₦airaland Forum

sirpharrell:
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.

Accept my apologies for the earlier intemperate words.

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

Saying that his own letter was forged will be far fetched. That would then require a criminal investigation and they know the legal implications.
They would not deny their own letter.

DeepSight:
Accept my apologies for the earlier intemperate words.

No qualms. Sorry for my own harsh words too.
We can argue and learn from one another.
From you, I have learnt that the letter of defection is not absolute even though I maintain that it is still the most satisfactory evidence of defection.
The two majors things I have posited are:
1. The member losing his seat is never done automatically as the constitution prescribes a process to be followed which you yourself have outlined here
2. There is need to amend those provisions so that we can make it more water tight and reduce this indiscriminate jumping from one party to the other.

sirpharrell:
No qualms. Sorry for my own harsh words too.
We can argue and learn from one another.
From you, I have learnt that the letter of defection is not absolute even though I maintain that it is still the most satisfactory evidence of defection.
The two majors things I have posited are:
1. The member losing his seat is never done automatically as the constitution prescribes a process to be followed which you yourself have outlined here
2. There is need to amend those provisions so that we can make it more water tight and reduce this indiscriminate jumping from one party to the other.

I appreciate you and my friend Deepsight, you guys are offering an invaluable service by taking your valuable time to attempt to enlighten Nigerians. Yes, sometimes emotions get the better of us and results in some harsh and unsavory comments, but I am glad ir never degenerates into insults and verbal violence.

Having said that, I believe the problem is not the law. Agreed our constitution is very faulty, but the good, clear and unambiguous aspects are not obeyed, they are abused by those that wield power. The problems are Nigerians, who believe in "might is right" philosophy. Once you wield power, that gives you the privilege of being above the law. Dont you find it strange that an election conducted by INEC would overturned and declared fraudulent, and no one, not one INEC official would be prosecuted. That means the election was rigged by ghosts.

No law is perfect, afterall the British operates an unwritten constitution, it is sincerity on the part of the operators and the people that gives validity and respect to laws.

sirpharrell:
No qualms. Sorry for my own harsh words too.
We can argue and learn from one another.
From you, I have learnt that the letter of defection is not absolute even though I maintain that it is still the most satisfactory evidence of defection.
The two majors things I have posited are:
1. The member losing his seat is never done automatically as the constitution prescribes a process to be followed which you yourself have outlined here
2. There is need to amend those provisions so that we can make it more water tight and reduce this indiscriminate jumping from one party to the other.

How is a letter the most satisfactory evidence
People like you find it very hard to learn. You've been wrong from the set go but you can't find it in you to accept your wrong.
There's no need to amend any law. What is needed is for the law to be obeyed by those in position of trust instead of acting above the law.
Even if you amend the law a million times, those who have made it an habit to disregard the law will still do.
Tinubu just gave a "directive" to a sitting gov to re-present a budget to defected members. Where is that in our laws? Are you going to amend the laws on that too?
Keep giving lame excuses

Kukutente23:
How is a letter the most satisfactory evidence
People like you find it very hard to learn. You've been wrong from the set go but you can't find it in you to accept your wrong.
There's no need to amend any law. What is needed is for the law to be obeyed by those in position of trust instead of acting above the law.
Even if you amend the law a million times, those who have made it an habit to disregard the law will still do.
Tinubu just gave a "directive" to a sitting gov to re-present a budget to defected members. Where is that in our laws? Are you going to amend the laws on that too?
Keep giving lame excuses

I have learnt not to argue with people like you. People who know nothing about what they are arguing about.

wirinet:
I appreciate you and my friend Deepsight, you guys are offering an invaluable service by taking your valuable time to attempt to enlighten Nigerians. Yes, sometimes emotions get the better of us and results in some harsh and unsavory comments, but I am glad ir never degenerates into insults and verbal violence.

Having said that, I believe the problem is not the law. Agreed our constitution is very faulty, but the good, clear and unambiguous aspects are not obeyed, they are abused by those that wield power. The problems are Nigerians, who believe in "might is right" philosophy. Once you wield power, that gives you the privilege of being above the law. Dont you find it strange that an election conducted by INEC would overturned and declared fraudulent, and no one, not one INEC official would be prosecuted. That means the election was rigged by ghosts.

No law is perfect, afterall the British operates an unwritten constitution, it is sincerity on the part of the operators and the people that gives validity and respect to laws.

In this case of defection, the problem is the law.
The law was intended to make defectors lose their seats but the implementation was left at the discretion of the same legislators so how would it work?
Imagine a scenario where the law says that anyone found guilty of stealing would be punished by the head of his family. How many thieves would be jailed?
Until the law is amended to remove the implementation from the speaker or presiding officer, we will continue to witness legislators defecting and getting away with it.
There are some other loopholes too that need to be covered such as the exception of division in the political party and the silence in the law on the defection of members of the executive.