₦airaland Forum

garfield1:
You are right.section 84 12 will eventually stand.ministers are not public servants going by the constitution...

I just spoke to mybuncle at futo who is close to prof sandy onor.he told me that prof zana awarded sandy that professorship that sandy had long resigned from unical

Islie:
https://tribuneonlineng.com/buharis-ministers-others-miss-apc-resignation-deadlines/

fergie001:
Yes, there was a time we were wondering why he will be elevated a Professor whilst still @ the red chamber. Makes more sense now..

YorubaIsGreat:
God will continue to punish and destabilise Tinubu, our incoming presido of Iragbiji Town Council.
On Tinubu's Manhood i stand

eldoradoxx:
First of all, party guidelines are strictly binding on all members. A member who does not comply with the guidelines of his party is disqualified. Wait and see how this candidates would be disqualified.

The constitution talks of people in the civil service of the federation resigning before election they intend to run, agreed that ministers are no caught up by this provision, that is therefore the reason National Assembly can safely make law mandating their resignation to either vote or be voted in a primary without being accused of touching the area that the constitution has already made provision regarding. So I see the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court upholding section 84(12), remember that National Assembly has the powers to make laws on any issue once there is no constitutional provision that is affected. The constitutional provision being bandied around affects only civil servants which political appointees are not and can't take cover under.

garfield1:
Yes during that pantami saga.him and senator owan enoh became lecturers same and were political alllies and both won elections in 1999 and owan resigned.he also said that leave of absence can only cover for appointive positions not elective posts...

You can now see that pantami is being vilified and witchhunted by ASUU.

fergie001:
Only the SC can settle this issue. vicdom could've been right!



I think the Ministers are right not to resign.


EA84(12) didn't specify any day for their resignation or even their resignations @ all, it only stated that they should not vote or be voted for in the Primaries. None of these persons are Civil Servants.

The Constitution or Electoral Act didn't direct political appointees to resign 30 days before primaries. It didn't.

no political appointee at any level shall be a voting delegate or be voted for at the Convention or Congress of any political party for the purpose of the nomination of candidates for any election. (there is no date attached).

This topic dwells on the APC Guidelines of resigning 30 days before the Primaries. A Court of competent jurisdiction quashed it that a Minister is not an employee of the Public Service hence is not subject to that rule. What I am saying is that the Ministers are right not to resign (@ least for now).

Penguin2:
My point too.

Loopholes like that are what somebody like Obaseki exploited to inaugurate Assembly Members by 9pm and the courts couldn’t void the exercise because the constitution didn’t specify the time that inauguration must happen.

Same way the Electoral Act 2022 is silent on the timeframe that an appointee must resign to be eligible to contest a political post.

As far as the Electoral Act is concerned, the federal appointees can decide to resign a night before party primaries and still not have gone against the law.

fergie001:
You are talking about a night.....even that morning sef.

ghettokid1:
Chief nairaland no dey tire u ? every time u dey online

fergie001:
Hahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahaha

Rain & network no gree meet me watch those ediots.

I have a tab opened.....do other things then just open the tab!!!!!

ghettokid1:
u get time sha.... I love ur work here

fergie001:
Thank you



Siuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

ghettokid1:
offside

fergie001:
Useless ref

ghettokid1:
this man where do u belong sef u just called them idiots now u re supporting them or is it because its PENDU ?

fergie001:
You are talking about a night.....even that morning sef.

fergie001:
You mean GOAT?
He is playing his last game, he will always remain the best.

ghettokid1:
MTCHEEEEEEW.......PENDU don score em usual goal, idiet

fergie001:
It's different.....Do you know how many years Sandy taught before he was pushed up. You can't compare ooo @ all.

fergie001:
[s]Siuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu[/s]

garfield1:
Oga,I've been part of history dept since 2010.I have never seen or come across him in the dept and he is not in the dept nominal roll.

Indispensable85:
Ministers are political appointees eventhough they serve public interest. That's the truth.

If the SC sustains that section, what will happen to their candidacy and the party assuming they win in the primaries?

Agbegbaorogboye:
The SC cannot sustain that section because it infringes on the constitutional rights of the appointees. The NASS is not their employer and so is not in a position to determine whether they should resign or not. Meanwhile, the constitution has laid out the requirement for them so the NASS can't legislate on something already in the constitution as that is an obvious conflict. Even the CoA will uphold the judgement of the FHC not to mention the SC. The only snag the judgement faces is the NASS not joined in the suit. But that can be waived on the grounds that fundamental rights of the appointees are involved