₦airaland Forum

Read what ChatGPT had to tell you.

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

Now that you have googled, could you please share your findings.

mastermaestro:
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.

Sc interpretation (judgement) is a validation of an existing law.

It is not a new law !

So many ignoramuses on this thread.

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/

To the best of my knowledge, it's best the LGAC chairmen and deputies write a public letter to PBAT and copy the AGF petitioning the Edo State government, governor and State Assembly and also the Chief Judge of the State.

Elliotwaveforec:
Supreme Court can make laws! All decided cases at the SC are laws!

Supreme court cannot make law but can make administrative policy. They are there to interpret what is written in the constitution or statute, every of their policies must find their way into the constitution by the way of amendment through the National Assembly.
Please correct that notion, as not to teach your children wrong thing at home.
No doubt they are policy maker but not lawmaker.

mastermaestro:
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.

He is wrong. Supreme court doesn't make law. All policies decided by the Supreme court must still find their way into the constitution through constitution amendment by the National Assembly. They are interpreters of laws and policy makers and not law makers. The policy making is done where there is a lacuna in the constitution or statute of the country.
Are you aware that that pronouncement of local government financial autonomy the National Assembly is on it to include it into the constitution.

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*

WIKE is governor of with state that he wants his fellow governor to obey court orders? That's just simple question

tammie24:
Na so they dey start

Going against the president is not a sensible thing to do

When we told you people that supreme court pronouncement that is not found in the constitution, the governors will still find ways of manoeuvring it.
The best route the president should have taken is to sponsor an executive bill to tinker on the constitution and to give full constitutional autonomy to the local government administration but going through the back door won't work.
If the constitution is not tinkered to reflect that, you will see many people rising against it in the future.
We need to start doing the right thing in this country, instead of going through backdoor.

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

It was the same thing I raised when the judgement was delivered. It was just a pure backdoor pronouncement and not what the constitution says. The funny thing is people were clapping and saying the judgement was a landmark judgement but forgotten that Nigeria is a constitutional country.
Instead of them to go through the national assembly to amend the constitution, they went through the backdoor to make pronouncement, forgetting that this section 162 is still in constitution and must be enforced.

IfnobeGod20:
It was the same thing I raised when the judgement was delivered. It was just a pure backdoor pronouncement and not what the constitution says. The funny thing is people were clapping and saying the judgement was a landmark judgement but forgotten that Nigeria is a constitutional country.
Instead of them to go through the national assembly to amend the constitution, they went through the backdoor to make pronouncement, forgetting that this section 162 is still in constitution and must be enforced.

Those are mostly zombies who are ready to hail anything Tinubu does regardless of the effect

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.

Here is the main issue. The SC is supposed to read the law as it is and but as it ought to be. From the clear wordings of the constitution, there is no financial autonomy or any autonomy for the LG in a legal sense.
The SC directly contradicted the constitution. I don't think that has ever happened in any democracy. I may be wrong though but I'm still searching and I haven't found

MT:
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 certain part and acccept the interpretation of the law of that side. 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

Besides, there's no clear pronouncement in the constitution on that matter. That's where the SC has the leeway to "make laws" as a court of public policy.
If there was a clear constitutional provision, the responsibility of the SC is to make judgement affirming that provision not anything else

MT:
Read what ChatGPT had to tell you.

The pronouncement of the Supreme Court of Nigeria on any matter is the position of the law. Through interpretation, the courts shape and make laws. It happens everywhere, including the U.S. Always consult a lawyer and not AI.

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

You are not a lawyer. I don't know why lay people always dabble into legal issues. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution is the law. ADEGOKE MOTORS LTD. VS DR. BABATUNDE ADESANYA* (1990) LLJR-SC: "We are final not because we are infallible; rather we are infallible because we are final.

BondRiv:
The pronouncement of the Supreme Court of Nigeria on any matter is the position of the law. Through interpretation, the courts shape and make laws. It happens everywhere, including the U.S. Always consult a lawyer and not AI.

The pronouncement of the SC is an AFFIRMATION of an EXISTING law. The law has always been in existence and not a new law.

Supreme Court Judges don't add to the laws in the constitution. Only legislatures make laws.

I give up on you guys. Should this even be up for discussion?

Best of luck with your flawed position.

The Edo State government should retrace its steps immediately. Just the start of this governor's adminstration and he is already treading on the wrong path. It is obvious he lacks good counsel. It might be his downfall, if he doesn't get good advisers.

MT:
The pronouncement of the SC is an AFFIRMATION of an EXISTING law. The law has always been in existence and not a new law.

Supreme Court Judges don't add to the laws in the constitution. Only legislatures make laws.

I give up on you guys. Should this even be up for discussion?

Best of luck with your flawed position.

I don't need to argue with you. You are not a lawyer.

MT:
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 certain part and acccept the interpretation of the law of that side. 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

Thanks

BondRiv:
You are not a lawyer. I don't know why lay people always dabble into legal issues. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution is the law. ADEGOKE MOTORS LTD. VS DR. BABATUNDE ADESANYA* (1990) LLJR-SC: "We are final not because we are infallible; rather we are infallible because we are final.

And you're a lawyer?
Nobody has said their interpretation of the constitution is not the law. My point is that their interpretation was wrong. Even from your quote above, the SC admits that it's not infallible but that even in its fallible state, its decisions are final.

Read Adegbenro v. Akintola and Okumagba v. Egbe.
Where there's no ambiguity, the constitution is to be read with no outside meaning added to it.

Again, you can see that the SC judgement stands in conflict with the ordinary meaning of the constitution and deleted s162 effectively

Kukutente23:
And you're a lawyer?
Nobody has said their interpretation of the constitution is not the law. My point is that their interpretation was wrong. Even from your quote above, the SC admits that it's not infallible but that even in its fallible state, its decisions are final.

Read Adegbenro v. Akintola and Okumagba v. Egbe.
Where there's no ambiguity, the constitution is to be read with no outside meaning added to it.

Again, you can see that the SC judgement stands in conflict with the ordinary meaning of the constitution and deleted s162 effectively

Yes, I am. Whether you think it is wrong or not is not the point. Once the pronouncement is made, it becomes the position of the law. All interpretations given of the constitution by the Supreme Court is final and binding. It does have the power to over-rule itself later.

Kukutente23:
Those are mostly zombies who are ready to hail anything Tinubu does regardless of the effect

I am still surprise that some so called learned people are still hailing such anticonstitution ruling. Truly many Nigerians are zombies.

BondRiv:
Yes, I am. Whether you think it is wrong or not is not the point. Once the pronouncement is made, it becomes the position of the law. All interpretations given of the constitution by the Supreme Court is final and binding. It does have the power to over-rule itself later.

Lawyer indeed
Are you not the dude who supports every of Wike's attempt to undermine the Rivers state govt using the judiciary. So you don't see anything wrong with someone using the judiciary as a weapon to fight a political cause?
So what happens if the NASS makes a law obliterating LG autonomy in this case, by insisting on the right of governors to sack LG chairmen? Will the SC interpretation still be binding and on which leg will it stand?

They are both party members, they will their differences soon.

MT:
No court makes law.

The function of the court is to interprete laws.

Both the state and federal House of assemblies make laws.

See how you made an incorrect statement with full confidence??
Read up the term "case law"

IfnobeGod20:
I am still surprise that some so called learned people are still hailing such anticonstitution ruling. Truly many Nigerians are zombies.

Oga, giving lgas autonomy via the nass is totally impossible

Kukutente23:
And you're a lawyer?
Nobody has said their interpretation of the constitution is not the law. My point is that their interpretation was wrong. Even from your quote above, the SC admits that it's not infallible but that even in its fallible state, its decisions are final.

Read Adegbenro v. Akintola and Okumagba v. Egbe.
Where there's no ambiguity, the constitution is to be read with no outside meaning added to it.

Again, you can see that the SC judgement stands in conflict with the ordinary meaning of the constitution and deleted s162 effectively

The SC is not Supreme because it is Infallible, but it is Infallible because it is Supreme.
The SC can do no wrong in the eyes of the law, as there is no remedy to whatever perceived wrong noticed or seen by anyone

OlujobaSamuel:
The SC is not Supreme because it is Infallible, but it is Infallible because it is Supreme.
The SC can do no wrong in the eyes of the law, as there is no remedy to whatever perceived wrong noticed or seen by anyone

That's not true in this case

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*

It is a curse to be spiritually & materialistic poor.

OlujobaSamuel:
The SC is not Supreme because it is Infallible, but it is Infallible because it is Supreme.
The SC can do no wrong in the eyes of the law, as there is no remedy to whatever perceived wrong noticed or seen by anyone

It is Supreme, cardinal official, The discretion of God in The Federal Republic of Nigeria.

BondRiv:
Yes, I am. Whether you think it is wrong or not is not the point. Once the pronouncement is made, it becomes the position of the law. All interpretations given of the constitution by the Supreme Court is final and binding. It does have the power to over-rule itself later.

It doesn't become the position of the law but a precedence which as time goes on can be overrule if the constitution of the nation doesn't reflect it.
Note this, supreme court pronouncements cannot be law because they are not expected to make law but to interpret law and in the even they are interpreting the laws, precedences are made which later form part of the constitution review as to reflect such pronouncement. In the even such alteration is not effected, the supreme court would not have any other option than to review itself.

Kukutente23:
That's not true in this case

It's the truth. Just because some executive rascals within our political ecosystem (present and past) choose which ruling to obey doesn't mean the SC is wrong.
Even a FHC can discard a law, and if not appealed, that ruling will stand.
It happened during GEJ's tenure, a law was made by NASS that court can't decide the winner of an election, the section was challenged in court, the court expunged that part of the law, and the pronouncement stood until the law was eventually amended by the next NASS

Akpakomiza2:
Oga, giving lgas autonomy via the nass is totally impossible

Then, if you think it is impossible, hence the pronouncement made by the apex court would have ground as time will be tested in it and it may suffer setback in the future because of its inconsistency with the constitution. That section 162 must be expunged from the constitution, hence, that pronouncement will have no ground to stand at all.