₦airaland Forum

chigoizie7:
Ok bro,we are all learning, but in nnewi, are kingship by inheritance? Or does it rotate village by village?

By inheritance,from father to eldest son/grandson

chigoizie7:
Lolz, bros, I am not so sure, but he might be right ooh.


Ever asked yourself why the palace of the OBI of onitsha is in one place, just like the govt house or Aso rock?( Were any person that becames the OBI automatically moves there as their palace unlike what is obtained from all the neighboring communities around onitsha? ) In other parts of the igbo land, once u re the king(igwe) ur house automatically becomes the palace provided that the kingship is rotational, except in the case of the community were the kingship is by inheritance which means that the palace has to be in one place. Only onitsha does this very act of one palace almost all tru igbo land. Which is synonymous with that of benin tradition.















In another place were I might disagree with him, is the case of the "royal regalia" It is not in anyway the same with that of benin, even d culture are different, but onitsha are the most cultural and most traditional set of people in igbo land,this is also synonymous with benin people.




In onitsha, kingship rotates, u get kings from different families, I also think this is not the case with benin people.





In conclusion, there are similarities, there are contrasting ones, but that is the love of culture, in every culture, there must always be similarities. North,west,east and south, there has always been similarities, and that is called, "cultural diversity".




He might be right, he might as well be wrong, vice versa.

The palaces of the Igwe Nnewi,Obi Uruagu,Umudim and Nnewichi,all in Nnewi,are non movable no matter who sits on the throne in the various communities,obi adi mbugha na Nnewi.Your assertion is false.

meforyou1:
20 years imprisonment. That's d law here in Nigeria

Sorry,which law are you quoting?.The one written on your akara paper,perhaps?

meforyou1:
which educate when it is criminal case. arrest the gays and jail them all

Being gay is not a criminal case,gay marriage and public support for it is what has been criminalized.Do get your facts right.
Besides,this report is about working to reduce HIV prevalence rate and other HEALTH issues in the state.

This report is as false as a #3 note.I now get why reports on Nigerian news media should never be trusted

frisky2good:
Sorry sir but I don't see how we contradict ourselves. My point is very clear. Saraki remains a bonafide Nigerian citizen unless / until someone can prove that he was not born in Nigeria or UK. I believe that is your argument too or am I wrong? As for S.25(1)c, that will no longer cover him because S.28 is clear about place of birth. Maybe that is where we do not agree. Thanks for your reasonable contribution.

Essentially,we do not disagree.Place and nature of birth are determined by Section 25,not 28.Section 25(1)c covered n still covers Saraki,he was born to a Nigerian citizen,by virtue of being born to one Olusola Saraki,a Nigerian citizen,at the time of his birth.Place of birth did not matter,S.25(1)c's simple language says "every person born outside Nigeria either of whose parents is a citizen of Nigeria."Born outside Nigeria means just that,outside Nigeria,be it Switzerland or Swaziland.
Let me bewilder you further,any child born to a naturalized/registered Nigerian citizen,be he originally Greek or Gentile,is a citizen by birth and cannot forfeit it.That is the import of Ogbeide v Osula,an already decided case law.
Section 28 apply only to citizens by registration or naturalization,which is why it exempted citizens by birth from the get-go.Definitions of citizen by birth,you find in Section 25(1)a,b,c,all exempted from the provisions of Section 28.A citizen by birth can take up as many other citizenships as he likes and still qualify for all political offices in the land (David Mark voluntarily took up Belizean citizenship n was SP 8yrs).A citizen by registration or naturalization cannot so do without losing his Nigerian citizenship.That's what Section 28 is about,read together with Sections 26 & 27

fx45:
Just listen to yourself! Stop making a fool of yourself publicly. I dont need any Nnamdi Kanu to tell me there's nothing like Ibo. This is a sad reflection of who you are....'My papa tell me say I be Ibo'. Tell your father to at least bring you and your siblings home to Igboland(that is, if he has a house here). Even if it is once in a year. It will do you some good.

You're responding to someone who registered that moniker today just to comment on this thread.Haba man,use your teeth to count your tongue.

frisky2good:
That section in bold already made reference to another section which explains the constitution's view on dual nationality and that is section 28 which is as follows:

28. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this section, a person shall forfeit forthwith his Nigerian citizenship if, not being a citizen of Nigeria by birth, he acquires or retains the citizenship or nationality of a country, other than Nigeria, of which he is not a citizen by birth.

In ordinary English, this section is absolute because it insists that the only other thing to consider if in doubt about this section is the second paragragh (2) in this section.

Let me try to fix Saraki's name into section 28 just for clarity sake and not in any way to ridicule the constitution.

Subject to the other provisions of this section Saraki shall forfeit forthwith his Nigerian citizenship if, Saraki not being a citizen of Nigeria by birth, Saraki acquires or Saraki retains the citizenship or nationality of a country UK, other than Nigeria, of which he is not a citizen by birth.

Notice how the clause "by birth" is carefully used twice in this section. It clearly states that he is qualified to hold the post as long as he was born in EITHER Nigeria OR UK. The only thing that can nullify his Nigerian citizenship is if he was born in a third country. If he was born in Ghana and his parents are Nigerians he can get a Nigerian passport but IF he now decides to acquire British citizenship, he will have to drop his Nigerian citizenship because section 28 of our constitution does not allow it.

Even you goofed here,talking about your last paragraph.Saraki cannot forfeit his citizenship even if he was born on the Moon and became a naturalized citizen of Mars,insofar as he has at least one parent who is a Nigerian at the time of his birth.See S.25(1)c of the Constitution,which stands superior to S.28.
Also,see Ogbeide v Osula (2005) as decided by the Court of Appeal.Also,Odidi v INEC (2007) FHC.
The import is that a Nigerian citizen by birth can hold multiple citizenship,and cannot forfeit his citizenship.Ogbeide v Osula even go so far as to strongly suggest he cannot renounce it.

odeotito:
You must have the saying by Festo -"There is no end to learning" Eagerly looking forward to pleadings.

Well,the confidence with which you came out swinging at first,was as if you've been called to bar many years n is an authority on constitutional law.
I get many ignoramuses here on nl,who mouth off constitution at every turn without even knowing what the preamble says.

odeotito:
OK. Just wish someone will bring this up via OS and go all the way to SCN so we can see how they'll rule. By the way, SCOTUS was something else this last Friday! Sleep tight Friend!!

You too.
SCOTUS only gave life to the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment,USC.
Some may not like it,but that's the law of the land.

odeotito:
Common how do you situate s.28(1) within s.25 reading communally. Still baffles me why folks get so agitated to the point of the insultive when others reason differently! We can have an intelligent discussion without agitation. Stay calm!

S.25(1)a,b,c stand independent n superior while S.28(1) lies subject to it.
I asked that you read Sections 26,27 & 28 together n thereby situate S.65(1) & 66(1)
Pay particular attention to S.25(1)c,then read S.28(1) n see for yourself it doesn't n will never apply to S.25.Therefore follows it doesn't apply to Saraki cos S.25(1)c already has him covered.

odeotito:
I urge that patience on you! No way would you have learnt the much you now know were all who ever lived of your ilk! Best wishes!

Okay,it appears we need a reset of relationship here.Apparently,you're still learning your way around citizenship/constitutional law so I'll go more easy on you.
Forgive my earlier abruptness.
So,where are you in your reading now?.

odeotito:
Indeed s.25 is, as u said so definitive but the core issue here is the effect of dual citizenship on citizenship status/electability! Saraki not been a citizen by birth should not have retained that br passport. Still reading.

Jesus!
What sort of a student of the law would you/did you make?.Did you read S.25(1)c at all?.

odeotito:
I've looked up Ogbeide and believe it is distinguishable from Saraki's on the ground that he is not a Nigerian by birth. S.25 would in my humble view not avail him if he still retains his br citizenship. If you think otherwise it'll be better for you just to say so and not tell me to go get educated. Am human and don't like been insulted. Enjoy your evening Sir!

How is he not a citizen by birth?.Was Olusola Saraki not a Nigerian citizen when Bukola was born?.Does Bukola not have a grandparent from an indigenous Nigerian Community at the time of his birth?.
Assuming without conceding that he's a naturalized Nigeria citizen,he still doesn't lose it since he's also a British citizen by birth.A community reading of Sections 27 & 28 of the Constitution should have pointed that out to you.
And no,I wasn't insulting you.Just don't have patience with people proudly waving the flag of ignorance as you were doing then.

odeotito:
Well, I'll look up Ogbeide and get back at you asap. I'll get some education

Please do.
Were you a lawyer/counsel n spiting your gibberish up there,I would have had you out on your ears.

odeotito:
Folks, read as.25,28, 65(1) and 66(1). The Courts won't move unless they are moved by due process. Barring the unforesoon Saraki's goose is cooked!

Read them together.
Section 65 is subject to section 66,that being subject to section 28.Section 25 is totally independent and superior to section 28.Read and comprehend.
'Sides,Ogbeide v Osula already put all these to rest.

odeotito:
Friend, S.25(1)a,b,c, is qualified by S.28.1. When read together and subjected to rules of interpretation it should be apparent to a discerning mind that Saraki, if he still keeps his British passport, and not having been born in Nigeria IS NOT A NIGERIAN by the provisions of the Constitution and it matters not what you think! Kudos to the SR for good investigative journalism and thumbs down for Nigerian journalists whose industry is suspect enough for this to have slipped by right under their noses!

Section 28 does not apply in anyway whatsoever to Section 25,only Sections 26 & 27 dealing with citizenship by registration and naturalization.Get some education.Even Section 29 that is supposed to have universal application has been hampered by the Court of Appeal judgement of Ogbeide v Osula (2004) to wit that citizenship by birth can never be forfeited.That ruling is yet to be challenged at nor overturned by the Supreme Court.

adebisicutie:
The Constitution does not allow one to hold a political office with dual citizenship however I expect he is smart enough to have officially renounced his British critizenship as you are allowed to do that. If not he is in yawa

Which Constitution are you quoting?.Your piece of akara paper?.The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,1999 as amended allows anyone with multi-citizenship to hold political office in so far as he or she is a citizen by birth.Citizenship by birth being defined as having a Nigerian parent at birth regardless of place of birth or being born in Nigeria and having only one grandparent who is a Nigerian.See Section 25(1)a,b,c

darelar:
The road is under construction and I believe that's why is not listed on. The state of the road is far better compare to how it's before. What dey did is to work on one side of the road, from roundabout left side to century and work is going on then. The most worst area there is last bus stop, amonota, ap and to join where it stop around cele before going to apple junction. (That guy on last pics putting on blue dashiky is a guy working with my little brother)

You're talking about Ago Palace Way road,that is taking forever to fix.This one is Okota road leading to Cele.

mrvitalis:
First of all, all known living things known to man have Homosexuality among them
Second of all It is the feeling
3rd gays in Nigeria are by no means negligible at all from what I see in my school they may well be over 40% of Nigeria population but 99% of this hide it

They're between 8-12%,haba.Why exaggerate?.
That figure is not negligible,by the way

samueld0:
Shot up! Are u a worker in osun state? I'm a worker at the finance depertment at Abere no money paid yet as at friday.

I need other osun workers on this forum to shut this man up. He only copy and paste the news from punch and still backing up the unconfermed report with lies

That's not even punch newspaper,but newspunch,a fake online newsite used for propaganda n to deceive the gullible

Juxtified:
I am not an expert on the Bible. Most of my research on homo.sexuality happened to have led me to the issue of polygamy, hence my mentioning the topic. However, if you actually take time to REFLECT concerning many of the Bible characters, you can't help but notice that the great men (and women) of God in the old testament operated by a different set of rules from those in the new testament. I say this because you mentioned David. David was a man who held a special place in God's heart, a lot of his sins were overlooked or lightly punished, for example the murder of Uriah and subsequent adultery with his wife was only punished by the death of the resulting child. What was the OT punishment for adultery? Is it d death of the resulting child, or the death of both man & woman involved (lev 20:10)?
Same thing happened with another mighty man of God, Samson, who still had enough annointing of God to uproot the city gates even though he was just coming from a prostitutes!
Did you ever hear of any man of God in the NT who had the guts to look a prostitute twice, not to talk of taking another's wife? They were all firebrands, they operated by higher standards. That's why I FEEL the OT's not the best resource on polygamy when it comes to Christianity. Not to mention the obvious fact - None of those in the Old Testament were "Christians"!

Did you say David was lightly punished?.Someone who the sword never left his household for many generations,as prophesied by Nathan?.Who had many sons killed in civil conflicts while he yet lived?.Thank God you said you're no expert on the Bible otherwise we would have turned this thread to Bible study.
And no,the only edge the NT apostles had over the prophets of old was the dispensation of grace we still enjoy today.

Juxtified:
You're totally right:
1. They're all exhortations, and but not ones we should ignore.
2. I said i chose not to quote OT just to avoid argument not that I believe they're no longer relevant
3. Yes, the verses against homosexuality were mostly from Lev 18, but Romans 1:26-27 was also pretty convincing

1.That is highly debatable.Your initial position tho,was that polygamy was prohibited by the Bible,an untruth since the only man by whom God swear/swore in the Bible,David,was polygamous n nothing was found wrong with it,but for his adultery.
3.Don't cherrypick,my friend.Start from verse 18 till end.Also,Romans 2:1-2 has very interesting thing to say about those who judge.Btw,Leviticus 18 has only one verse (22) against homosexuality,not verses.Same as chapter 20(13),be more conversant with the Bible before you quote it.
Our back n forth is academic,anyway

@OP,I hope you get well soon.Else those operatives you threaten,for what doesn't concern them,are so gonna treat your fuckup.

Juxtified:
Quoting from the New Testament only because a lot of people now think the old testament no longer applies to us as Christians (not entirely true anyway);

Ephesians 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his WIFE and they TWO shall be one flesh.

1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of ONE WIFE, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
(one might argue here that this one is for the elders of the church - pastors, bishops, deacons etc, but should there actually be one law for the elders and another for the 'floor members'? )

Titus 1:6 If any be blameless, the husband of ONE WIFE, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

But then as you say, that's just on a sidenote.

I'm not seeing any prohibition there,but exhortations to then church leadership.And no,those weren't laws too.
Oh,if OT no longer apply to Christians,why do most Nigerian church-goers run to it then to back their positions,be it on tithing,homosexuality and the like?.I'm assuming,for the sake of an argument,your personal view of homosexuality as a sin derives from Leviticus 18 & 20.

tucky200:
the government is also allowed to judge them....these guys cannot give birth..that's the point

Marriage is not and had never been solely about giving birth......where did you get that from?.
Btw,who said they can't give birth?.Are they infertile or impotent?

On a sidenote @OP,where did the Bible prohibit marrying two wives?.

imakewealth2:
The law was constituted today!!! So it'll take time to digest.

The law was not constituted today,get informed.
The question the US SC answered today was whether marriage is a fundamental right n if so,whether under the Equal Protection Clause of their Constitution,same as we have btw,it is legal to deny gays such right as others enjoy.
Really,what two consenting adults do with their lives should be nobody's business so far as it is done within the ambit of the law.

mikeansy:
The Biafra question is feeding off the narrowness or should I say the smallness of the Nigerian politics

Why does it have to be a choice between the status quo or outright separation?

Why is there nothing in-between

What of devolution or true federalism? Why are they not on the front burner?

Those options were taken off the table long ago by 'Nigeria'.The chickens are now coming home to roost

IsraeliAIRFORCE:
The President can't disband the National Assembly rather the NASS can send him packing if they so desire.


This is what our constitution supports

In addition,the Nigerian Senate is not a recent institution,as stated in the OP,but has been since the first republic.The Nigerian Constitution is not the same as Senegal's,people should be aware of such facts before coming up with such hare-brained ideas