₦airaland Forum

Na so they dey start

Going against the president is not a sensible thing to do

DeLaRue:
Social study is different from Advanced legal theory in jurisprudence and Constitutional law.

A Supreme Court decision is effectively a law. It is even more powerful than the actual law made by the national assembly.

I just asked you a simple question.

Provide a reference to support your position that SC is exempted to make laws.

ehikwe22:
Is there a way to seek redress against the ruling of the supreme court in Nigeria?

That you emerged governor today is you banking on the same supreme court to unconstitutionally rule in your favour. And Tinubu coming into power that gave you the governorship position was put there by supreme court.

you're more confused than the issue

ogugwa1992:
““Supreme Court cannot amend the Constitution. Chairmen remain suspended” - Edo Government


https://leaders.ng/2024/12/23/supreme-court-cannot-amend-the-constitution-chairmen-remain-suspended-edo-government/

Seems Okpebholo is another budding Obaseki. Zero regard for the rule of law.

If such is the case, Tinubu should suspend the governor since the state is under the federal government...illiteracy is very bad. And this man still has a case that will go to supreme Court on his election matter...I just dey laugh.

Kam2021:
To whom head is given, sense is necessary. Is the governor for or against the policies of the president who is also from same party?

Na Oshomohle dey deceive am.

Someone whose election petition is still at the tribunal, still going to appeal court, then Supreme is already attacking the courts just because he wants to put his poeple in the local government governance? Where is his wisdom?

Attorney General of the Federation should immediately write to the Accountant General of the Federation to comply with the Supreme Court judgment on local Government autonomy by immediately withdrawing all allocations to Edo State Local Government until democratically elected LGA Chairmen are back to office. We must begin to take our laws seriously. Supreme Court was clear when it directed that once there is no democratically elected LGA Chairmen, no federal allocation should be sent to the LGAs involved.

Mugu44:
Tinubu's governor won't obey court order but another Tinubu governor - Wike - wants his fellow governor, Fubara, to obey court order.


Tinubu is a pig.
Spits*

Very interesting. Well, if Tinubu is a pig that means your president is a pig and only pig rule over pigs meaning as your president is a pig then without doubt you are a bona-fide and confirmed pig.

How about that? I guess you are cool now.

PO

MT:
Stop arguing.

There is no exception for the Supreme Court to make law. That is like asking Supreme Court to usurp the position of the house of assemblies.

And if you still want to argue, show us just one reference which supports SC making laws.

This is a basic social study. You need to go back to the basis.

Any court , including SC only interpretes laws.

So you don't know "case laws" "judicial precedents" are laws following from the Supreme Court.

Judicial pronouncements by the Supreme Court are laws. They interpret the spirit and letters of the law so their interpretation and pronouncement of the intent of the law is what makes the law what it is and how it is applied.

Their interpretation remains the law cause they enjoy the right of no appeal, it is final.
That can only change if the National Assembly amends the provision(s) or the Supreme Court reverses itself

'State law supercedes federal law' --- Edo government.
This is madness emphasised.

APC mad house.

Monday wey no fit spell Tuesday aka Its confusing me, don dey interpret law for Supreme Court.
Wetin concern me sef?
Na Edo people I dey pity for.

DeLaRue:
Theory - the Constitution is Supreme.

Practice - a judgement of the Supreme Court is superior to a provision of the Constitution.

A Supreme Court decision is final.

As long as any Constitution is subject to the final interpretation of the Supreme Court, the latter has the final say.

That's the reality.

But it is also a legal principle that where the words of the constitution are clear on a matter, the courts have no need to interpret or add anything to it

The judgement of the supreme court was wrong. It deleted s162 of the constitution effectively

kuntash:
Naturally that should be of no consequence

It should because he is making a mockery of the president's policies,and the supreme court.Funny enough he still has case in the court.He has started wrongly with the courts.

Kukutente23:
But it is also a legal principle that where the words of the constitution are clear on a matter, the courts have no need to interpret or add anything to it

The judgement of the supreme court was wrong. It deleted s162 of the constitution effectively

But the point is, until the National Assembly amend a particular provision or the Supreme Court decide to reverse itself, the extant interpretation of the constitution by the Supreme Court is what the law is whether people generally believe it to be wrong or not.

The Supreme Court enjoy the right of no appeal so their interpretation is the law.

Macphenson:
So what this illiterate governor is telling us is they wont obey supreme court ruling.

Interesting time to be a Nigerian . I hope when everybody in Edo state start flouting court rulings which is a recipe to anarchy this APC illetarate wont complain.

If you follow the constitution properly, despise the supreme Court pronouncement, state government still has the power in checkmating the local government in regards to how they use thier finances. Also the state house of assembly has the power to suspend any defaulting LGA chairman. Thou the action of my governor is a political vendetta against them cos all the chairmen cant possibly at same time be accused of embezzlement. Honestly the supreme Court fail to address that aspect and politicians are so crafty, that they will explore any loopholes. Okpeboho should allow the chairman resume their duties cos the people they respectively govern in the grassroot should hold them accountable for the direct allocation from the federal government. The governor should know that four years is really not big cos if he didn't perform to expectations, we will boot him out cos we Edo don't forgive. It's do me, I do you. He started well but let the issue of this not derail him. Tony Anenih, Oshiomole and Obaseki were loved at once particular time but when they took it for granted, we disgrace them. Oshiomole was a good governor and a performer but he was not spared, when he went against Obaseki and also the candidate he presented was not what we Edolite really wanted but Obaseki second tenure was a disaster and we stop him from bringing his friend to continue his legacies that are 70 percent fraudulent. That Oshiomole was the major catalyst of bringing him to power, our governor should know his boundaries. We no dey forgive oh. Politics of lording over is not permitted in our state.

I am with you on this one.


The SC does not make laws but can only interpret them based on the law/constitution.
They cannot make laws.
Their interpretation/judgement is based on the law/constitution.
They cannot make a new law, their judgement is bound by the law/constitution made by lawmakers.
Note the word lawmakers.
The SC don't have such powers anywhere in the world.
Their highest power is to invalidate a law if they find the law is in breach of the constitution.
They read the law/constitution based on a case and then render their judgement/interpretation based on the law/constitution.
They can't make laws.
Anyone saying otherwise is high on horse$hit.

MT:
I just asked you a simple question.

Provide a reference to support your position that SC is exempted to make laws.

MT:
Stop arguing.

There is no exception for the Supreme Court to make law. That is like asking Supreme Court to usurp the position of the house of assemblies.

And if you still want to argue, show us just one reference which supports SC making laws.

This is a basic social study. You need to go back to the basis.

Any court , including SC only interpretes laws.

Pride is messing with your comprehension ability. Supreme Court 'ruling' automatically becomes law. That's what the poster said. Is he wrong? Stop moving the goalposts up and down.

MT:
I just asked you a simple question.

Provide a reference to support your position that SC is exempted to make laws.

Your arrogance is nauseating. I spit on it!

See illiterate Okpebolo na
Lol, small nyansh dey shake
.

ReubenE:
But the point is, until the National Assembly amend a particular provision or the Supreme Court decide to reverse itself, the extant interpretation of the constitution by the Supreme Court is what the law is whether people generally believe it to be wrong or not.

The Supreme Court enjoy the right of no appeal so their interpretation is the law.

But now we have a situation where state assemblies have made laws db's they have not been repealed by any court based on the provisions of the constitution. For example, the constitution gives the states the power to make laws on how the state and LG revenue will be shared based on s162. Some states assemblies have made such laws so are the laws now invalid based on the SC judgement? Look at the case of Anambra for example. Is there any law that says any law made by a state in contradiction of a supreme court judgement is null and void?

The SC brought itself into disrepute by allowing itself to be used by the executive to bypass a clear provision of the constitution in conflict with its own principles

MT:
No court makes law.

The function of the court is to interprete laws.

Both the state and federal House of assemblies make laws.

In theory, no.
Constitutionally, the only role of the Supreme Court is to interpret law, not make it. In practice, as someone said, they kind of do.
Also, Congress could either modify or pass a law that contradicts/supersedes the Supreme Court decision, but only under some circumstances.
The recent Supreme Court judgment on the financial autonomy of Local governments, in Nigeria, automatically becomes a law, irrespective of the provisions of the 1998 Constitution, unless the National Assembly reverses the decision by passing a new bill into Law.

The man in purple suit is CONFUSED... seriously confused 🤔🤔

johntolu:

In theory, no.
Constitutionally, the only role of the Supreme Court is to interpret law, not make it. In practice, as someone said, they kind of do.
Also, Congress could either modify or pass a law that contradicts/supersedes the Supreme Court decision, but only under some circumstances.
The recent Supreme Court judgment on the financial autonomy of Local governments, in Nigeria, automatically becomes a law, irrespective of the provisions of the 1998 Constitution, unless the National Assembly reverses the decision by passing a new bill into Law.

You are wrong with the bolded.

It was not a new law. It has been always been in our constitution.

Humans tend to interprete laws in a ways to suit themselves. That’s why we have courts to interprete the laws in a way the drafter of the constitution meant.

I still repeat, no court in the world can make any law. They can only interprete existing laws. Making law is the sole prerogative of the legislatures.

Am ashame of the edo state governor been a law maker you are still against the law of the land . Any pronouncement by the supreme court are become a law permanently be the law of the land , remember that supreme court can remove governor and president

MT:
Stop arguing.

There is no exception for the Supreme Court to make law. That is like asking Supreme Court to usurp the position of the house of assemblies.

And if you still want to argue, show us just one reference which supports SC making laws.

This is a basic social study. You need to go back to the basis.

Any court , including SC only interpretes laws.

The issue of female children having a share of their family properties in Igbo land,got to the supreme, and the supreme Court ruled in favor of female children. Isn't that pronouncement a law now? Please educate me

mastermaestro:
Your arrogance is nauseating. I spit on it!

Stop ranting.

I asked you a simple question. Cite any case where any court in the world , not only Nigeria, makes a law.

You refused to send any reference here simply because it is non existence.

There are separation of powers. Legislatures make law while the court interpretes the law. No one can usurp the role of the other.

Learn!

MT:
Stop arguing.

There is no exception for the Supreme Court to make law. That is like asking Supreme Court to usurp the position of the house of assemblies.

And if you still want to argue, show us just one reference which supports SC making laws.

This is a basic social study. You need to go back to the basis.

Any court , including SC only interpretes laws.

Stop sounding like an illiterate pls. Your comment is making me to laugh. You can at least Google. Since the supreme Court has the power of judicial review, it can override and nullify the laws of Even the national assembly. They make laws and it's called judicial precedents

Assetosky:
The issue of female children having a share of their family properties in Igbo land,got to the supreme, and the supreme Court ruled in favor of female children. Isn't that pronouncement a law now? Please educate me

That’s not a new law.

While adjudicating on the matter, both litigant and defendant cited some section of the constitutions and bye law to support their arguments. They interpreted these laws to favour their cases.

Then the Supreme Court sides with either the litigant or defendant and acccept the interpretation of the law of either the litigant or defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed that the side that won the case correctly cited relevant existing laws and interpreted them correctly and judgement was passed.

It was not that the Supreme Court made a new law. NO

Queensfield:
Stop sounding like an illiterate pls. Your comment is making me to laugh. You can at least Google. Since the supreme Court has the power of judicial review, it can override and nullify the laws of Even the national assembly. They make laws and it's called judicial precedents

You are the one sounding like an illeterate.

If legislatures pass a new law and it clashes with the position of the constitution. If someone takes up the case and approaches the Supreme Court, it has the power to override the new law because it clashes with the existing laws in the constitution.

The constitution is supreme.

Overriding a law does not mean the Supreme Court is allowed to make new laws. It means the sc court defends the existing position of the law in our constitution.

Why are you struggling with the basics?