₦airaland Forum

reccy:
True but I was referring to Akpabio lovers on this thread.
I mean, Isn't it laughable to see Akpabio's supporters here touting rule of law and democracy when the same individuals they championed are brazenly violating these principles?

The hypocrisy is glaring. They're quick to shout about democracy when it suits them, but silent when their political goons trample on the very principles they claim to uphold.

reccy:
And nobody has condemned akpabio's led senate for shutting door against senator Natasha yesterday. This is despite court ruling nullifying the suspension. This blatant violation of senator Natasha's mandate as freely given by good people of kogi central call for concern by any sane person.

This blatant power grab is a slap in the face to the people of Kogi Central, who freely elected her to represent them.

We won the first and second debacles and this one will not be an exception!

"To suspend a member for a period of six months equals to a suspension for 180 days and this is the same number of days a member is expected to sit in the House, representing his people. (…) A suspension cannot exceed the requisite number of days the member should sit. (…) I am of the opinion that the Senate has the power to, and I believe, should recall the plaintiff and allow her to resume representing the people, who sent her there to represent them.”

Spy360:
Tinubu is doing the same thing and BAT-e-rodents living aboard are supporting the action

semid4lyfe:
Your My opinion is tainted with bias, and youb are I'm also being economical with the truth. Justice Binta Nyako did not nullify Senator Natasha's suspension, and order her recall to the senate. Below are the exact words of the Judge's ruling



That last phrase “should recall the plaintiff" is worded as an opinion (“I believe, should recall”), not an enforceable order.

The court did not include a formal injunctive or declaratory command using language like “hereby ordered” or “must recall”. So while the judgment contains a clear expression of the judge’s view on her recall, the language doesn’t amount to a binding court order compelling the Senate to allow her to resume.

The fact that Senator Natasha tried to force her way back into the senate based on this judgement says a lot about her. To put it succinctly, your senator is a con artist.

The senate is absolutely right not to allow her to resume based on that judgement

Spy360:
Isn't it obvious that the people they tagged Obidients or whatever are the same people always fighting for democratic principles, the rule of law and good governance?

reccy:
It's sickening and tiring and reek of hypocrisy from emergency Akpabio's lovers.

I'll be here when it reaches their doorstep!

akwesenana:
Forgive me, but I think he was referring to you.

reccy:
Fixed


"To suspend a member for a period of six months equals to a suspension for 180 days and this is the same number of days a member is expected to sit in the House, representing his people. (…) A suspension cannot exceed the requisite number of days the member should sit. (…) I am of the opinion that the Senate has the power to, and I believe, should recall the plaintiff and allow her to resume representing the people, who sent her there to represent them.”

Now, from the excerpt you shared, if a suspension cannot exceed the requisite number of days the member should sit, isn't that illegal and thereby make the whole process a violation of her representation of her people at the chamber? I mean, By flouting the court's ruling, Akpabio's leadership is essentially nullifying the mandate given by her constituents.

Also From the excerpt, the Senate erred for denying her access to represent her people at the Senate by illegally suspending her in the first place, then the same body led by Akpabio now denied her entry again after the court has faulted the whole process?

Make it make sense please.

KingTom:
But wasn't this same judgement appealed by the Honorable Senator?

reccy:
I doubt.... Some elements of the ruling was appealed by Natasha.

reccy:
Fixed


"To suspend a member for a period of six months equals to a suspension for 180 days and this is the same number of days a member is expected to sit in the House, representing his people. (…) A suspension cannot exceed the requisite number of days the member should sit. (…) I am of the opinion that the Senate has the power to, and I believe, should recall the plaintiff and allow her to resume representing the people, who sent her there to represent them.”

Now, from the excerpt you shared, if a suspension cannot exceed the requisite number of days the member should sit, isn't that illegal and thereby make the whole process a violation of her representation of her people at the chamber? I mean, By flouting the court's ruling, Akpabio's leadership is essentially nullifying the mandate given by her constituents.

Also From the excerpt, the Senate erred for denying her access to represent her people at the Senate by illegally suspending her in the first place, then the same body led by Akpabio now denied her entry again after the court has faulted the whole process?

Make it make sense please.

TemporaryHansel:
@Theflint1 @bluerayrick @livelongnprospa @amigoss

semid4lyfe:
Lol, wetin you dey fix. Even a first year law student knows that in law 1 + 1 is not always equal to 2.

Justice Binta Nyako is a political judge, and deliberately gave that opinionated ruling that cannot be enforced to serve Senator Natasha and her supporters crumbs that will not quench their hunger.

In addition, it's instructive to note that she never faulted the suspension or declared it illegal. She only expressed reservation about the duration of the suspension vis-a-vis the number of days the senate seats in a year.

It was a careful balancing act from Justice Nyako. She rode a fine line between sounding like she was upholding the law while protecting the senate's actions.

Conclusively, the senate is not wrong for not allowing Senator Natasha to resume based on that judgement.

semid4lyfe:
Lol, wetin you dey fix. Even a first year law student knows that in law 1 + 1 is not always equal to 2.

Justice Binta Nyako is a political judge, and deliberately gave that opinionated ruling that cannot be enforced to serve Senator Natasha and her supporters crumbs that will not quench their hunger.

In addition, it's instructive to note that she never faulted the suspension or declared it illegal. She only expressed reservation about the duration of the suspension vis-a-vis the number of days the senate seats in a year.

It was a careful balancing act from Justice Nyako. She rode a fine line between sounding like she was upholding the law while protecting the senate's actions.

Conclusively, the senate is not wrong for not allowing Senator Natasha to resume based on that judgement.

reccy:
This your perspective on Justice Nyako's ruling is highly debatable because once a flaw is established, then the whole issue becomes illegal and a violation of the right of the other party.

She clearly highlighted the Senate's procedural flaws, Which make whatever comes from it illegal and a violation. Although in her rulling, She focused on the suspension's duration, It also emphasized the importance of due process and adherence to the Senate's rules.
if the Senate refuses to allow Senator Natasha to resume her seat,it's clear disregard for the judiciary's authority and a breach of democratic principles.

OasisX:

semid4lyfe:
Weltin dey make that una former player, Rotimi Amaechi dey wail so?

raumdeuter:
What exactly is Tinubu doing?

TemporaryHansel:
@Theflint1 @bluerayrick @livelongnprospa @amigoss

semid4lyfe:
Lol, wetin you dey fix. Even a first year law student knows that in law 1 + 1 is not always equal to 2.

Justice Binta Nyako is a political judge, and deliberately gave that opinionated ruling that cannot be enforced to serve Senator Natasha and her supporters crumbs that will not quench their hunger.

In addition, it's instructive to note that she never faulted the suspension or declared it illegal. She only expressed reservation about the duration of the suspension vis-a-vis the number of days the senate seats in a year.

It was a careful balancing act from Justice Nyako. She rode a fine line between sounding like she was upholding the law while protecting the senate's actions.

Conclusively, the senate is not wrong for not allowing Senator Natasha to resume based on that judgement.

Spy360:
Is it constitutionally correct for the Senate to suspend a senator for 6 months?

semid4lyfe:
Weltin dey make that una former player, Rotimi Amaechi dey wail so?

Ibime:
Shehu Dikko done see where he want chop money

https://www.nairaland.com/8482089/abuja-seeks-host-f1-grand

GloriousGbola:
do we even have high octane fuel in nigeria for starters? and where is the stadium? or the facilities for emergencies?

Ibime:
That one na small thing sef

The whole tourism industry to cater to the spectators is missing from hotels to security. F1 watchers are millionaires, you must have comfort and security standards to cater to all 30k of them at once, Boko Haram would have a field day

KingTom:
They might 'magically' pipe low during the period and remind us with 2 or 3 bomb blasts afterwards

Spy360:
Follow the discussion, Tinubu is borrowing money.

Are you going to defend it?