₦airaland Forum

senatordave1:
They didn't.no prove

You are clever by half. , this you guys have left the angle of the can't loose their seat because the supreme Court precedence on that is so clear to never defected in the first place , there are things an adult should never do that is to disgrace himself in public.

idahme:
What do you know? Instead of expressing your opinion you resorted to exuding gutter language because you have nothing to say. People like you will be ignorant but still die in his ignorance.

Below is the constitution cited and the landmark supreme Court ruling as regards to defection , read and educate yourself so that you won't resort to insult in an intellectual discuss.

https://aolulaw17.medium.com/a-review-of-abegunde-v-4d442d1bef1a

Bring your ego down and read the article

Keep quiet kid, constitution did not specify division. You can post it here for everyone to see , where constitution specify division. Illiterate Kids always think everyone in nairaland is also a kid

racerve:
You're talking like this is the first time Nigerian politicians have defected.

For whatever isn’t explicitly mentioned in the constitution, courts use precedents to pass judgment. And on this matter there is ample precedent.

please site a precedence were court has ruled that a letter must be written by a defecting Lawmaker to the Speaker/Assembly before the the defection could be legal? I want to learn

idahme:
You are clever by half. , this you guys have left the angle of the can't loose their seat because the supreme Court precedence on that is so clear to never defected in the first place , there are things an adult should never do that is to disgrace himself in public.

I am fully clever sir.to prove defection,you must produce pdp resignation letter,party register of Apc and pdp disowning them

yyba:
Keep quiet kid, constitution did not specify division. You can post it here for everyone to see , where constitution specify division. Illiterate Kids always think everyone in nairaland is also a kid

Even after giving you a review of the precedence your coconut head has refused to read and get educated, how far can you go in being dundee United?


Section 68(1)(g)[2] of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) which provides that: “A member of the Senate or of the House of Representatives shall vacate his seat in the House of which he is a member if- being a person whose election to the House 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.”



Abegunde VS Ondo State House of Assembly 2015 The supreme Court asserted as follows


[b]The full bench[3] of the Supreme Court after a careful consideration of Section 68(1)(g) and Chaper VI, Part III(D)[4] of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), Section 80 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) whose lead opinion was read by M D Muhammad JSC held that the division in a branch of a political party cannot justify a member of that branch who is a member of the House of Representative to keep occupying his seat if he defects to another political party. In the words[5] of M D Muhammad JSC after a review of the previous decisions of the Court on the same point[6], “The principles enunciated by this Court in the two cases, FEDECO v. Goni (supra) and AG Federation v. Abubakar (supra), is to the effect that only such factionalisation, fragmentation, splintering or ‘division’ that makes it impossible or impracticable for a political party to function as such will, by virtue of the proviso to Section 68(1)(g), justify a person’s defection to another party and the retention of his seat for the unexpired term in the house inspite of his defection. Otherwise, as rightly held by the courts below, the defector automatically loses his seat. In the instant case, the two courts are right that the Labour Party that has continued to function as a political party by meeting the conditions of associations by virtue of Sections 221 and 222 of the Constitution must necessarily meet, cannot be said to have been so factionalised, fragmented, split or divided to justify the defection of the appellant to another party and retention of his seat inspite of the defection. This remains the position of this Court on the issue.” The concurring opinion of Galadima JSC is quite poignant. The Law Lord observed that[7]: “Quite rightly, Section 222(a), (f) and (e) of the 1999 Constitution made no reference to the ‘ward’, ‘local government’, or ’state structure’. However, a calm reading of Section 68(1)(g) of the Constitution will show that no reference is made by the framers of the Constitution to ‘a state branch’, ward level or ‘unit level’ of a Political Party, when the framers of the Constitution repeatedly referred to ‘Political Party’ in that Section. If the framers of the Constitution had really intended that a ‘division’ within a ‘State branch’, ‘ward level’, ‘unit level’ of a Political Party, as suggested by the learned silk, (they) would have so expressly stated. Therefore contrary to the argument of the appellant at paragraph 29 of his brief, Section 222 (a), (e) and (f) which referred respectively to ‘National Officers’, ‘geographical area’ and ‘headquarters in the Federal Capital Territory’, is to support the argument that a national outlook of a Political Party is intended by the framers of the 1999 Constitution in construing Section 68(1)(g)…. “(1) Firstly, can a disagreement in a branch of a company be classified as a division in that company when the board of directors of the Company is still intact? (2) Secondly, can the local branch of a Company be wound up or merged with another Company?” He rightly answers the two questions in the negative. This analogical deduction settles the contest between the parties, effulgently and effectually too; for the nature of the division envisaged in the Section 68(1)(g) must be one that affects the total structure of a Political Party[/b].”



Old man with poor comprehension skills, I doubt if you will comprehend this too.

Kid keep fooling yourself, don't you read where the constitution provides if there is division? Who are you to tell if there is division or not in party? The members are the only ones that knows or tell if their is division. Not kids like you to just post rubbish because of free bonus data

idahme:
Even after giving you a review of the precedence your coconut head has refused to read and get educated, how far can you go in being dundee United?


Section 68(1)(g)[2] of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) which provides that: “A member of the Senate or of the House of Representatives shall vacate his seat in the House of which he is a member if- being a person whose election to the House 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.”



Abegunde VS Ondo State House of Assembly 2015 The supreme Court asserted as follows


[b]The full bench[3] of the Supreme Court after a careful consideration of Section 68(1)(g) and Chaper VI, Part III(D)[4] of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), Section 80 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) whose lead opinion was read by M D Muhammad JSC held that the division in a branch of a political party cannot justify a member of that branch who is a member of the House of Representative to keep occupying his seat if he defects to another political party. In the words[5] of M D Muhammad JSC after a review of the previous decisions of the Court on the same point[6], “The principles enunciated by this Court in the two cases, FEDECO v. Goni (supra) and AG Federation v. Abubakar (supra), is to the effect that only such factionalisation, fragmentation, splintering or ‘division’ that makes it impossible or impracticable for a political party to function as such will, by virtue of the proviso to Section 68(1)(g), justify a person’s defection to another party and the retention of his seat for the unexpired term in the house inspite of his defection. Otherwise, as rightly held by the courts below, the defector automatically loses his seat. In the instant case, the two courts are right that the Labour Party that has continued to function as a political party by meeting the conditions of associations by virtue of Sections 221 and 222 of the Constitution must necessarily meet, cannot be said to have been so factionalised, fragmented, split or divided to justify the defection of the appellant to another party and retention of his seat inspite of the defection. This remains the position of this Court on the issue.” The concurring opinion of Galadima JSC is quite poignant. The Law Lord observed that[7]: “Quite rightly, Section 222(a), (f) and (e) of the 1999 Constitution made no reference to the ‘ward’, ‘local government’, or ’state structure’. However, a calm reading of Section 68(1)(g) of the Constitution will show that no reference is made by the framers of the Constitution to ‘a state branch’, ward level or ‘unit level’ of a Political Party, when the framers of the Constitution repeatedly referred to ‘Political Party’ in that Section. If the framers of the Constitution had really intended that a ‘division’ within a ‘State branch’, ‘ward level’, ‘unit level’ of a Political Party, as suggested by the learned silk, (they) would have so expressly stated. Therefore contrary to the argument of the appellant at paragraph 29 of his brief, Section 222 (a), (e) and (f) which referred respectively to ‘National Officers’, ‘geographical area’ and ‘headquarters in the Federal Capital Territory’, is to support the argument that a national outlook of a Political Party is intended by the framers of the 1999 Constitution in construing Section 68(1)(g)…. “(1) Firstly, can a disagreement in a branch of a company be classified as a division in that company when the board of directors of the Company is still intact? (2) Secondly, can the local branch of a Company be wound up or merged with another Company?” He rightly answers the two questions in the negative. This analogical deduction settles the contest between the parties, effulgently and effectually too; for the nature of the division envisaged in the Section 68(1)(g) must be one that affects the total structure of a Political Party[/b].”



Old man with poor comprehension skills, I doubt if you will comprehend this too.

yyba:
Kid keep fooling yourself, don't you read where the constitution provides if there is division? Who are you to tell if there is division or not in party? The members are the only ones that knows or tell if their is division. Not kids like you to just post rubbish because of free bonus data

I took out time to educate your foolishness,,You asked for your teacher to educate you on the necessary laws of the land as regards to the issue under review, I went further after citing the relevant law I added a precedence of tge supreme Court of Nigeria just to help you come out of your self inflicted ignorance to no avail. since you can't learn no one can ever tutor you, you are irredeemable. My last time to try to educate you. Have a nice evening

You are just posting rubbish

idahme:
I took out time to educate your foolishness,,You asked for your teacher to educate you on the necessary laws of the land as regards to the issue under review, I went further after citing the relevant law I added a precedence of tge supreme Court of Nigeria just to help you come out of your self inflicted ignorance to no avail. since you can't learn no one can ever tutor you, you are irredeemable. My last time to try to educate you. Have a nice evening

Have we not read this news b4?

Anyways, Wike's political structure being dismantled b4 his very eyes.
This is political blunder. The lawmakers committed political suicide. A political harakiri. Always make use of your head.(brain) not your heart.

Them no go do like that next time again😆

mrjoeblinks:
Ehen?
.
Lawmakers wey no sabi constitution go gamble with their seats😂

Almaiga:
It's not Igbo names. The names only sound like Igbo names to you. The spelling and meaning of those names are different from Igbo names.

Apka amụ

senatordave1:
Did they defect? This is a temporary and order not a judgment

Did they declare their seats vacant ?

rasputinn:
Did they declare their seats vacant ?

The court did so via a temporary order which will expire soon

senatordave1:
The court did so via a temporary order which will expire soon

Really ?

You had to answer ?

Have you not heard of rhetorical questions ?