₦airaland Forum

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091231/ap_on_re_af/af_airliner_attack_lagos_airport


It seems that Harold Demuren, the head of the Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority didn't even know that the US had given four scanners to the country. But Ofoyeju Mitchell of Nigeria's National Drug Law Enforcement Agency, told the AP that one of the machines sits in a room near the security checkpoint inside the airport. It was used only on passengers who were profiled as drug traffickers.

In any other country where people are held responsible for their actions, this Deuren guy would have been fired.

SEFAGO:
You can't blame Zik for the one nigeria view though. He lived in America and encountered a lot of racism and he became a pan-africanist; proud of his african roots and determined to create a nation with similar ideology. He probably though we are all black and have something more in common with each other. He didn't know the ethnic bigotry would come in play. One Nigeria was a pan-african concept

Not blaming Zik and Co as such. . .just stating historical facts. What was behind Zik and Co's reasoning is something historians will debate for ever.

Beaf:
That is not only uncalled for, it is also unhealthy. Why would one nation bankroll another, for what reasons?

I hear you, Beaf. But unfortunately, a share of sweet crude derivation to the North may be the only way to realize any republic sans the North. I doubt that Northerners love Southerners so much that they'll give a limb to save their southern brothers. The only reason the North is in this union is the derivation from sweet crude. If crude in the ND dries up tomorrow, and if by magic sweet crude begins to gush out of the North, do you think they will be clamoring for "One Nigeria"?

sjeezy8:
Too late the North is with us whether anyone likes it or not. The time to split from the North has passed,Zik chose to be one Nigeria, so ONE we are. Whether they are slowing the south down or not.

@sjeezy8 and @asha 80

Truth be told, even the Sardauna of Sokoto didn’t want the union. That was why he sent the lesser known and less impressive Tafa Balewa Abubakar to Lagos to represent the North.

We blame the British for this contraption called Nigeria, but our dear nationalists, Nnamdi Azikiwe and Co, got us into this mess. Awolowo played a lesser role in the one-Nigeria dream, but Zik was the chief protagonist.

It was also our dear nationalists who frequently and so ferociously castigated the British for the Minerals Ordinance of 1916, and the 1945 Minerals Act, both of which arrogated ownership of Nigeria’s mineral oils to the British Crown, only to do an about-face when he became president of the first Republic.

It was Zik and his One-Nigeria nationalists who pushed for retaining the colonial era Minerals Act in section 158 of the 1963 constitution. It began, in essence, the ra.pe of the Niger Delta by their fellow countrymen. Note: I believe there was a 25-50% derivation to the ND in the first Republic.

The Northerners have tasted sweet crude and they loved it. They won’t relinquish that palate without a fight.

SEFAGO:
stop stalking me and go and improve your onitsha grammar.

SEFAGO,

You can't speak to a fellow citizen of the new republic like that.  .  .err. . .are we breaking up already?
   

waleshakur:
I would suggest Lagos since it represents the diversisity of our populus, but the Hausas there should be deported home

I don't like that one bit. The new country should never start on the wrong foot of violence and injustice. Hausas who want to stay in the new country should be allowed to stay, provided they pledge to abide by its laws.

To those who object to this thread:


Chill out! It's obvious that most of us are just having fun with it. Stuff like this happens after something bad had just happened to the country.

@ Pharoh

Thanks for the link. I had always suspected that Falana and others wanted force the issue vis-à-vis YarAdua’s absence or competency to serve.

This is exciting, folks! You should view this as a good development. At least they are using the courts and not machetes.

I love legal wrangling among lawyers.

@TEE_ZERO@Nezan and @ Mcrackles

From my earlier post:
The issue is a bit clearer to me after doing more research. The problem, it seems, is the timing of the swearing-in ceremony (and to a lesser extent, who was designated by the constitution to administer the oath of office to the new CJ). The retiring CJ officially leaves office at midnight on Dec 31, 2009. By swearing-in the incoming CJ today (or was it yesterday in another time zone) the retiring CJ effectively created a short but troubling transition during which the country would have two sitting CJs. That would be unconstitutional.
**********


The question that arises then is this: When does the tenure of the new CJ start and when does the old one expire? It’s a legal technicality, but an interesting one. I always get a kick listening to constitutional lawyers in the US argue about the US Constitution. I don’t think the lawyers should be shut down; I think they should be encouraged to harsh this out in the court of law. This is part of the maturity process for the Nigerian legal code.

Princek12:
I hope you are kidding, really.

Obviously, he was being tongue-in-cheek. Everybody could see that.

Kobojunkie:
Body scanners are not necessarily new devices at airports. If you are speaking of the particular kind the US is looking to use, maybe, but some airports around the world have had scanners installed as long as way back as five years ago.
. . .

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-4516702/Dallas-Fort-Worth-International-Airport.html

Yes, technically, you're right, but I think those devices use X-ray backscatter (I think I said relatively new). They are not as revealing as the MMW devices. The MMW scanner are just being deployed in the US after trials in selected airports around the country. The technology itself is not new, but the application is.

SEFAGO:
So will they be able to see my  , I now feel insecure, incase mine is not up to match- then the security guard could be laughing at me

But they will not know it's you. Trust me on this one. I've seen many of these images. They are nothing I would get excited about.

Note: I use the word "excited" in a general sense.

Let's set the records straight here.

First of all, the body scanners are relatively new devices developed by a private company for the US Transportation Security Administration. They are just being introduced into US airports. Even in the US, less than 50 of these machines are in use in perhaps 20 airports around the country. That explains why the Schiphol airport didn't have one at the time the muttalab slowpoke passed through their airport.

Secondly – and this is directed at those who are saying America should leave you alone – there is no such thing as an isolated country anymore. When you're part of an international community, you have an obligation to protect that community within your borders. It is part of international agreement that airports cooperate with one another in screening out miscreants who might want to commit terrorist acts, export narcotics, violate currency, passport or visa regulations, etc. Nigeria is part of the international community and by default, it has obligations to meet.

Furthermore, for those screaming “leave Nigeria alone,” it would preserve your integrity, if you would leave America, Europe, SA, Asia and other places alone. Stop stampeding over yourselves to get student or residency visas to these places! Then, you would have practiced what you preached. Stop being hypocritical, folks.

Now for those who worry about the safety of these devices, I would remind you that you get more harmful radiation from the sun than you would get from these scanners, even if you travel frequently. The operational principle behind these machines is what is known as millimeter-wave scanning. It's similar to a 3-D CAT Scan except that it uses millimeter radio waves. A variant of these machines use low-level X-ray similar to fluoroscopy, but the MMW machines are the ones airports will deploy.

Long and short of it is that the millimeter wave machines are safe. They use different wavelength than microwaves, so they will not fry your tissue. Also, the time you spend under these machines is less than 30 seconds.

The primary concern is not of safety but privacy. The machine conducts what is known as a virtual strip search. It's like stripping you na.ked without taking your clothes off.

The machines will be manned by humans who will see your virtual image on a screen but will not see you, the person. Your face will also be blurred. The screeners will be housed in a room away from the security-screening lines, so they will have no face-to-face contact with the passengers they are screening.

To allay fears of voyeurism, there was a suggestion at one time that only same-sex screeners be used, but I don't know if this was ever accepted by the authorities. I've seen images produced by these machines, so I'll say this: Only a sicko would get his or her bosoms (get my drift?) by watching these images. The type of image these things produce will make you want to move on quickly to the next. You won't believe how unflattering most people look without their clothes. . .nothing like the magazine photographs.

To BabyGirl_1 who is worried about storing the information from these scanners:
The machines have software that will delete the images soon after the screener clears you, so no worries there. But, there is no guarantee against abuses. Even if the images can be retrieved, no one will know it's you since your face is blurred out.

The argument in favor of using these machines is that they can detect both metallic and non-metallic objects. If mutallab (no capitalization for a terrorist) had gone through one of these machines, a diligent or eagle-eyed screener might have seen the anomaly in his underwear and flagged him for a real strip search. But that last statement relies heavily on the diligent and/or eagle-eyed qualification. The machine can flag the anomaly, but a tired and/or inattentive screener may ignore or neglect the warning, and the bas.tard terrorist would still get through.

One last thing:
To Otawa and those who say this is a US problem and Nigeria should focus on its internal problem, I ask this: Would you say the same thing, if your loved one had been on that plane?

First of all, California's population is about 38m, not 60m as the author claims.

Secondly, we've tried this union for almost 50 years in different incarnations. It is time to convene a sovereign national conference to determine how we will live together or dissolve the union. Further charade such as rotational presidency is not going to solve the problems of Nigeria.

Rotational presidency neither complements nor does it enhance the principle of federalism. It promotes mediocrity. Just look at what Nigeria has in YarAdua. True federalism is when each state or region is allowed to keep majority of its earnings and develop at its own pace.

Nigeria doesn't need rotational presidency; Nigeria needs to alter the overbearing and rapacious nature of the federal government. The continued ra.pe of the ND that has deprived them of their ancestral gift of natural resources and continues to feed many lazy states is what needs to stop.

I have nothing but contempt for some of these so-called intellectuals who still haven't developed a spine strong enough to agitate for regional sovereignty. They keep genuflecting before the ruling oligarchy in exchange for "goodboyness" pat on the back. Obasanjo, Demeji Bankole. . .the list goes on.

Fouled creeks, toxic air and polluted rivers in the ND. But the oil money will pave the roads in Abuja, Kano Maidiguri Sokoto and other unproductive areas in the country.

I don't like the green color of the flag. I've never liked it and never will. Can you change it to some other color? How about navy blue?

Try RGB 0, 64, 128 on your color palette.


Btw, you just can't paint us a nice flag; you have to tell us what the green stripes and stars, and the white background denote in the union.

Now, all we have to do is declare independence from Nigeria.


Another gripe: I would prefer to remove the name Nigeria from the new country. I want complete severance of association with the old Nigeria.

Well, well, I think you all should look at this. It is the second schedule of the oaths act.

[url]http://www.nigeria-law.org/Oaths%20Act%201990.htm[/url]
scroll down to Second Schedule



It seems the Oaths Act of 1990 (updated in 2004) caused this problem. It specifically states that either the president or the CJ shall administer the oath to the CJ (presumably the new CJ).

So, technically, the retiring CJ was right in his action.


Damn! I've spent so much time on this issue. But it was worth it. I learned quite a few things about Nigeria.

Aloy~Emeka:
Publisher=becomerich.

Dude, you're too much!

Beaf, TEE ZERO, blacksta, Pifa et al.

The issue is a bit clearer to me after doing more research. The problem, it seems, is the timing of the swearing-in ceremony (and to a lesser extent, who was designated by the constitution to administer the oath of office to the new CJ). The retiring CJ officially leaves office at midnight on Dec 31, 2009. By swearing-in the incoming CJ today (or was it yesterday in another time zone) the retiring CJ effectively created a short but troubling transition during which the country would have two sitting CJs. That would be unconstitutional.

Where the retiring CJ erred in my layman's view was not making his retirement effective at the time the new CJ was sworn in. Or he could have administered the oath at midnight on Dec 31. What was his hurry? Was he afraid that forces beyond his control would prevent a midnight ceremony? If he couldn't administer the oath of office before he went into retirement, and since the constitution didn’t designate any government official to administer the oath to the incoming CJ, the country would be without a top jurist until the legislature got its act together to correct the situation. Well, we all know how levelheadedly and expeditiously elected officials do their jobs in Nigeria (pun intended).

But all I've written so far still stand: this is much ado about nothing. In any organization, there is always a hierarchy. If the Nigerian Supreme Court was without a new CJ for a few 48 hrs., the senior ranking member of the court’s hierarchy could act in the interim as the CJ. The heavens would not collapse on justice in Nigeria during that transition.

This ruckus shows some growing pains. But it also exposes how immature the legislature and the judiciary are in Nigeria. Why couldn't the VP administer the oath? If the VP was not available, why couldn't the Speaker of the House, who is next in succession, administer the oath? How could a purportedly exalted legal mind like the retiring CJ not see this crisis before he decided to usurp the VP’s prerogative by administering the oath himself? Why didn't the new CJ refuse to take the oath on the principled ground that it would create two CJs even if for only a 48-hr period? Do I give these people too much credit for rational thought?

Beaf:
In any event, Femi Falana says Yar Adua did not even write a formal letter of appointment. . .

From Femi Falana's position, the selection has been okayed, but the new guy has not been appointed. So based on what was he sworn in?

Now, that is SERIOUS, as opposed to the swearing-in issue.

Beaf:
The whole World is reporting the appointment as 'illegal'. . .

Beaf I don't disagree with your assessment. But the “whole world” sometimes report sensationalism. Maybe it’s because I’ve been out of Nigeria for so long that's clouding the seriousness with which I look at this issue.

What I know, so far, is that the constitution does not provide for swearing-in of this judicial appointee. In any civilized society, this will be much ado about nothing. But in Nigeria, everything is politicized. I am no fan of the Nigerian government. You probably saw what I wrote about the legislature earlier. But how hard is it to pass the swearing-in duty to the VP? After all, he is next in line to the presidency.

Swearing-in the CJ is not mandated by the constitution; taking the oath is. For all I care, any officer of justice can administer the oath. The important thing is for the appointee taking the oath to agree to be legally bound by it. I am willing to bet you that even after all the pomp and circumstance surrounding the oath, it was still not be legally binding until the CJ signed on the dotted line.

If you watched Obama’s inauguration last January, you would notice that even after the perfunctory “Congratulations Mr. President” and the playing of the “Hail to the Chief” by the US Marine band, Obama was ushered into a room in the US Capitol where he signed a few documents that made his presidency legally binding.

blacksta:
I agree that swearing and appointment may mean two different things but i cannot find anywhere in the 99 constitution that caters for the swearing of CJN except judicial oath / but does not address whether the president has to be present or not

What might happen, I think, is that the court adjudicating the law suit brought by Falana (is that his name?) will say that since the constitution does not provide for judicial swearing-in ceremonies, the precedence of tradition will be supreme. And traditionally, the President had always sworn-in a new CJ. But in the absence of the president, the next office in line to the presidency will fulfill that CEREMONIAL duty. That means the VP, of course.

Most courts with a full load of serious cases will view that law suit by Falana as a nuisance. The court might dismiss the case and ask the VP to administer the oath again.

I, ,  do solemnly swear/affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the Federal Republic of Nigeria; ,  that I will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria

So help me God

That oath is so f--king long, it is emblematic of the way things are done in Nigeria. Senselessly long!

It seems that just as a good lawyer will exploit a hole in a law to his client's favor, the retiring CJ is exploiting the absence of a specific designee to swear-in the new CJ.

All the ruckus following this event may very well end up for naught.

blacksta:
230. (1) There shall be a Supreme Court of Nigeria.
,

The above is the consitution in relation to the appointment of the CJN  - Only the president can swear in CJN

But appointment and swearing-in are not the same.

@mikelagos

Most African constitutions are crap. Some of these clauses overlooked or missed all sorts of scenarios. They are just vague so even if you take the President to court you might not have a strong argument.

ml,

I have never read the Nigerian Constitution in its entirety not to speak of the constitution of other African countries. Therefore, I can't say that they are all crap. The problem with what Nigeria calls a constitution is that it is not a set of guiding principles. Rather, Nigeria’s constitution is a collage of statutory impositions.

No constitution in this world can ever anticipate every possible scenario. I think you may be confusing a constitution, which is a set of guiding principles with statutory laws, which are resulting from legislation. Many parts of the US constitution are vague. That's why American lawyers constantly argue over the "intent of the Founders of America." To keep up with contemporary times, the US legislature frequently update current laws or make new ones, and a scholarly US judiciary frequently adjudicate on the constitutionality of these laws.

It is the duty of the law makers in Nigeria to fill in gaps in the constitution.

The problem with Nigerian lawmakers is that they are lazy and unprincipled, and quite a few of them are functional illiterates. My understanding is that no new legislation had been passed into law this year in the national assembly. Is that correct, anyone?

**********************
**********************

Idris Kutigi, the retiring CJ says it is quite legal for the sitting CJ to swear-in his replacement. That's fine with me. But for a man of his legal stature not to cite a specific section of the constitution or a statue that validated his actions was contemptuous of the law of the land. Furthermore, the new CJ himself should have pointed to specific sections of the law that would make his swearing-in legal. And if there were none, he should have, in principle, declined to be sworn in by the outgoing CJ. That would have earned him instant legal gravitas and stamped him with a reputation as a principled jurist.

If a lower court should rule the swearing-in illegal until further judicial review, it would deal a blow to the credibility of the new CJ within the legal community. A principled jurist would see through this and decline to be drawn into the politics. I f he goes on to sit as the new CJ, there will always be an asterisk after his name.


Modification:

After reading the sections of the constitution that relate to this matter. I am inclined to say that the constitution does not specifically say that only the president can swear-in the CJ. The constitution only says who appoints the CJ and who confirms that appointment. So there is some ambiguity here for the legislature to clear by statue.

Whether Jonathan does anything or not, the damage has been done, perhaps not to Jonathan himself, but to the institution of the presidency. It's a surprise to me that members of his party and the cabinet are not condemning his intransigence and disrespect for the office of the vice president. When a Republican congressman disrespected Pres. Obama during Obama's first address to a joint session of congress, even his Republican party members went out of their way to apologize to the president.

This is one of our problems in Africa: we respect “strongmanism”, but we have contempt for the institution. Isn't this what Obama lectured about when he went to Ghana…that Africa doesn't need strongmen; Africa needs strong institutions. It's not about the man but the office he holds.

See my post here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-371035.96.html#msg5191442