₦airaland Forum

Not unexpected now,Ngige n Nwoye never had much of a case

Seems Nigerian "Men of God" are gradually raising themselves to position of demigods.The other day it was Oyedepo n his tuition fee palaver,now Chris n his "can do no wrong" mentality.

By Femi Aribisala
If our marriage breaks down, we must
not fool ourselves and others by
insisting we are standing in the
righteousness of God
Christian pastors have become demigods. Their
word is law; no questions asked. As Jesus said,
they teach as doctrines the commandments of
men. (Matthew 15:9). They come up with all
kinds of self-serving principles that turn
scripture on its head; just in order to justify
themselves before men and control their lives.
I want to discuss Pastor Chris Oyakhilome.
Man of God
Pastor Chris is going through a rough patch at
the moment. His wife, Pastor Anita, has filed
for divorce, accusing him of having
inappropriate relationships with female church
members, among other things. Instead of
waiting for his day in court, Pastor Chris has
resorted to bogus interpretations of the
scriptures; even proclaiming he is a “man of
God” and therefore above sin.
Pastor Chris declared to his congregation
through a live telecast: “There are preachers
and there are men of God. I am not a
preacher; I am a man of God, and I go in the
way I’m asked to go. You have to understand
something about a man of God. A man of God
is not just someone who worships God or
preaches God. A man of God is handpicked by
God, set on course by God. If you study the
scriptures, you will not find one man of God
go against God, sinning against God.”
What nonsense! Who made Pastor Chris a man
of God? From which school of theology did he
get his sinless distinction? John says: “If we say
that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and
the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins,
he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and
to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we
say that we have not sinned, we make him a
liar, and his word is not in us.” (1 John
1:8-10).
David was a “man of God.” (2 Chronicles 8:14).
Yet he committed adultery with Bathsheba.
Balaam was a “man of God;” yet he became
apostate. The “man of God” who came from
Judah was killed by a lion because he sinned
against God. (1 Kings 13:23-26).
But listen to what Pastor Chris says about
himself: “We are not working in sin and living
in sin and hoping that we can mix sin and
righteousness together. We are the
manifestation of his righteousness.” This is
standing logic on its head. If our marriage
breaks down, we must not fool ourselves and
others by insisting like Pastor Chris that we are
standing in the righteousness of God. There is
no righteousness in divorce.
False Christ
In the bid to justify himself, Pastor Chris is
fabricating similarities between Jesus Christ
and himself. He said: “Jesus Christ was accused
by many – a lot of frivolous charges. There will
always be those who would like for it to be
true. But you know, in spite of the accusations
against Jesus, it didn’t change who he was.”
However, Pastor Chris is not Jesus. Many
accusations were indeed leveled against Jesus,
but they were not made by his wife and they
did not include inappropriate relationships
with the opposite sex.
In short, Pastor Chris might be whoever he
likes, but he is certainly not Jesus. Jesus says:
“If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not
true.” (John 5:31).
Yes, there are “men of God” in the Old
Testament. However, Jesus created no such
distinction in the New Testament; we are all
“children of God.” Jesus says: “Unless you are
converted and become as little children, you
will by no means enter the kingdom of
heaven.” (Matthew 18:3). Indeed, Jesus was
implacably opposed to men like Pastor Chris,
who sit on pedestals and claim to be holier-
than-thou. He says:
“Their lives are perpetual fashion shows,
embroidered prayer shawls one day and
flowery prayers the next. They love to sit at
the head table at church dinners, basking in
the prominent positions, preening in the
radiance of public flattery, receiving honorary
degrees, and getting called ‘Doctor’ and
‘Reverend’. Don’t let people do that to you, put
you on a pedestal like that. You all have a
single Teacher, and you are all
classmates.” (Matthew 23:5-.
Male chauvinism
While Oyakhilome was busy elevating himself,
he was also snidely putting down his wife. He
said: “If you are married to a man of God, it
doesn’t make you automatically mature. You
can make mistakes; you can do something that
is wrong. But some people expect the wife of a
minister to definitely be at the level of that
minister.”
This is an arrogant statement. What makes
Oyakhilome more spiritually mature than his
wife? By what measure and by what criteria
did he come to ascribe this superiority to
himself? Anita Oyakhilome was also a minister.
She was a so-called pastor of a London branch
of Christ Embassy. So why should Pastor Chris
presume himself more “minister” than her.
If we are to accept Pastor Chris’ bogus self-
appellation as a “man of God;” what
disqualifies Anita from also being called a
“woman of God?” Are women inferior to men?
Oyakhilome said: “If a man of God is married,
it doesn’t automatically mean that the wife of
a man of God is therefore a woman of God.
That’s not the way it is in the Bible. That’s why
you don’t really find the wives of men of God
mentioned in the Bible…. You never find their
names.”
What poppycock! When one of the female
pastors in his audience asked why the names of
wives of the men of God were not mentioned
in the bible; Oyakhilome’s response was a
classic. He exclaimed: “Why? You ask God
when you find him. Ask God when you find
him!”
But it was not God who fabricated this theory
that the wife of a man of God cannot also be a
woman of God simply because wives’ names
are not mentioned in the bible. It was Chris
Oyakhilome. Therefore, it is up to Chris
Oyakhilome to provide us with another bogus
explanation.
Pastor Chris ended his diatribe by saying:
“When it comes to Reverend Anita, what I will
say to you is ‘pray for her.’” There is no doubt
that, more than anybody else; it is Pastor Chris
himself that is greatly in need of prayer.

http://www.vanguardngr.com/2014/09/man-god-pastor-chris-oyakhilome/

passion007: Ojo Maduekwe ended up insulting his audience, not deliberately though.

I was about commenting on that,but u already nailed it

Another Tale By Moonlight.
Who come up with such tripe as this in the Presidency?.He should be given the boot asap,he's done more damage to the administration than any political opposition

Obajiaku - The barn holds wealth/Wealth lies in the barn.
Chukwunweuba - Wealth belongs to God.
Akaewetanwa - Might does not make/produce a child.
Ntupuanya - Let's wait and see what happens next.
Ehiejirimalu - When we know/were enlightened.
Ifeukwumelu - A great thing has happened.
Okwuruma - He who says know what he means.
Muoghalu - May the Spirit let go/forgive.
Muoneke - The Spirit creates.
Muonyelu/Monye - The Spirit gave.
Nkwoma - One born on Nkwo market day.
Nwawuona - Child is gold/precious.
Nwawunwanne - Child is my kin.
From Nnewi,Anaedo.

shymexx: You're a lousy idi.ot! And I think it's the Nigerian accent.

1). There's no language called, "Scotch" - Scots language is Scots Leid - and not Scotch.

2). Alex is Alex - and the guy has never been called, "Alistair." I think whoever wrote the article mixed the names up. He probably watched the Scottish independence debate between Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling - and got the names mixed up.

Stop googling things you have no clue about. That's enough education for today. Thank me later, air head!

And I wasted valuable time on such a one as this,smh.
Scunnering muc

shymexx: Bwahahahahahaha @ this stark illiterate.

The only two languages I know they speak in Scotland, apart from English are: Scots, and Scottish Gaelic. And I know Scots language is Germanic, while Scottish Gaelic is Celt.

Can you please provide academic proofs that there's actually a language called, "Scotch" - and post the origin, and where this language is spoken in Scotland?

Anyway, before you change the topic - post anywhere Alex Salmond has ever been referred to as "Alistair" and where he has ever called himself "Alistair." At least, I already posted the Scot, who's "Alistair," and one of the most prominent people in the Scotland independence debate - Alistair Darling.

Case in point from the article - the man who wrote the article cited the two most prominent folks - for and against Scotland's independence - by citing David Cameron, and someone from the Scottish side and that should be Scotland's First Minister, Alex Salmond.

I'm waiting.

Sancta Dei Genetrix!.
Quit making a show of your idiocy,son.The Scot language is known as Scotch,let that sink into your head.Depending on the region,dialects of it are also known as Doric or Lallans.Scottish Gaelic is mainly spoken in the Highlands.
And no,I wasn't commenting on the topic but on the singular fact you didn't know Alexander = Alistair,Alasdair or Alisdair in Scotch,yet you were making fun of one who does.

shymexx: Lmao at this stark illiterate!

And what's "Scotch?" I know of Scot, and Scottish - can you please tell us where "Scotch" people originate from?

Alex Salmond is Alex Salmond - and Alistair Darling is a different person entirely fighting for Scotland to remain in the UK.

Stupid and ignorant Nigerians who have never left Nigeria, arguing about things they don't know, since the beginning of time.

And don't quote me back.

Son of nama,the language of Scotland is known as Scotch or Scot tongue.The people are referred as Scot or Scottish.
Damned mucker,u know nothing of people u claim to be neighbours with.
Oh,the tribe originally known as Scot came over from Eire.Together with the Pict,the Angles,the Norse n others,they make up today's Scotland.
Got any more shining object to throw up,to detract from the fact u didn't know Alistair is Scotch for Alexander?

shymexx: Interesting.

However, the excerpt below cracked me up:



Perhaps, he was referring to Alex (Salmond) because the only other "Alistair" deeply involved in the Scottish independence debate/referendum is Alistair Darling, and he's a unionist and for Scotland to stay in the union - a proper London-Scot.

Anyway, everything the man said is right on the money. And I'm glad he travelled to Europe to view things by himself, and he was able to see the bigger picture - not the American-induced one-Nigeria most of these unexposed folks are stuck on. Most of them don't even know that America isn't even a democracy - it's a constitutional republic.

You that dumb not to know Alistair is Scotch for Alexander?.Smh.
Other forms of that name in Scot tongue include Alasdair n Alisdair.

JANK23H: If you want to talk history say it as it is and not half-truth.Boro had declared Niger-Delta republic and led a rebellion to sec cede,this rebellion was quashed by the Gowon regime using his stooge Ojukwu,who at the time was the military leader of the Eastern region.

Boro's fight against biafra was a revenge mission;moreso,it was done at the request of Gowon who granted him release from prison on the condition to fight on the side of the NA, and get his own pound of flesh.

Before the Igbos knew it was morning,the Ijaw nation had woken up and seen the falsehood called Nigeria.

Olodo,it was Ironsi that imprisoned Boro not Gowon.Go read,get ur facts straight,not concoct ur own fact in the name of trying to correct another.

bilms: Nzeogwu is an igbo man from the east. It was clearly stated on his profile

U really are an idjut,quoting n insisting on wiki pages u can easily doctor.
Every informed sheep n goat in the federation know Nzeogwu is from Okpanam,near Asaba in the former Midwestern Region,but yes we don't reject him.He was an Igbo man,just not from the Eastern region

tokunboh: Still thinking of how he can be removed. The constitution is silent on this aspect.

The Constitution is quite clear on how the Senate President or the Speaker of the House can be removed from office.Section 50(2) states:
2) The President or Deputy
President of the Senate or the
Speaker or Deputy Speaker of
the House of Representatives
shall vacate his office -
(a) if he ceases to be a
member of the Senate or of
the House of Representatives,
as the case may be, otherwise
than by reason of a
dissolution of the Senate or
the House of Representatives;
or
(b) when the House of which
he was a member first sits
after any dissolution of that
House; or
(c) if he is removed from
office by a resolution of the
Senate or of the House of
Representatives, as the case
may be, by the votes of not
less than two-thirds majority
of the members of that
House.
Can't get any clearer than that.Quite doubt the report n the source,PDP can't be that foolish playing a game of numbers they don't have.

How many days now n we're yet to find such valuable piece of military hardwar,smh.
Lightening strike any who says I should blindly support an incompetent military such as we have now.

The Nigerian Air Force aircraft that went
missing on Friday is yet to be found, an official
has said.
The aircraft, an Alpha Jet (NAF 466) was
involved in the counter insurgency operation
against the extremist Boko Haram sect.
The military had in a statement early Sunday
confirmed that the jet was missing while on a
mission in Adamawa State.
The aircraft “left Yola at about 10:45a.m on 12
September 2014 on a routine operational
mission and was expected back by 12:00
noon,” the spokesperson of the Defence
Headquarters, Chris Olukolade, said.
“Since then, all efforts to establish contact with
the aircraft have not yielded any positive
result.”
There were, however, rumours that the jet had
been found in an Adamawa community called
Lala, Gombi Local Government Area, on Sunday
evening, a report the Air Force says is not
true.
Speaking o PREMIUM TIMES, the spokesperson
of the Nigerian Air Force, Dele Alonge, said the
aircraft was still missing.
Mr. Alonge, an Air Commodore, said late
Sunday evening that the search and rescue
team acted on the speculation, but the aircraft
was not found there.
He said the search and rescue was still
ongoing.

https://m.premiumtimesng.com/headlines/168146-missing-nigeria-air-force-jet-yet-to-be-found-official.html

A great hero indeed.
So great a hero was he,he was relieved of command in the midst of battle by his Commander-in-chief n quietly eased out of the military.No fanfare,no pulling out parade,nothing.
So great a hero that while his compatriots,rightly or wrongly,were being lauded n feted by the Nigerian contraption,he was relegated to an almost-footnote of the annals of the Civil war.
A great hero indeed was he he started getting his just rewards right within a decade of cessation of hostilities,lived wretchedly the rest of his days n died wretched n unsung by the federation in whose behalf his heroics were performed.
Benjamin Maja Adekunle,may the rest of your deserved rewards overwhelm you in the hereafter.

saintneo: Hope we will be available to see what happens.

We will be here,Thomas.God willing

barcanista: the section 181(1) that you made premise on was an amendment to the constitution. It was made to accomodate the SC ruling in 1999 just like the "Doctrine of Necessity" that has been enshrined in the consitution. That is why they always say 1999 constitution(as Amended).
Secondly, the case between Atiku and Obj boils down to Party affiliation. The SC held that whereas Parties nominates candidates, the string become null and void after the candidate assumend office and the constitution further states a condition to which an elected official can change party- as at 2006, there was factionalisation in PDP which Atiku capitalised on. That case is different

I'm guessing you've seen the light now.

barcanista: the section 181(1) that you made premise on was an amendment to the constitution. It was made to accomodate the SC ruling in 1999 just like the "Doctrine of Necessity" that has been enshrined in the consitution. That is why they always say 1999 constitution(as Amended).
Secondly, the case between Atiku and Obj boils down to Party affiliation. The SC held that whereas Parties nominates candidates, the string become null and void after the candidate assumend office and the constitution further states a condition to which an elected official can change party- as at 2006, there was factionalisation in PDP which Atiku capitalised on. That case is different

Sancta Dei Genetrix!
Where did u get that stite from?.Section 181 has always been like that n has not yet been amended by anybody.It was what the SC based it ruling on when the ANPP took Haruna n INEC to court in 1999,asking for new elections since the person elected Governor,Atiku,had then assumed the office of the Vice President.
Where/how do u come up with these?.U assume it,therefore it is so?.
Fyi,I have the first edition of the CFRN 1999 n the current edition containing the amendments.Section 181 is in both.
Heck,the first time the Constitution was amended was during Jonathan's tenure,not far at from memory,n section 181 never came within sighting of the National Assembly.

barcanista: @Obinoscopy please analyse carefully the ruling on Boni Haruna's case. The supreme court heldd that Boni Haruna was an Associate to Atiku and was validly elected Governor because his Associate for elevation is constitutionally ineligible to occupy the office of Governor being the Vice President. Let us loot at Section 142(1) carefully..
“…a candidate for the office of Governor of a state shall not be deemed to have been validly nominated for such office unless he nominates another candidate as his associate for his running for the office of Governor, who is to occupy the office of Deputy Governor; and that candidate shall be deemed to have been duly elected to the office of Deputy Governor if the candidate who nominated him is duly elected as Governor…”


…a candidate for the office of Governor of a state shall not be deemed to have been validly nominated for such office unless he nominates another candidate as his associate for his running for the office of Governor, who is to occupy the office of Deputy Governor;

The constitution used one word "Associate". It means the Governor shall not be deemed nominated unless he comes with a partner. The Constitution assumes both of them as a joint and not individual. The office of the Deputy Governor is tied to the string of the Governor. They are inseparable from another


and that candidate shall be deemed to have been duly elected to the office of Deputy Governor if the candidate who nominated him is duly elected as Governor…”

What this mean is that the office of the Dep. Gov is not distinct from that of the Governor when it comes to election. In other words, Whoever votes a Governor is voting along his Deputy and they both starts a fresh term of 4 years. Whatever happens to the Governor, the Deputy naturally takes over to complete their tenure. According to the Supreme Courts Ruling, Boni Haruna was elected Governor along with Atiku in 1998 poll. In same vein, Jonathan was elected President along with Yar adua in 2007 for a fresh term. Jonathan did what Haruna did in 1999 to continue where his boss stops. According to the ruling, Jonathan as substantive President was deemed elected for a 2nd Term in 2011.

Yes,Jonathan was elected as Associate of Yar'Adua,but their fates diverged once they subcribed to the Oaths respectively.Yar'Adua took the Oath of Office as President while Jonathan took his as Vice President.Remember the SC's ruling on Atiku defecting while still VP?.Their fates were no longer necessarily tied from the point when they took their Oaths.Their offices became distinct with their own functions n powers.Jonathan didn't stand election again when he took the Oath of Office of the President the first time.He only completed a term for which Yar'Adua has taken the oath for.His own election n reckoning started 2011,when he stood election n then took the Oath as President in his own right.
Again,the bolded section talks about validity of nomination,not election n swearing in in themselves.

Obinoscopy: Modhream and Saintneo, please let's focus on the main topic of discuss

@@Barcanista, I just saw the Supreme Court's verdict on the case of Brigadier-General Mohamed Buba Marwa Vs Admiral Murtala Nyako and others on tenure elongation delivered on 27th January, 2012. I will quote excerpts below:

“From the language used in section 180 of the 1999 constitution, it is very clear that the constitution intended that a governor of a state shall have a tenure of four years from the date he took Oaths of Allegiance and of Office and nothing more, though he may spend less where he dies, resigns or is even impeached. In all, a governor has a maximum tenure of eight ( years under the 1999 constitution”.

Justice Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen, who delivered the lead judgment, went further to state as follows:-

“I have also found and held that from the totality of the relevant provisions of the constitution including section 180(1) & (3) and Section 182 (1) (b), a person first elected as governor of a State shall vacate his office at the expiration of a period of four years commencing from the date he took the Oath of Allegiance and of Office though he could be re-elected for another term of four years giving him a maximum two tenures of eight years. It is very clear from the relevant provisions that no person elected under the 1999 constitution can remain in that office for a day longer than as provided otherwise the intention of the framers of the constitution would be defeated”.

Sorry, I had to bolden and enlarge some keywords here to buttress my observations. You can see that the keywords there are "elected as governor" and "oath of office". The 4/8 years maximum tenure starts counting once the two keywords occurs.

Now, as regards Boni Haruna's, I'm still searching for the exact Supreme Court's verdict. The Supreme Courts verdict, just like the constitution, need to be interpreted carefully lest we make mistakes. The fact that Boni Haruna won doesn't mean he was deemed "elected as governor". I think he won based on the fact that he's the deputy-elect and thus should naturally take up the duties of a governor-elect once there appears to be a vacuum.

This is my opinion.........I may be wrong.

I believe @barcanista's seeming confusion stems from the fact he's reading the wrong sections of the Constitution.In Boni Haruna's case,the section that applied is section 181(1) & (2),mirrored in section 136(1) & (2) for the Presidency.Atiku was elected Governor,but never took the Oath of Office and Allegiance before abandoning the joint mandate to run for the Vice Presidency thereby activating section 181,which goes thus:
181. (1) If a person duly elected as
Governor dies before taking and
subscribing the Oath of Allegiance
and oath of office, or is unable for
any reason whatsoever to be sworn
in, the person elected with him as
Deputy governor shall be sworn in
as Governor and he shall nominate
a new Deputy-Governor who shall
be appointed by the Governor with
the approval of a simple majority of
the House of Assembly of the State.
(2) Where the persons duly
elected as Governor and Deputy
Governor of a State die or are
for any reason unable to assume
office before the inauguration of
the house of Assembly, the
Independent National Electoral
Commission shall immediately
conduct an election for a
Governor and Deputy Governor
of the State."
This scenario is totally different from when the elected has actually taken the Oaths,before abandoning/be removed from office.Haruna took up their joint mandate which Atiku abandoned n it was reckoned to him as if he was the one elected.This is different from Jonathan's since Yar'Adua never abandoned his mandate,he only died.And that after taking the Oath of Office n Allegiance.

saintneo: You are the one being ignorant.

My reference simply points at bye-election, while you were arguing an accepted part of the constitution. Before you start rolling out your drums of insults, kindly go through the thread again. I detest it when people try to sound intelligent by insulting others when corrected.

Did u even read that "accepted part of the constitution",Mr.Intelligent?.Why then your confusion,Wise One?

arresa: To the ignorant and globally unexposed retired general, Australia is a developed country.

And unlike Nigeria and the DDS where they exonerate jokers like you before investigation, the FBI is not a political organization, they don't run political errands for politicians, they do their, they investigate.

The FBI just successfully prosecuted a corruption case against a sitting governor just 2 days ago and the governor is going to jail for decades..

When was the last time your EFCC or DDS sent any governor to jail especially under this most corrupt and looting government?

We have military and defense intelligence under the same general, but he still can not tell us who is behind boko haram, he still can not detect or see BH approaching and destroying his military bases, he still can not tell us who is behind BH even with the $6 billion he pockets every year, the military he left is weaker and poorly equipped than what he met upon taking command, the same military is losing territory to terrorists everyday.

In the same developed countries the clueless general is talking about wont retire him, they'll kick him out with dishonorable discharge, they wont have the FBI defending him.

Jokers like this incompetent general only have mouth in a lawless and banana country like Nigeria..

Robert McDonnell is a former Governor of Virginia,not the current one.So much for "ignorant and unexposed".The rest of ur post,just so incoherent as to make little or no meaning.

barcanista: it goeas beyond seeking election two times for same office. Section 135 (2)(b) of the 1999 constitution (as amended) says: "Subject to the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, the President shall vacate his office at the expiration of a period of four years commencing from the date, when - in any other case, the person last elected to that office under this constitution took the Oath of Allegiance and Oath of Office or would, but for his death, have taken such oaths". Of course, the phrase "in any other case" refers to various situations where a Nigerian citizen gets sworn-in as President without contesting and winning an election. Dr. Jonathan was sworn-in as President on May 6, 2010 without contesting and winning an election.
Like I said this matter will be dragged in the courts and I see some amendments to our laws(my opinion and several legal luminaries hold this view)

Who was last elected before May 6,Jonathan or Yar'Adua?.
'Sides,we are discussing a situation where election is called to fill an office vacant before it's term is due.Stop muddling up issues,comparing apples n oranges.
Jonathan was not first elected when he took office 2010,he completed Yar 'Adua's tenure by virtue of being No.2 on the ticket without which Yar'Adua wouldn't have qualified for election in the first place.
Were it Ngilari succeeding Nyako,this particular section of the Constitution wouldn't have bn activated in the first place.There's a reason it was placed there.

barcanista: his term started in 2003 when he was first sworn in(it was the same thing said to Ladoja in 2007 when he sought to make up for the 11months of Akala's rule.
I'm not a lawyer but I knw that the governor will be sued to court orr he will go to court for interpretation. That "TERM" means 4years from the first day of swearing an oath according to the constitution. But I wl seek opinion of some lawyer friens

Wrong.
He cannot go to court for any other interpretation,his first term is over n done with.Whether he completed it by himself or had it completed for him by a deputy or some other is of no matter.He's going to be running his SECOND term of four years only.
Again,the Constitution never said one MUST complete a tenure of 8yrs.Only that one is ENTITLED to an 8-year tenure of 4yrs each term.
Learn to differentiate between those two words.Their meanings are vastly different from one another.
Back to topic,any elected governor completing Nyako's term is eligible to contest n be elected in only one more election,nothing more.

barcanista: it literally means A governor Tenure cease after 4 years. In the case of Death/impeachment/resignation, his Deputy takes over to complete the term. Should both vacate office as it was the Adamawa case, a BYELECTION(that means auxillary election) is held to fill the gap and complete the term.

The purpose of by-election is to "fill the gap" and not to start a fresh term(ie 4years)

Stop lying even to yourself,just admit u are way out of ur depth here.Section 180(1)a refers to "successor in office",not necessarily the deputy.While subsection 2(1) says a term is only 4years,2(1)a says it starts from the day the elected took the Oaths of Office n Allegiance.Subsection 2(1)b,being the crux,says 4years from the day the person elected/being succeeded took or would have taken,but for the reason of death.
Nyako,the person being succeeded here,had his second term running from 2011.Anybody succeeding him via election is reckoned to have spent 4 years,tho he only completes Nyako's term.
I know u well comprehend that section,stop being smart by half.You've bn caught out,admit it n move on.
Why do u think the likes of Ribadu n Gundiri agreed to step down their ambitions in order to have the opportunity of running for a full term?.They quite understand the implication of this section n others.

barcanista: Section180.

(1) subject to the provisions of this Constitution, a Tenure of office
person shall hold the office of Governor of a State until - Governor.

(a) When his successor in office takes the oath of that office; or
(b) he dies whilst holding such office; or

(c) the date when his resignation from office takes effect; or

(d) he otherwise ceases to hold office in accordance with the provisions of this constitution.

(2) Subject to the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, the Governor shall vacate his office at the expiration of period of four years commencing from the date when -


(b) the person last elected to that office took the Oath of Allegiance and oath of office or would, but for his death, have taken such oaths.

Ehen,I don catch u.Interpret this section for us if u can.

Still waiting for those "relevant sections" @barcanista.