₦airaland Forum

Agbegbaorogboye:
Good
I'm happy you can see the difference between 1 and 2
In the case of suspension rightly or wrongly, they do still exist.
In the case of impeachment or recall, rightly or wrongly, they no longer exist

In the case of sole Administrator, it never existed and will never exist because it is not known to law that enables the holding and exercising of political power aka constitution

It seems you’ve forgotten that the same Supreme Court already declared emphatically that there is currently no government in Rivers. In such situation, declaring a state of emergency and appointing a sole administrator since nature abhors vacuum is just common sense.

So, even the governor and the illegal Rivers AGF are unknown to law. So, they can’t approach the Supreme Court in their personal capacity.

fergie001:
The Court is to test the constitutionality and/or interpretation of the Constitution. We saw a case where a Political Party went to Court for the interpretation of a section of the Electoral Act because of a Candidate and this travelled up to the Supreme Court. Uche Nwosu is that candidate.

Again, Section 232(1) of the 1999 CFRN is clear;
The Supreme Court of Nigeria has original jurisdiction i.e. only the Supreme Court can hear matters, between the Federation and a State or between States only if the disputes (i.e. issues, bone of contention) are relating to questions of law or fact which is dependent on a legal right.)

Fubara has a legal right and so they can approach the Supreme Court, it takes another dimension if Fubara himself is not a Party to the suit.

Fubara can go to court in his personal capacity and that’s never in doubt. However, while PDP governors can go to the Supreme Court directly, I don’t think the court will listen to them because their respective states are not affected in any way by the state of emergency in Rivers state. Same locus problem that Fubara will suffer if he goes to the Supreme Court directly.

"Idris Kutigi, who delivered the lead judgment, ruled that the appointed administrator had full control of the state and had not given consent for the suit.

Since there was no legal dispute between the administrator and the federal government, the court lacked the original jurisdiction to hear the case, he said."


Meaning Supreme court recognised the Administrator appointed by Obasanjo

seunmsg:
Fubara can go to court in his personal capacity and that’s never in doubt. However, while PDP governors can go to the Supreme Court directly, I don’t think the court will listen to them because their respective states are not affected in any way by the state of emergency in Rivers state. Same locus problem that Fubara will suffer if he goes to the Supreme Court directly.

As long as a legal right is involved, the Supreme Court will listen to them. That's why I said Fubara has to be a Party. If he is not a Party, then it can become an academic experiment and the Supreme Court do not answer hypothetical questions.

Agbegbaorogboye:
That 2006 judgement was an amala judgement
Just as 2025 SC judgement on rivers is a whiskey judgement

The sole administrator is unknown to law yet the SC refused to hear a case from a governor and AGF who are recognised as law custodian of the state by the constitution and instead recognised a rogue sole administrator as having lawful locus

I hope we can all see that nor be today our judiciary has been lacking balls and just trotting along as an appendage to the executive

The problem is these present ones are even worse than the 2006 guys

Since you sabi Law well well, carry your Lawyer gown and wig, meet AGF for Court, make Judge fine you 100 Million Naira for wasting the Court time.

fergie001:
I have read that 2006 judgement, Fubara does not have the locus because by law, he isn't signing the cheque in Rivers.

However, any Governor can proceed to the Supreme Court to test its constitutionality and join both Fubara & the new administrator as parties to the suit.

I made same observation here earlier...
https://www.nairaland.com/8373114/rivers-national-assembly-duly-consulted/2#134605407

Will other States have the locus standi or will the Court not fine them for being busy bodies as the Courts have ruled in some cases in the past?

Any need for him to go there at all, abi you don forgot say na those ones owns the judiciary?

That is why you always here 'go to court ' all the time.

fergie001:
I have read that 2006 judgement, Fubara does not have the locus because by law, he isn't signing the cheque in Rivers.

However, any Governor can proceed to the Supreme Court to test its constitutionality and join both Fubara & the new administrator as parties to the suit.

I made same observation here earlier...
https://www.nairaland.com/8373114/rivers-national-assembly-duly-consulted/2#134605407

Nobody except the administrator has the locus except they start from the high court

fergie001:
As long as both houses have passed their resolutions, it exists.

It is now the Courts who will help deal with it.... A similar case that emanates through Dariye met his waterloo.

That means indirectly the SC recognizes the power of suspension and SOLAD

fergie001:
As long as a legal right is involved, the Supreme Court will listen to them. That's why I said Fubara has to be a Party. If he is not a Party, then it can become an academic experiment and the Supreme Court do not answer hypothetical questions.

lol 😂. Let’s wait and see.

gidgiddy:
I'm not a Lawyer, but my little knowledge of the law tells me that Fubara does not need to challenge his removal at the Supreme court

What I think he should do is approach the Supreme court to determine if the President has any constitutional right to remove a democratically elected sitting Governor under any circumstances

The Supreme court has previously ruled that a Governor can only be removed in one of 4 ways: Resignation, impeachment, incapacitation and death

The Supreme court said nothing about State of emergency

He cannot approach the court

Akpakomiza2:
Nobody except the administrator has the locus except they start from the high court

Let the PDP Govs try it first.

simpleseyi:
Since you sabi Law well well, carry your Lawyer gown and wig, meet AGF for Court, make Judge fine you 100 Million Naira for wasting the Court time.

Be shutting up once in a while

It's not every time that foolishness is amusing

fergie001:
The Court is to test the constitutionality and/or interpretation of the Constitution. We saw a case where a Political Party went to Court for the interpretation of a section of the Electoral Act because of a Candidate and this travelled up to the Supreme Court. Uche Nwosu is that candidate.

Again, Section 232(1) of the 1999 CFRN is clear;
The Supreme Court of Nigeria has original jurisdiction i.e. only the Supreme Court can hear matters, between the Federation and a State or between States only if the disputes (i.e. issues, bone of contention) are relating to questions of law or fact which is dependent on a legal right.)

Fubara has a legal right and so they can approach the Supreme Court, it takes another dimension if Fubara himself is not a Party to the suit.

They can go on general terms but as it affects rivers state, it will fail esp if they make the administrator or fubara a party. A president cannot but Rivers cannot benefit

fergie001:
Let the PDP Govs try it first.

The same supreme court tonguelashed Fubara and clearly stated that without one arm of government existing, there is no government. You can read in between

Aggrieved, the Plateau state government and the state house of assembly filed a lawsuit at the supreme court (SC. 113/2004) on June 24, 2004, challenging the president’s actions.
Delivering judgment on January 20, 2006, a seven-member panel of the apex court led by then-chief justice of Nigeria, Muhammadu Uwais, struck out the case on jurisdictional grounds:


does anybody see something wrong here? why does it take 2 years for the supreme court to make a simple decision??

seunmsg:
It seems you’ve forgotten that the same Supreme Court already declared emphatically that there is currently no government in Rivers. In such situation, declaring a state of emergency and appointing a sole administrator since nature abhors vacuum is just common sense.

So, even the governor and the illegal Rivers AGF are unknown to law. So, they can’t approach the Supreme Court in their personal capacity.

The governor and the Agf are known to law. The two offices are created by the Constitution. It doesn't matter if the person occupying the office is doing so illegally. The positions are still known to law.

If the SC says a governor and 4 assembly members can't form a government, how much more a single person whose office and mode of emergence is totally alien to the law?
And if you ask me, the SC was just being biased. A democratic govt is made up of 3 arms. In Rivers State, two of the three are not in contention. The third one is under contention as it concerns which of the two houses is properly constituted. Mind you, it is only the legislature that the Constitution has a remedy for when it cannot function. So the SC saying there's no government in Rivers State because the legislature is under contention is basically a false and biased narrative. Those the the kind of things Jonathan was alluding to

Akpakomiza2:
That means indirectly the SC recognizes the power of suspension and SOLAD

The SC based on their affidavits and counter-affidavits which is not in contention.

There is a sole administrator in Rivers.

It's better serving governors(esp from opposition parties )get court injunction banning d president,Senate ,Reps from declaring SOA in their states.


We are up against it in Nigeria

Akpakomiza2:
They can go on general terms but as it affects rivers state, it will fail esp if they make the administrator or fubara a party. A president cannot but Rivers cannot benefit

It sounds more reasonable on points of law.
The President doesn't have the powers but ensure that it doesn't enure to Fubara.
I understand Fubara doesn't want to be a Party to the suit.

fergie001:
I have read that 2006 judgement, Fubara does not have the locus because by law, he isn't signing the cheque in Rivers.

However, any Governor can proceed to the Supreme Court to test its constitutionality and join both Fubara & the new administrator as parties to the suit.

I made same observation here earlier...
https://www.nairaland.com/8373114/rivers-national-assembly-duly-consulted/2#134605407

In reading the constitution, does the term sole administrator appear any where therein? Does a sole administrator have the locus to be signing checks? Are the civil service and commissioners now to take orders from the sole administrator or the administrator is to administer solely?

fergie001:
As long as both houses have passed their resolutions, it exists.

It is now the Courts who will help deal with it.... A similar case that emanates through Dariye met his waterloo.

Funny thing is while Section 305 allows the president to declare a state of emergency, it does not provide for what comes after. It definitely does not say that a sole administrator should be appointed. So the role is unknown to law. But na naija we dey

oyeb15:
It's better serving governors(esp from opposition parties )get court injunction banning d president,Senate ,Reps from declaring SOA in their states.


We are up against it in Nigeria

,

They cant ban it. It's enshrined in the constitution. What they should do is to get an SC rulling on the constitutionality of the president suspending elected state officials and the appointment of a sole administrator

Agbegbaorogboye:
The governor and the Agf are known to law. The two offices are created by the Constitution. It doesn't matter if the person occupying the office is doing so illegally. The positions are still known to law.

If the SC says a governor and 4 assembly members can't form a government, how much more a single person whose office and mode of emergence is totally alien to the law?

Okay now. Let’s see what the court will decide 😀

wirinet:
In reading the constitution, does the term sole administrator appear any where therein? Does a sole administrator have the locus to be signing checks? Are the civil service and commissioners now to take orders from the sole administrator or the administrator is to administer solely?

If a Governor is impeached for example, rightly or wrongly, then a new Governor is sworn-in....

When that impeached Governor approaches the Court, he doesn't file the suit as Governor... No

For example: When Peter Obi was impeached, he approached the Court to challenge that, as Mr. Peter Obi v Balonwu & Ors

When Governor Ladoja was impeached, he approached the Court as Mr Rashidi Adewolu Ladoja.

So for all intents and purposes, Fubara as Governor is suspended and cannot approach any law Court, as Governor of Rivers State. That is not to say it is right or wrong. For me Luke I have always held, suspending elected officials is very unconstitutional.

seunmsg:
Okay now. Let’s see what the court will decide 😀

And if you ask me, the SC was just being biased. A democratic govt is made up of 3 arms. In Rivers State, two of the three are not in contention as to their proper functioning. The third one is under contention as it concerns which of the two houses is properly constituted. Mind you, it is only the legislature that the Constitution has a remedy for when it cannot function. So the SC saying there's no government in Rivers State because the legislature is under contention is basically a false and biased narrative. Those the the kind of things Jonathan was alluding to

I'm not really interested in what they decide. They've shown how bias they are too much for any sane and serious mind to pay any attention to their judgements

Agbegbaorogboye:
Which kind talk be dis
Is a resolution of both Houses what is required to amend the constitution?

All offices for administration of political entities are created by the constitution. None by an act of the assembly and I don't think the constitution gives the NASS the powers to create political offices.

Sole Administrator is unknown to our laws. Let's look at an hypothetical situation where both houses pass a resolution for the COAS to take over the reins of govt because the president is incapacitated, will it stand?

Governance is a tripod! If two agree, one must concede. In this case the executive and the legislature have agreed

fergie001:
It sounds more reasonable on points of law.
The President doesn't have the powers but ensure that it doesn't enure to Fubara.
I understand Fubara doesn't want to be a Party to the suit.

He has to avoid any provocative acts

gidgiddy:
I'm not a Lawyer, but my little knowledge of the law tells me that Fubara does not need to challenge his removal at the Supreme court

What I think he should do is approach the Supreme court to determine if the President has any constitutional right to remove a democratically elected sitting Governor under any circumstances

The Supreme court has previously ruled that a Governor can only be removed in one of 4 ways: Resignation, impeachment, incapacitation and death

The Supreme court said nothing about State of emergency

suspend not remove fool

fergie001:
The SC based on their affidavits and counter-affidavits which is not in contention.

There is a sole administrator in Rivers.

The SC could still have dealt in the merits while still trashing the main case...the SC should not by any stretch encourage unconstitutional acts in removing a governor.