₦airaland Forum

Kukutente23:
You're the confused and uncoordinated one. The process in the constitution uses the word "shall" which is a mandatory word. It does not say the process is at the whim of the speaker of the House.
The case of YPP you're claiming. I hope you're aware he has only announced his defection on the pages of newspaper. If he announces it on the floor of the House, then the speaker MUST declare his seat vacant. Anything else is an illegality. You're allowed to claim whatever outside but once you do it on the floor, your seat becomes automatically vacant. If the speaker does not declare it so, he's violating the law and YPP can seek redress for that violation in court.
Your problem like most govt defenders is an inability to know the difference between right and wrong in the face of the law simply because of your political inclination.
It's pitiable

What party is Senator Uba today?

sirpharrell:
See how ignorant you are, yet you don't want to cool down and learn.
Senator Ifeanyi Ubah was elected under YPP, not Labour Party.
He has already written a letter to the Senate President which was read in plenary.
Take note of the process. He wrote a letter to the Senate President and the Senate President read the letter in plenary. I hope you understand what plenary means sha.
The Senate President has not yet declared his seat vacant.
Now, if YPP feel aggrieved, they will approach the high court to state that there is no division in their party to warrant the defection.
Normally, the case will get up to the Supreme Court and YPP will most likely win.
That is how it works. No legislator loses his seat AUTOMATICALLY whether the case is controversial or not.

From your own narrative then, it's obvious that what Akpabio is doing is clearly illegal. He's expected to declare Ubah's seat vacant according to our constitution and SC judgement

sirpharrell:
See how ignorant you are, yet you don't want to cool down and learn.
Senator Ifeanyi Ubah was elected under YPP, not Labour Party.
He has already written a letter to the Senate President which was read in plenary.
Take note of the process. He wrote a letter to the Senate President and the Senate President read the letter in plenary. I hope you understand what plenary means sha.
The Senate President has not yet declared his seat vacant.
Now, if YPP feel aggrieved, they will approach the high court to state that there is no division in their party to warrant the defection.
Normally, the case will get up to the Supreme Court and YPP will most likely win.
That is how it works. No legislator loses his seat AUTOMATICALLY whether the case is controversial or not.

The court has been approached and it has declared those seats vacant. This decision stands until overturnd by a higher court.

wirinet:
What party is Senator Uba today?

I don't even know much about the guy. But the sirpharrell himself just categorically said the guy defected on the floor of the house to APC.
So we should ask him what's restraining Akpabio from declaring his seat vacant if not lack of respect for our laws.

DeepSight:
The court has been approached and it has declared those seats vacant. This decision stands until overturnd by a higher court.

Nigerians are just too insincere. They don't believe in such things as honour, dignify and doing things right. They only believe in manipulating the system for greed and personal gain. No country can survive with such hobbesian value system.

The case would take years to snake all the way to the supreme court. By then the matter would have become irrelevant.

wirinet:
Nigerians are just too insincere. They don't believe in such things as honour, dignify and doing things right. They only believe in manipulating the system for greed and personal gain. No country can survive with such hobbesian value system.

The case would take years to snake all the way to the supreme court. By then the matter would have become irrelevant.

Correct. But he seems to suggest only the Supreme Court can do this. That's arrant nonsense. Any high court can, and at least one has already.

DeepSight:
The court has been approached and it has declared those seats vacant. This decision stands until overturnd by a higher court.

Which court declared which seats vacant? Why can't you just stop commenting on an issue you obviously know nothing about? The matter is not even in court yet.

sirpharrell:
Which court declared which seats vacant? Why can't you just stop commenting on an issue you obviously know nothing about? The matter is not even in court yet.

Tell me how it arrived at its recognition of Edison Ehie as the speaker. That pronouncement could only be issued with the implicit understanding that the faction of 27 were functus officio. There could be no other rational basis.

Secondly, even if you dispute this, so long as -

1. The court has recognized Edison Ehie as the speaker
2. Edison Ehie has declared their seats vacant -

Then the deed is fully done, regardless.

It would now be up to the faction of 27 to dispute this in court.

Kukutente23:
You're the confused and uncoordinated one. The process in the constitution uses the word "shall" which is a mandatory word. It does not say the process is at the whim of the speaker of the House.
The case of YPP you're claiming. I hope you're aware he has only announced his defection on the pages of newspaper. If he announces it on the floor of the House, then the speaker MUST declare his seat vacant. Anything else is an illegality. You're allowed to claim whatever outside but once you do it on the floor, your seat becomes automatically vacant. If the speaker does not declare it so, he's violating the law and YPP can seek redress for that violation in court.
Your problem like most govt defenders is an inability to know the difference between right and wrong in the face of the law simply because of your political inclination.
It's pitiable

Someone is teaching you what you don't know and you say he is talking crap.
People like you hardly learn.
The fact that you don't even know that Senator Ubah has officially defected on the floor of the senate shows that you know nothing. A little Google search could have cleared some of your ignorance.
The Senate President has already read the letter from Senator Ubah in plenary. That is the only recognised means of defection in law.
He has not yet lost his seat.
There are dozens of other examples.
Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe, who was the Minority Leader in the last senate, defected from PDP to APGA. He didn't lose his seat.
The word "shall" does not mean automatic. The process will still be followed.
There has been hundreds of defections by legislators in the past. Can you give me one example of any of them that lost his seat automatically. Just one.

The law intends that they vacate their seats immediately, no doubts, but still confers the enforcement of the law on the speaker.
In almost all cases, the speaker will refuse to enforce the law and that is why the aggrieved party, the former political parry, end up going to court.

In more mature fora, I have advocated for the law to be amended to remove the enforcement from the speaker. Imagine a situation where it is the speaker that defected. Who will declare his seat vacant?
You will go to court and the case will bo on till the tenure expires.

I have advocated that the right of enforcement of this law should be on the political party that sponsored the defector.
It should be the party that should write to INEC that their member who won election had defected.
Then INEC would declare the seat vacant and call for a fresh election within a stipulated time.
With this, we can achieve some level of sanity.
There are other aspects of this law that I have advocated to be amended and I have sent my memorandum to the National Assembly like the loophole created by exemptions, the categories of elected officials covered by the law, etc.
But I guess, this is not the forum to discuss such things.

DeepSight:
Tell me how it arrived at its recognition of Edison Ehie as the speaker. That pronouncement could only be issued with the implicit understanding that the faction of 27 were functus officio. There could be no other rational basis.

Secondly, even if you dispute this, so long as -

1. The court has recognized Edison Ehie as the speaker
2. Edison Ehie has declared their seats vacant -

Then the deed is fully done, regardless.

It would now be up to the faction of 27 to dispute this in court.

How does the court declaring Edison the speaker mean the same thing as declaring the 27 seats vacant?
It was not even a judgement but an exparte order that Edison got.
I know you don't know the difference but I'll try to break it down.
The exparte order has a maximum lifespan of 14 days.
That is why the other party didn't worry to appeal the order because it will soon expire.
The issue of declaration of seats vacant was not part of the exparte order.
It is a very bad habit to be arguing blindly on an issue that you obviously know nothing about.

sirpharrell:
Someone is teaching you what you don't know and you say he is talking crap.
People like you hardly learn.
The fact that you don't even know that Senator Ubah has officially defected on the floor of the senate shows that you know nothing. A little Google search could have cleared some of your ignorance.
The Senate President has already read the letter from Senator Ubah in plenary. That is the only recognised means of defection in law.
He has not yet lost his seat.
There are dozens of other examples.
Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe, who was the Minority Leader in the last senate, defected from PDP to APGA. He didn't lose his seat.
The word "shall" does not mean automatic. The process will still be followed.
There has been hundreds of defections by legislators in the past. Can you give me one example of any of them that lost his seat automatically. Just one.

The law intends that they vacate their seats immediately, no doubts, but still confers the enforcement of the law on the speaker.
In almost all cases, the speaker will refuse to enforce the law and that is why the aggrieved party, the former political parry, end up going to court.

In more mature fora, I have advocated for the law to be amended to remove the enforcement from the speaker. Imagine a situation where it is the speaker that defected. Who will declare his seat vacant?
You will go to court and the case will bo on till the tenure expires.

I have advocated that the right of enforcement of this law should be on the political party that sponsored the defector.
It should be the party that should write to INEC that their member who won election had defected.
Then INEC would declare the seat vacant and call for a fresh election within a stipulated time.
With this, we can achieve some level of sanity.
There are other aspects of this law that I have advocated to be amended and I have sent my memorandum to the National Assembly like the loophole created by exemptions, the categories of elected officials covered by the law, etc.
But I guess, this is not the forum to discuss such things.

As I've said before, I take your info that the letter was read on the floor.
In all the cases you mentioned, that of Abaribe is understandable since he defected close to election and it's obvious the seat was up for election too.
For the others, the Speaker is acting illegally. It is obvious you have no knowledge of law. The law clearly states that where the word "shall" is used, it confers mandatory on the bearer to carry out the action. There's even a supreme court judgement that backs the use of "shall" up.

To claim that the word "shall" is not automatic shows your ignorance.
Your logic can be stretched to say it is not automatic that the president presents the budget to the house. If he chooses not to, you can go to court.
It can also be stretched to say the president does not need to be sworn in before taking office. If you don't like it, you can go to court.
Heck, the president does not even need to win the majority votes and 25% in 24 states to win an election.
All the examples I gave you, the word "shall" was used in those sections of the constitution. Go and confirm.
So what you're advocating for is simply lawlessness by claiming it is not automatic. That's how illogical your stand is.
The Speaker is expected to be law-abiding since they make laws. But political wimps like you can't tell the difference between law and politics.

sirpharrell:
How does the court declaring Edison the speaker mean the same thing as declaring the 27 seats vacant?
It was not even a judgement but an exparte order that Edison got.
I know you don't know the difference but I'll try to break it down.
The exparte order has a maximum lifespan of 14 days.
That is why the other party didn't worry to appeal the order because it will soon expire.
The issue of declaration of seats vacant was not part of the exparte order.
It is a very bad habit to be arguing blindly on an issue that you obviously know nothing about.

Please don't presume I dont know what ex parte orders are. I am a lawyer. However I will admit I did not read the order prior to my initial comment. So my bad on that. Nevertheless this is why I proceeded to couch my subsequent reply in the words I did - note that I said -

"That pronouncement could only be issued with the implicit understanding that the faction of 27 were functus officio."

Please note the word "implicit."

This is also why I then took it one step further, by pointing out that so long as Edison has been recognized as the speaker, and has declared those seats vacant, then the deed is done.

PS: Although interim orders generally have a time limit, in practice once they are made "pending the hearing of the motion on notice" they remain in effect until such a hearing.

Kukutente23:
As I've said before, I take your info that the letter was read on the floor.
In all the cases you mentioned, that of Abaribe is understandable since he defected close to election and it's obvious the seat was up for election too.
For the others, the Speaker is acting illegally. It is obvious you have no knowledge of law. The law clearly states that where the word "shall" is used, it confers mandatory on the bearer to carry out the action. There's even a supreme court judgement that backs the use of "shall" up.

To claim that the word "shall" is not automatic shows your ignorance.
Your logic can be stretched to say it is not automatic that the president presents the budget to the house. If he chooses not to, you can go to court.
It can also be stretched to say the president does not need to be sworn in before taking office. If you don't like it, you can go to court.
Heck, the president does not even need to win the majority votes and 25% in 24 states to win an election.
All the examples I gave you, the word "shall" was used in those sections of the constitution. Go and confirm.
So what you're advocating for is simply lawlessness by claiming it is not automatic. That's how illogical your stand is.
The Speaker is expected to be law-abiding since they make laws. But political wimps like you can't tell the difference between law and politics.

If the word "shall" means automatic, can you give me one example where a member lost his seat automatically upon defection. Apart from Abaribe, there has been hundreds of other defections.
The onus is on the speaker to declare the seat vacant. So how is that automatic?
Senator Dave Umahi's seat was only declared vacant by the senate president just last week, after four months of his taking up a ministerial appointment.
People like you just come online to abuse other people who have superior knowledge instead of learning. You can hardly learn that way.
The constitutional provisions on defection is laced with several loopholes and that is why defection has not abated.
Everyone knows the law but the loopholes make it possible for people to defect and get away with it.
Unless the law is amended, we will continue to witness people defecting and still keeping their seats.
The 27 Rivers lawmakers are not the first and will not be the last.

sirpharrell:
It should be the party that should write to INEC that their member who won election had defected.

But PDP has also written to INEC.

Kukutente23:
As I've said before, I take your info that the letter was read on the floor.
In all the cases you mentioned, that of Abaribe is understandable since he defected close to election and it's obvious the seat was up for election too.
For the others, the Speaker is acting illegally. It is obvious you have no knowledge of law. The law clearly states that where the word "shall" is used, it confers mandatory on the bearer to carry out the action. There's even a supreme court judgement that backs the use of "shall" up.

To claim that the word "shall" is not automatic shows your ignorance.
Your logic can be stretched to say it is not automatic that the president presents the budget to the house. If he chooses not to, you can go to court.
It can also be stretched to say the president does not need to be sworn in before taking office. If you don't like it, you can go to court.
Heck, the president does not even need to win the majority votes and 25% in 24 states to win an election.
All the examples I gave you, the word "shall" was used in those sections of the constitution. Go and confirm.
So what you're advocating for is simply lawlessness by claiming it is not automatic. That's how illogical your stand is.
The Speaker is expected to be law-abiding since they make laws. But political wimps like you can't tell the difference between law and politics.

Very well said.

sirpharrell:
If the word "shall" means automatic, can you give me one example where a member lost his seat automatically upon defection. Apart from Abaribe, there has been hundreds of other defections.
The onus is on the speaker to declare the seat vacant. So how is that automatic?
Senator Dave Umahi's seat was only declared vacant by the senate president just last week, after four months of his taking up a ministerial appointment.
People like you just come online to abuse other people who have superior knowledge instead of learning. You can hardly learn that way.
The constitutional provisions on defection is laced with several loopholes and that is why defection has not abated.
Everyone knows the law but the loopholes make it possible for people to defect and get away with it.
Unless the law is amended, we will continue to witness people defecting and still keeping their seats.
The 27 Rivers lawmakers are not the first and will not be the last.

Your line of reasoning seems to be that if a law is consistently breached then it is not the law. That is absurd.
Many Muslims drink alcohol. Therefore Islam does not prohibit the drinking of alcohol. This is what you are effectively saying.

[quote author=DeepSight post=127587598]But PDP has also written to INEC.[/quotYes

Yes, they have but the letter is of no consequence by the current provisions of the law.
INEC can not act on the PDP letter.
The only thing that INEC can act on is a letter from the speaker or a valid court judgement.
Edison wrote to INEC too but I am sure that he did not attach any letter from the members. That is the only recognised evidence that they have defected.
Without attaching the letters from the members, his letter to INEC will be just a mere love letter.
It will be like writing to INEC that a member has died without attaching the death certificate.

DeepSight:
Your line of reasoning seems to be that if a law is consistently breached then it is not the law. That is absurd.
Many Muslims drink alcohol. Therefore Islam does not prohibit the drinking of alcohol. This is what you are effectively saying.

On the contrary, my position is that if a law is constantly breached because of the loopholes contained in that law, then that law ought to be amended to remove those loopholes and make the law easier to implement.
With the current provisions, people will continue to defect and keep their seats. That is clearly against what the law intends but it will continue to happen because of the loopholes in the law.
Unlike you and most people that only seek implementation of the law on the people you don't like, I have been highlighting the loopholes in the law long before the Rivers episode.

sirpharrell:
Yes

Yes, they have but the letter is of no consequence by the current provisions of the law.
INEC can not act on the PDP letter.
The only thing that INEC can act on is a letter from the speaker or a valid court judgement.
Edison wrote to INEC too but I am sure that he did not attach any letter from the members. That is the only recognised evidence that they have defected.
Without attaching the letters from the members, his letter to INEC will be just a mere love letter.
It will be like writing to INEC that a member has died without attaching the death certificate.

I doubt the bold is correct. The defection is too well attested in the public space (and by the repetitions of the Faction of 27 themselves) to be denied by either INEC or anyone else. Besides, have you checked to see if the law actually states that the Speaker must attach letters to his communication with INEC. I haven't checked, to be clear.

Surely he can attach anything else - such as videos of their reception into the APC for instance.

sirpharrell:
On the contrary, my position is that if a law is constantly breached because of the loopholes contained in that law, then that law ought to be amended to remove those loopholes and make the law easier to implement.
With the current provisions, people will continue to defect and keep their seats. That is clearly against what the law intends but it will continue to happen because of the loopholes in the law.

I find this reasonable.
But to be clear, this is not to say I agree with you on the matter of the defection not being effective in terms of rendering the seats vacant.

Unlike you and most people that only seek implementation of the law on the people you don't like, I have been highlighting the loopholes in the law long before the Rivers episode.

Easy on the presumptions please. You don't know me. That's how you presumed to lecture someone who is 20 years at the bar on the meaning of "ex parte."

Easy up.

sirpharrell:
If the word "shall" means automatic, can you give me one example where a member lost his seat automatically upon defection. Apart from Abaribe, there has been hundreds of other defections.
The onus is on the speaker to declare the seat vacant. So how is that automatic?
Senator Dave Umahi's seat was only declared vacant by the senate president just last week, after four months of his taking up a ministerial appointment.
People like you just come online to abuse other people who have superior knowledge instead of learning. You can hardly learn that way.
The constitutional provisions on defection is laced with several loopholes and that is why defection has not abated.
Everyone knows the law but the loopholes make it possible for people to defect and get away with it.
Unless the law is amended, we will continue to witness people defecting and still keeping their seats.
The 27 Rivers lawmakers are not the first and will not be the last.

Your problem as I've said is you can't separate law from politics. The constitution is very clear that a member of a House that defects will lose his seat. That's the law and it is not debatable. The law goes further to order the speaker of such House to declare the seat of a defector vacant and transmit a letter to INEC to carry out an election in the affected constituency within 90 days. That a speaker chooses to not obey the law does not make the law less valid or true. It only shows the political side of the speaker who has chosen to elevate political consideration above the requirement of the law.
There are several such disregard of our laws in operation and it does not make the laws less relevant.
-Buhari signed off 1bn from ECA without appropriation.
-Tinubu appointed a serving Corp member as minister.
-A REC was recently appointed who turned out to be a member of a political party. etc etc.
All these examples do not make our laws less valid. It is the politicians who are making mess of the laws while you support them.

DeepSight:
Please don't presume I dont know what ex parte orders are. I am a lawyer. However I will admit I did not read the order prior to my initial comment. So my bad on that. Nevertheless this is why I proceeded to couch my subsequent reply in the words I did - note that I said -

"That pronouncement could only be issued with the implicit understanding that the faction of 27 were functus officio."

Please note the word "implicit."

This is also why I then took it one step further, by pointing out that so long as Edison has been recognized as the speaker, and has declared those seats vacant, then the deed is done.

PS: Although interim orders generally have a time limit, in practice once they are made "pending the hearing of the motion on notice" they remain in effect until such a hearing.

You are a lawyer and you are making arguments on a document you have not even read. You ought to know better.
Since you said you are a lawyer, can you answer these questions:
1. Assuming that Edison is the rightful speaker, can he declare the seats of the 27 vacant without receiving and reading in plenary the letters of defection from those members?
2. Can a member lose his seat upon defection if the speaker has not declared the seat vacant or the court has ordered that he so vacates the seat?

sirpharrell:
You are a lawyer and you are making arguments on a document you have not even read. You ought to know better.

I said my bad already. That's honesty. Besides, I dont take this place as seriously as I would a court room. Quite often we do light banter here.

Since you said you are a lawyer, can you answer these questions:
1. Assuming that Edison is the rightful speaker, can he declare the seats of the 27 vacant without receiving and reading in plenary the letters of defection from those members?
2. Can a member lose his seat upon defection if the speaker has not declared the seat vacant or the court has ordered that he so vacates the seat?

I will revert. I would like to quote and cite.
BRB.

DeepSight:
I doubt the bold is correct. The defection is too well attested in the public space (and by the repetitions of the Faction of 27 themselves) to be denied by either INEC or anyone else. Besides, have you checked to see if the law actually states that the Speaker must attach letters to his communication with INEC. I haven't checked, to be clear.

Surely he can attach anything else - such as videos of their reception into the APC for instance.

You say you are 20 years at the bar but see what you are writing.
That the speaker can attach any other evidence of defection apart from the letter from the member?
Na waoh.
I think I should just stop at this point.

DeepSight:
I find this reasonable.
But to be clear, this is not to say I agree with you on the matter of the defection not being effective in terms of rendering the seats vacant.



Easy on the presumptions please. You don't know me. That's how you presumed to lecture someone who is 20 years at the bar on the meaning of "ex parte."

Easy up.

Don't buy the guy's crap. He's changing direction when he realised he's backing the wrong thing.
His initial stand was to claim the speaker is at liberty to choose to declare a seat vacant or not and that as long as a member does not declare his defection, he can keep his seat.
He's changing stance now that he realises that the politicians are the problem. Same people he was backing to not keep the law

sirpharrell:
You are a lawyer and you are making arguments on a document you have not even read. You ought to know better.
Since you said you are a lawyer, can you answer these questions:
1. Assuming that Edison is the rightful speaker, can he declare the seats of the 27 vacant without receiving and reading in plenary the letters of defection from those members?
2. Can a member lose his seat upon defection if the speaker has not declared the seat vacant or the court has ordered that he so vacates the seat?

Right. I am back. Here, I reproduce Section 109 of the Constitution in full. Kindly note the bold words.

Section 109 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria
(1) A member of a House of Assembly shall vacate his seat in the House if -

(a) he becomes a member of another legislative house;

(b) any other circumstances arise that, if he were not a member of that House, would cause him to be disqualified for election as such a member;

(c) he ceases to be a citizen of Nigeria;

(d) he becomes President, Vice-President, Governor, Deputy Governor or a Minister of the Government of the Federation or a Commissioner of the Government of a State or a Special Adviser;

(e) save as otherwise prescribed by this Constitution, he becomes a member of a commission or other body established by this Constitution or by any other law;

(f) without just cause he is absent from meetings of the House of Assembly for a period amounting in the aggregate to more than one-third of the total number of days during which the House meets in any one year;

(g) being a person whose election to the House of Assembly was sponsored by a political party, he becomes a member of another political party before the expiration of the period for which that House was elected:

Provided that his membership of the latter political party is not as a result of a division in the political party of which he was previously a member or of a merger of two or more political parties or factions by one of which he was previously sponsored; or

(h) the Speaker of the House of Assembly receives a certificate under the hand of the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission stating that the provisions of section 110 of this Constitution have been complied with in respect of the recall of the member.

(2) The Speaker of the House of Assembly shall give effect to subsection (1) of this section, so however that the Speaker or a member shall first present evidence satisfactory to the House that any of the provisions of that subsection has become applicable in respect of the member.

(3) A member of a House of Assembly shall be deemed to be absent without just cause from a meeting of the House of Assembly unless the person presiding certifies in writing that he is satisfied that the absence of the member from the meeting was for a just cause.

Interpretation.

You can see clearly that nowhere is it required that the Speaker receives a letter of defection contrary to your claims. Via Subsection 1(g) we can see that a member vacates his seat where -

"being a person whose election to the House of Assembly was sponsored by a political party, he becomes a member of another political party before the expiration of the period for which that House was elected:

Provided that his membership of the latter political party is not as a result of a division in the political party of which he was previously a member or of a merger of two or more political parties or factions by one of which he was previously sponsored."

We further see that all that is required is that the Speaker provides "evidence satisfactory to the house" of that defection. Thus, any evidence may be provided, including videos of their own words, statements and reception into the APC.

I hope we are clear now, and in the spirit of intellectual honesty, you will be as honest as I have been, and concede the point.

DeepSight:
I said my bad already. That's honesty. Besides, I dont take this place as seriously as I would a court room. Quite often we do light banter here.



I will revert. I would like to quote and cite.
BRB.

Well, you are a honest man. You shouldn't have joined them in always abusing anyone whose views you don't agree with. That is why I hardly post here. I just read and go away because I consider the audience to be too immature.

sirpharrell:
You say you are 20 years at the bar but see what you are writing.
That the speaker can attach any other evidence of defection apart from the letter from the member?
Na waoh.
I think I should just stop at this point.

Please see my post above. I have cited Section 109. And yes, its exact words are "evidence satisfactory to the house."
With this, show your own honesty and retract this.

DeepSight:
Right. I am back. Here, I reproduce Section 109 of the Constitution in full. Kindly note the bold words.

Section 109 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria
(1) A member of a House of Assembly shall vacate his seat in the House if -

(a) he becomes a member of another legislative house;

(b) any other circumstances arise that, if he were not a member of that House, would cause him to be disqualified for election as such a member;

(c) he ceases to be a citizen of Nigeria;

(d) he becomes President, Vice-President, Governor, Deputy Governor or a Minister of the Government of the Federation or a Commissioner of the Government of a State or a Special Adviser;

(e) save as otherwise prescribed by this Constitution, he becomes a member of a commission or other body established by this Constitution or by any other law;

(f) without just cause he is absent from meetings of the House of Assembly for a period amounting in the aggregate to more than one-third of the total number of days during which the House meets in any one year;

(g) being a person whose election to the House of Assembly was sponsored by a political party, he becomes a member of another political party before the expiration of the period for which that House was elected:

Provided that his membership of the latter political party is not as a result of a division in the political party of which he was previously a member or of a merger of two or more political parties or factions by one of which he was previously sponsored; or

(h) the Speaker of the House of Assembly receives a certificate under the hand of the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission stating that the provisions of section 110 of this Constitution have been complied with in respect of the recall of the member.

(2) The Speaker of the House of Assembly shall give effect to subsection (1) of this section, so however that the Speaker or a member shall first present evidence satisfactory to the House that any of the provisions of that subsection has become applicable in respect of the member.

(3) A member of a House of Assembly shall be deemed to be absent without just cause from a meeting of the House of Assembly unless the person presiding certifies in writing that he is satisfied that the absence of the member from the meeting was for a just cause.

Interpretation.

You can see clearly that nowhere is it required that the Speaker receives a letter of defection contrary to your claims. Via Subsection 1(g) we can see that a member vacates his seat where -

"being a person whose election to the House of Assembly was sponsored by a political party, he becomes a member of another political party before the expiration of the period for which that House was elected:

Provided that his membership of the latter political party is not as a result of a division in the political party of which he was previously a member or of a merger of two or more political parties or factions by one of which he was previously sponsored."

We further see that all that is required is that the Speaker provides "evidence satisfactory to the house" of that defection. Thus, any evidence may be provided, including videos of their own words, statements and reception into the APC.

I hope we are clear now, and in the spirit of intellectual honesty, you will be as honest as I have been, and concede the point.

Yes, I see the point you're trying to make.
The constitution dies not specifically say it is only the letter of the member.
Satisfactory evidence can be interpreted both ways.
There is a reason why the letter ifrom the member is deemed Satisfactory evidence.
The member can deny that he did not defect even with all those things you listed.
It happened in Ebonyi state where the whole world knew that they had defected from PDP to APC with enough video evidence.
That is the basis upon which PDP is now challenging the eligibility of the current governor.
He was the speaker of the Assembly then and since he successfully argued in court that he did not defect, PDP are now arguing that at the time he was nominated to run for governor under APC, he was still a member of PDP.
But the member can not deny the letter he wrote. The letter is incontrovertible.

DeepSight:
Please see my post above. I have cited Section 109. And yes, its exact words are "evidence satisfactory to the house."
With this, show your own honesty and retract this.

Oh sorry, I didn't know it's the same person I have been talking to all along

sirpharrell:
Yes, I see the point you're trying to make.
The constitution dies not specifically say it is only the letter of the member.
Satisfactory evidence can be interpreted both ways.
There is a reason why the letter ifrom the member is deemed Satisfactory evidence.
The member can deny that he did not defect even with all those things you listed.
It happened in Ebonyi state where the whole world knew that they had defected from PDP to APC with enough video evidence.
That is the basis upon which PDP is now challenging the eligibility of the current governor.
He was the speaker of the Assembly then and since he successfully argued in court that he did not defect, PDP are now arguing that at the time he was nominated to run for governor under APC, he was still a member of PDP.
But the member can not deny the letter he wrote. The letter is incontrovertible.

Well if we are to stay consistent, such a member can equally claim that any such letter is forged.

DeepSight:
Please see my post above. I have cited Section 109. And yes, its exact words are "evidence satisfactory to the house."
With this, show your own honesty and retract this.

I had already seen that you are knowledgeable and taken in some of your points. But because you started abusing me first, I had to talk down on you too. That's the rule here. They don't argue without throwing abuses and if you abuse me, I abuse you back.

You are right that the letter of defection is not the only evidence.
I should have said the most satisfactory evidence.
But in practice, these guys will deny in court that they have defected.
But with the letter, they can not deny.