie25:
The president didn't absolve Babachir, what letter did you read? Buhari had all the facts at his disposal yet cleared Babachir.
Tell me something, what new information does Buhari have now that he did not have in January when he cleared Babachir?

freeze001:
So why suspend him now? Has the Senate now 'followed the principles of fair hearing' according to you? What changed between January and April that suddenly brought about this fabricated suspension? It's not that they agreed to investigate then so we can say the outcome has now led to his suspension or sack, rather they now want to start investigations now after setting up their committee instead of using already established anti-corruption agencies. Meanwhile, I hope you saw this part:

Take a good look at this screenshot, read and understand what it says.

It's clear from the letter the President didn't absolve Lawal of any wrong doing but that the Senate committee didn't, follow principles of fair hearing, allow Lawal or the company opportunity to defend himself before the Senate ad-hoc committee.

ephi123:
Mister, I asked a simple question - what are the good policies of the government and how have they benefited the common man?
You chose not to answer but preached a sermon instead, that answers the question I guess, no good policy to point to.

I have no business with the person of the president, but I very much do have a business with his policies or lack of them. I don't believe in sentiments, it's a case of let the facts, figures and reality speak for themselves. Eod.

From your diction I know your Use of English is above average and should know what "albeit" means when used to qualify a word.

I may not know all "good" policies made by this administration, but the few that made headlines or are implemented are commendable.
1) normalization of BSc & HND status
2) whistle blower act
3) implementation of TSA & BVN
4) new National health policy
Etc

@bolded belies the tone of your comments.

ephi123:
Kindly list the "good" policies, and how they have benefited the common man.

By the way, do you realize that appointments have a bearing on policies? People make and implement policies so therefore if you have the wrong people in place, you can't succeed with the task at hand.

My people have a saying "when you hate someone, you can't see or hear anything good about that person no matter what"

PMB was accused of coming to Islamize Nigeria but most of the people he appointed even from the north are Christians, not even Hausa or fulani.

Yes, merit is a good thing based on the criteria used.
In the case of the NIA & SFG, it is the "most senior permanent secretary" that takes over in Acting capacity, no appointments yet.

In as much as I want a better Nigeria, I don't have to be negative or pessimistic about everything the present Administration does just because I don't like the person of the President.

ephi123:
If you realise the significant progress other countries are making as we speak and compare it to how backward buhari has taken Nigeria just because he refuses to make appointments based on merit, that is enough to hate his policies. It's like his supporters do not mind a country not only being stagnant but being retrogressive.

@bolded is rather irrational, if his appointments is what offends you, why transfer the hate to his policies, albeit good?

agabusta:
The people that took over in the office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation and the Nigeria Intelligence Agency are civil servants. They are not political appointees.

They are the most senior civil servants. And the most senior was requested to take over in Acting capacity. If he bypassed the most senior now, it will lead to another uproar.

And FFK as a former minister doesn't know that?
SMH

nairaman66:
Central bank of nonsense

That syncs well with your moniker.

This is Nigeria where we recycle only old people into positions even after they retired.

The irony of it is using a federal government court to sue the federal government.

All these demands can be resolved politically, just maybe, the SE is having difficulty synchronizing with the political mindset of other geopolitical regions.

new2012:
Absolutely ridiculous! Why call it church?

What do you understand church to mean?
You didn't read the article or what?


This church is a legitimate effort to create a community for people that don’t find that in traditional religion, and it intends to follow all laws.

Does that sound like or mean they are atheists?

Those are illegal refineries.

Yes, God lied.

Genesis 2:16-17
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Genesis 3:22
22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.

There were two trees:
1) Tree of life
2) Tree of knowledge

How can a tree whose fruit bestows knowledge or eternal life cause one to die?
Is it not ignorance that kills as written in the bible?

Satan told Adam that eating from the tree of knowledge will make him (Adam) wise, which was not a lie anyway.
Only that Adam was so engrossed with his new found wisdom, to pick and eat from the tree of life before he was chased out of Edin.

Imagine Adam at that level of perfection endowed with wisdom and eternal life, how would man be like today?

newnature:
Those who were familiar with law would have immediately understood what Paul was getting at here in Romans chapter 7 as he brought the issue of marriage into the picture. His point was simply this: just as a death must occur according to Roman law in order for a woman to be married to a different husband, a death also had to occur in order for sinners today to be married, or we might say, legally joined to the Savior, the death had to come first. You see, the Law of Moses had a relationship claim on every member of the human race. God absolutely refuses to share those who are joined to his son and the law, with the law husband. If you’ve been maintaining your relationship with the law in connection with your righteousness before God, in your mind, he’d have you come out of that realm of thinking. You are either under the jurisdiction of the law which requires performance for righteousness or you are under the jurisdiction of the Savior and your identity in him is your righteousness, but you can’t have it both ways. Grace and Law are polar opposites and God will share no one joined to his son with the law. If the law has a rightful claim on you, God cannot have a rightful claim on you. If the Savior has a rightful claim on you, the law has no rightful claim on you whatsoever. To be joined to the Savior and joined to the law at the same time would not only be bigamy, it would be adultery according to Paul. 


Is Paul telling us in Romans 6:14 that as believers, we’ll never again have the propensity to sin, or sin shall not have dominion over you because now you are capable of beating it? Is Paul telling you that you are now capable of never committing another sin as long as you live because sin shall not have dominion over you? Is Paul saying it is possible for a believer to live a sinless life? All believers, we’re all alike in this respect, we all continue to struggle with that issue of sins in our lives. Not only do we continue to have the propensity to sin, we do in fact do those things that come short of the glory of God far more often than any of us would like. Sin shall not have dominion over us because we’re not living under the law program, we’re living under grace. The victory has already been won and who won it? Jesus won it. Sin shall not have dominion over us because believers are not under the law, but under grace.

Your analogy of death freeing a spouse from the bond of marriage to marry another with Jesus' death does not hold water.

If death frees a partner from the spouse, were sinners married to Jesus that his death frees them?
If yes, to remarry who?

If Jesus died that sinners (spouses) might be free, why are the freed still in a relationship with him? Are spouses still in relationship with dead partners?

OK, Jesus died and resurrected, then the law of marriage is still in effect, because a spouse that died and resurrects (hallelujah!) will remain in marriage with his/her rightfully wedded partner.

Who was the spouse of Jesus before he died?

TonyeBarcanista:
They are not. EFCC is yet to make pronouncement on ownership of the said money...

You created a thread on the issue on the strength of which pronouncement?

Was the thread you created in defense of EFCC or against the alleged owners of the stash?

Drawing a straight line on an undulating surface with freehand is not always easy.

TonyeBarcanista:
I was of the opinion that the cash was a theatric by EFCC, I might be wrong but I will wait for OFFICIAL REPORT and outcome of the investigation before making further comment.

As usual, I don't make brief for individuals when it comes to corruption

@bolded, are they not in conflict?

Will you believe an OFFICIAL REPORT that indicts your heroes?

NAFDAC calm down, are you not aware that it is written even if "we" consume poisonous or expired products it shall not hurt "us"?

Goddex:
1) My dear, there is a cover-up going on. How are you sure that money was the same money GEJ approved?

2) Even if GEJ approved money for NIA in Feb, 2015, why was the balance not returned back to FG at the end of the year?

Those are questions Amb Oké will answer, especially 2).

... But his admission that the money was approved and released in Feb 2015 negates your 1) question.

Don't forget the heavy dollar rain during the period under review.

Goddex:

NIA reports to the NSA Babagana Monguno and I read in that PUNCH article that he did write a letter to the NSA informing him about the existence of the money

“ The DG admitted on record that the transaction was authorised by former President Jonathan and Col. Sambo Dasuki , and as such , was simply following orders from the commander - in - chief . He will submit memos and other documents as evidence. ”

If he duly notified NSA of the left over cash (since it was the NSA that advised it be released in the first place), why stash it in a private residence owned by his wife's Company?

Is it that he doesn't report to the President directly, why didn't he include it in his report?

So GEJ actually approved the money?

I thought wailers said Ameachi stashed the cash or was planted by EFCC?

Where is TonyeBarcanista? good morning.

linearity:
Canada have jurisdiction, both personal and subject matter jurisdiction; and the court will have jurisdiction to hear the case, if it can assert either, but in this case they have both...Canada have subject matter jurisdiction because, the plaintiff alleged that part of the allegations were committed within Canadian territory...Canada can also assert personal jurisdiction, because the defendant own properties in Canada.

This is a civil case, she does not need iron clad evidence. She does not need to proof beyond a reasonable doubt to sustain her claims...she only need to prove by a preponderance of evidence, which is a lesser proof burden and threshold. In a proof requiring only preponderance of evidence, to sustain their claim on each count, the plaintiff need only proof either through her testimony or evidence that the defendant 'more than likely' committed the allegation.

Also remember, there are 16 allegations against the Pastor, so even if she could not prove 1, there are 15 mor; and base on the evidences out there, it is doubtful if at least one or two of the charges will not stick. And if only one charge sticks, that will negate all of the Pastor's innocence and pronouncements that, he had never met her and was only sending her money out of the kindness of his heart.

As much as it is nice to always have a signed contract...you don't need a dully signed contract for it to be enforceable in a law court. Majority of contracts out there are oral contracts, it is up to the Judge to decide who is more believable...and sometimes duly signed contracts are not enforceable, you have to look at the content and the circumstance surrounding it.

No one, including the Pastor should take any court case with levity, any false move you are gone and I believe the Pastor will address this with the ultimate seriousness that it deserves.

Those are views that we can't comprehend from here.

Most people are looking at this case through the lens of Nigerian judiciary system which may not apply in Canada.

Mandynews:
she might win if the whole women in Nigeria support her just like the case of Rick Ross. Rick Ross was never caught raping, he only rapped about it.

In April 4, 2013 Womens rights group ‘Ultraviolet’ hosted a protest for Reebok to fire Rick Ross. for the lyrics he performed in the song “U.O.E.N.O.,” by the rapper Rocko.

UltraViolet began circulating an online petition asking Reebok to end its endorsement deal with Mr. Ross. In the first 24 hours the petition received 50,000 signatures, Ms. Chaudhary said. A week later the group organized a protest at the Reebok flagship store, in Midtown Manhattan, in which about 100 people held signs denouncing rape and began sending Twitter messages to Reebok. That day members of UltraViolet also started a phone campaign, calling Reebok’s headquarters in Canton, Mass., to complain about Mr. Ross.

The group also bought digital ads on Facebook that were aimed at people who “liked” the Reebok Facebook page and ads online that were aimed at people who were using search engines to look up “Reebok.” The final step was a letter sent to the company on behalf of 550 rape survivors.

The company Reebok dropped Rick Ross as ambassador

“While we do not believe that Rick Ross condones sexual assault, we are very disappointed he has yet to display an understanding of the seriousness of this issue or an appropriate level of remorse,” the statement said. “At this time, it is in everyone’s best interest for Reebok to end its partnership with Mr. Ross.”

Rick Ross Apologize

“I dont condone rape.Apologies for the #lyric interpreted as rape. #BOSS,” “Apologies to my many business partners,who would never promote violence against women.

can Nigerian women ever do this? no one want to listen or believe what this girl is saying. i love my mom and i respect all women world

my name is Mandy

You make sense.

What we in Nigeria may not understand is the way the westerners take issues that has to do with a woman being emotional abused, psychological trauma, harassment, or any of such.

Apostle Suleman should pray the judge is not a feminist.

dawtune:
There's a documentary of it. It's on an energy website, energymixreport.com. That same video should also be on youtube.

That is just the news report by CNN money.

donnie:
I just discovered that i've been exchanging words with an atheist: menxer

Left to you guys alone, there will be no church. But God has decided to give the dominion to His church and has put all things under us. We refuse to live as victims.

We will reign untill we check out of this world by rapture.

Did I say every law is ungodly? I will not argue with you again because the thing that made you choose atheism(foolishness) will not be cured by ordinary arguments but by the impartation of the Spirit of wisdom.

Hahahahahahahahaha

So because you can't defend your position in an argument you resort to name calling?
Is that the hallmark of a Christian?

Atheist indeed!

donnie:
Do you know what you are arguiing?- jumping from law of blasphemy and stoning to arguing if shadrach Meshach and Abednego were early christians.

You called shedrach, meshach, and abednego Christians?
SMH.

Those of the council who intepreted and upheld that law didnt believe in the deity of Jesus or were dubious, hence their command. Just like many governments today use the law to persecute christians and promote their selfish agenda.

Can you give an example of such law where it is written?

Or are your saying the law that abolished slavery or gave women a say in politics and elections, or religious freedom were ungodly laws? Don't forget these are against bible commandments.

Yes, there are still countries with laws against religious freedom now, just like in the days of the inquisition.[/quote]

It doesn't have to be, as long as its interpretation and enforcement do not go against God's Word.

The interpretation of the law is as important as the law itself. The elders and councilors will have had to agree that the very law they believed in spoke of Jesus' Christ the messiah. So also we, as christians have a say as to how the law is intepreted or enforced.

Afterall, we too are citizens. Shouldn't Christian lawmakers be expected to defend our beliefs anymore? If they insist on intepreting or enforcing the law in an ungodly manner, then we as christians will have no option than to insist on obeying God rather man.

Has any law or commandment in the bible been amended to avoid wrong interpretation or enforcement?

Is it not paradoxical that those laws in the bible were given by God in the first instance (like the first law you quoted).

Yes, nations review their constitutions from time to time to address these lapses.

maasoap:
There must be a documentary. Remember that work is still in progress, not yet finished.
The media that carries this news should be blamed for absence of the site pictures.

Let me share in your faith that there is a documentary, Because now that we have the technology and know how, we should not miss doing it.

I always marvel when I watch documentary of such mega projects in other countries on YouTube and history channel, it would be a thing of pride to watch one in Nigeria.

oyinkinola:
....let me tell you!
the world is in motion and political revolution in Nigeria had moved pass pdp, any attempt to change that is a dream that cannot be realised!
pdp is dead atlast!

If you understood the sarcasm, you did understand we are saying the same thing.

This victim mentality is not the best.

5% was not synonymous with Igbo but everyone else that didn't vote PMB, and the whole of SS voted against PMB. why are some Igbos taking the 5% as their surname?

I thought there was a party called APGA, what happened to it?

Self determination can also come in form of a strong formidable party that can contend for any political position, rather than lick political wounds in self deprecation.

At lest she has discovered her purpose in life.