₦airaland Forum

AndroBlaze:

Before you blame our officers, kindly note it was the British that explained to them who they were suppose to take orders from, even before the coup.

https://guardian.ng/opinion/2023-remember-the-first-republic-debacle-part-2/#:~:text=And%20so%20as%20the%20confrontation,that%20parliamentary%20system%20of%20government).

FreeIgboho:
Of course they always favoured the NORTH, and their "adviser" was probably Ahmadu Bello's personal lawyer! Even a first-year law student will tell you the WRITTEN constitution was 100% unambiguous - Zik was C-in-C

AndroBlaze:
The fact that you have a title does not mean anything, unless it means something.

King Charles is a King and head of the church of England, yet he can't demonstrate meaningful authority over anyone, including his own sons!

All our traditional rulers constitutionally have no authority, yet some like the Northern rulers can still wield powers over imprisonment and even life and death in some matters.

There are families where the Husband, is not the head of the house and does not have the final say, if you are being truthful in this argument, even you will accept this.

"Power lies where men believe it lies, once men don't believe you have it, it is pointless" (lol, have to admit this is taken from a great scene in GOT).

[b]Long and short, it was made clear in the constitution that the military reported to the government, and the government was headed by the prime minister, not the head of state.

From Ironsi, that has never been the situation in Nigeria ever again. [/b]

FreeIgboho:
@bolded, you are 10000% percent wrong! The only thing the WRITTEN constitution made clear was that Zik was the C-in-C. Any court of law will throw out any case saying it was the PM unless the constitution was amended - that is the ONLY way! There is no question of Stare Decisis when the constitution is so unambiguous. I suspect you already know this but arguing for argument sake

Richtaiwo:
Use the little data you have to check and improve your knowledge instead of arguing blindly and calling names.

You have heard Indian prime minister, who controls Indian government? You have heard of British prime minister, who controls Britain? The brain is primarily for thinking, use it as such.

Azikiwe was head of government, ceremonial.
Tafawa Balewa was the prime minister, the political head and the most powerful. I know you will come back with the same bulshit. I won't respond but cure yourself.

AndroBlaze:
You are trying to be clever by half by changing the argument.

My argument with you has never been whether the constitution called him C in C, it is did he wield the power or influence, and did the constitution recognise that he should wield the power. On the latter, the constitution clearly spelled out the party who should wield power over the armed forces, it was not the President, it was the government.

You clearly indicated in your initial post that he controlled the armed forces and could remove the Prime Minister, all this has been proven wrong by what occured in history and also by citing the constitution you keep making noise about as if you have a copy.

Like I said earlier, it is becoming clear that it is necessary for you to be right about something, so I'd say 'stick at it", even a broken clock is right twice a day.

FreeIgboho:
MY FRIEND, as I've told you before, the British were EXTREMELY biased!!! There is no Supreme Court in the world that would interprete the then Nigerian WRITTEN constitution to mean the PM was C-in-C!!! I keep emphasizing WRITTEN because that is the HUGE difference between Nigeria and Britain. Nigeria had NO CHOICE but go with the LETTER of constitution!!! Britain had NO WRITTEN constitution. They went by STARE DECISIS!!! Nigerian didn't have that option UNLESS in instances where the constitution was ambiguous. THE CONSTITUTION UNAMBIGUOUSLY STATED THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS THE C-IN-C!!!
Just as durring a coup, the rank-and-file would refuse to obey the C-in-C. That does not mean the C-in-C has lost his power!!! That's exactly the case when the British generals refused to obey the C-in-C based on trumped up "advice"!!!!

India has gone to various wars with Pakistan and every time it was the prime ministers from the Ghandis to Modi that have sent troops out and declared war.

Tony Blair and not the Queen sent troops to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So did Australia. So did Canada.

Finally, I am still waiting for you to show us where in our constitution of that period (you know, the constitution you keep quoting without any actual quotes ) , it was stated that the Commander in Chief controls the Armed Forces.

I wish you and your compatriot in TomFoolery goodluck.

gidgiddy:
Well its the rest of you that have been running the country since the 60 years he was killed, what did he do in 6 months in office that you couldn't correct in 60 years?

AndroBlaze:
If you will not tire of exposing your ignorance to the public, I will continue to help you, so youths don't think standing their ground when you know you are wrong is something to idolise.

Like you were informed much earlier, Nigeria operated the Westminster style of government inherited from the British, after independence and in the first republic from 1963.

Queen Elizabeth was our Head of State, and Nnamdi Azikiwe took her place in everything but title in 1963.

In Westminster style of government, the Head of State and Head of Government are different people. For the umpteenth time, the government controls the armed forces in this style of government and not the Head of state, for many practical reasons, but I will emphasise one.

Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom and New Zealand operate the Westminster style. In all 4 countries, King Charles is the current Head of State.

In 3 of them, he has Governor Generals appointed by him (in fact it's actually the parliaments of these countries that pick them) that act for him. In all these countries, the C in C is the Head of State i.e. King Charles constitutionally and whoever is representing him in these countries.

All three countries have WRITTEN CONSTITUTIONS.

So I ask you a question, if the UK was to declare a war with Canada, or more realistically, if New Zealand and Australia were to fight over an island between them, is King Charles going to command the armed forces of both countries?

If you know anything about the military, one knows that the chain of command is sacrosanct and cannot be disputed, mainly because of things like war where confusion and doublespeak will almost certainly result to foolish deaths. So again who are they expected to take their commands from?

If they choose to follow the ignorant and silly path you have laid out for them then it must be King Charles.

Finally, India's history is very similar to ours. They became independent in 1947 and became a republic in 1950. Unlike us, they have never had a successful coup and have continued to follow the Westminster style of government till date. They replaced the Queen with their own Head of state styled a President once they became a republic. The President is the Cin C.

India has gone to various wars with Pakistan and every time it was the prime ministers from the Ghandis to Modi that have sent troops out and declared war.

Tony Blair and not the Queen sent troops to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So did the Australia. So did Canada.

Finally, I am still waiting for you to show us where in our constitution of that period (you know, the constitution you keep quoting without any actual quotes ) , it was stated that the Commander in Chief controls the Armed Forces.

I wish you and your compatriot in TomFoolery goodluck.

Richtaiwo:
Aguyi Ironsi really caused a problem for this country

FreeIgboho:
Sorry to say but you sound really ignorant. Tony Blair sent troops based on precident because there is NO writen constitution. Have you read Australian or Canadian constitution? You simply don't know how law works! In law you CAN'T say what is unambiguously stated is not so UNLESS you change what is stated. Get that into your skull!
See below

AndroBlaze:
You are a funny and quite dishonest chap.

Please end this debate by successfully quoting the constitution just once, abeg just once so your village and local people can celebrate that they sent a child to school and something entered his head.

Show the whole world ( and not just me oooo) where in our constitution in that period it explicitly showed that:

a.) The President (Head of State, Governor General or whatever) controls the armed forces (we are not asking for lazily quoting "C in C " which no one is arguing with you about)
b.) The President can deploy troops as he pleases
c.) The President can dismiss the Prime minister

Here is the man himself, saying clearly, that the Cabinet (government, since you need everything spelt out for you) were the ones who "voluntarily" gave power to the military and dismissed him (yes, the cabinet and not the military dismissed your President aka "Commander in Chief", unlike the nonsense you keep parroting), by abdicating there power and asking the military to take responsibility.

Do you see him arguing? He clearly knows his power emanates from the parliament and not a piece of paper that till now you cannot even successfully quote once!

Please, we know that Zik of Africa went to school and school went through him, please let us be able to say the same for FreeIgboho....abeg.

Please quote the constitution, or even any law of that period that can help you, and put all doubters to shame. We await you sir.

https://yout.be/RCD7uQsSU6U?si=LTHegBtyB76m

Richtaiwo:
Go check the meaning of the following in parliamentary system of government then come back to edit:

Head of Government
Prime minister

One is a ceremonial head and the other actually controls. The one you mentioned is not the c-in-c.

FreeIgboho:
I keep hoping I don't have to spoon-feed you these things
You are fixated on what happened while I'm trying to tell you what should have happened.
If a WRITTEN constitution says explicitly that something is black, there is no way you can interpret that thing as being white UNLESS it is said or implied somewhere in SAME constitution that the thing is white. Simple!
Here's a simple question that'd settle everything:

If the case had gone to SC,
Who do you think an unbiased SUPREME COURT would have ruled had supreme command of Nigerian armed forces at that time, and on what basis??

AndroBlaze:
You are telling me "what should have happened" when a day later you still cannot quote a word of your so called written constitution? I wonder if you imagine that is the way lawyers argue in court, "My Lord, what should happen is ......."

Like I said earlier, you are just being dishonest and crafty.

I need to respect my time and engage with worthy people. Good luck in your bid revising Government classes, rewriting history and changing traditional norms that have existed for 300 years since the English wrested power from their monarch.

FreeIgboho:
Traditional norms that have existed for 300 years IN WHAT COUNTRY??!!
That's where your HUGE mistake lies. Nigeria was a new country, started on a clean slate, BASED ON WORDS WRITTEN IN A CONSTITUTION! The English army officers tried to continue the British system by disobeying the C-in-C, but that is ILLEGAL as there is NO BASIS for it WHATSOEVER in Nigeria!!!
All it'll take was for someone to present it to a court. Assuming you are their lawyer, what would be your argument? On what basis would the clearly stated C-in-C in Nigeria NOT be the C-in-C as obtains in UK?? Your argument would be that Nigeria was a continuation of UK or what? What exactly would be YOUR argument? Let's have itn

AndroBlaze:
Lol, you think you are smart. You want me to do your work for you.

Unlike you, I have in my possession clearly where it is legally specified that the government controls the armed forces.

I have had it since, and would have posted it like so many other things I posted freely (when I assumed we were having a proper debate), but it is clear to all that you are being insincere and cannot even quote ONE LINE from the WRITTEN CONSTITUTION you keep making noise about.

In fact I wonder if you even understand what a constitution is.

Anyway, I will give you a lifeline, as soon as you post where in the constitution of that period it was stated all the things you claimed, I will drop the legal instruments where it is WRITTEN, and that confirmed to the senior officers of that time, that it would be illegal to take orders from Zik without the government's input.

kimjongJezebel:
He was not part of the Coup. He was marked to be killed but he escaped in Lagos and then mobilized his men to stop the coup that was one of the reasons the coup failed.

kettykin:
May who ever originated the idea of this coup and roped in igbo soldiers burn in hell fire

OlujobaSamuel:
The major I learnt from this is that our founding leaders were irresponsible and it grew with us as a nation. Why should any head of govt leave the state since Oct and not return till the following year??

FreeIgboho:
He was NOT head of government, genius

OlujobaSamuel:
I'm not using the head of government in the actual sense as in the separation of powers, I'm using it as in the position held by the individual, I'm placing my comment in the context I would have put a president, VP, SP , speaker or any other similar heads.
3months is such a long time to be away from active front line when one isn't incapacitated.
Today, our rulers are still doing same, there was a time Yobe Gov has the state as second home while Abuja is the first home, I think Hope Uzodinma did same during Buhari's tenure.

Softmirror:
So Nnamdi Azikiwe went on vacation.🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Richtaiwo:
Use the little data you have to check and improve your knowledge instead of arguing blindly and calling names.

You have heard Indian prime minister, who controls Indian government? You have heard of British prime minister, who controls Britain? The brain is primarily for thinking, use it as such.

Azikiwe was head of government, ceremonial.
Tafawa Balewa was the prime minister, the political head and the most powerful. I know you will come back with the same bulshit. I won't respond but cure yourself.

OlujobaSamuel:
The major I learnt from this is that our founding leaders were irresponsible and it grew with us as a nation. Why should any head of govt leave the state since Oct and not return till the following year??

Richtaiwo:
Aguyi Ironsi really caused a problem for this country

kimjongJezebel:
He was not part of the Coup. He was marked to be killed but he escaped in Lagos and then mobilized his men to stop the coup that was one of the reasons the coup failed.

food4tot:
Zik's vacation was a very lucky escape for the coming bloodshed. Aguyi also had a similar miraculous escape.

The rest of the country simply went into a state of shock and hoped they would wake up from their dreams.