₦airaland Forum

Freshandfitpod:
Is he a journalist?

Lifestylecom:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iX5cTc2M1Sc

Lawyer, Godspower Egbule has said Fubara’s impeachment proceedings must strictly follow constitutional provisions, warning that court intervention at an early stage would be premature.

Egbule said, “At this point, it would be too hasty for anybody to reach the court,” adding that, “The three arms of government are circumscribed by the provisions of the Constitution.”

“It would be ultra vires for the legislature to make moves that are outside the provisions of the Constitution. It would also be ultra vires by the judge and the court to make orders that are outside the provisions of the Constitution.”

He anchored his argument on Section 188 of the Constitution, describing the impeachment process as clearly defined and sequential. “Section 188 is clear. First, a third majority, a notice of impeachment, is given to the Speaker. The Speaker sends a notice of impeachment to the governor. After that, by a motion of a third majority, that motion is now adopted by the House of Assembly and sent to the Chief Judge to set up a seven-man panel,” he said.

Kingpele:
Rufai is the kind of guy that u can't predict when he will caught u unaware...best is to think deeply before answering questions from him....the guy is the nightmare of blind batists

Buccalcavity2:
Just stfu with your watery rationalization. Rufai asked his question as a fact. Not a reported speech from his previous interviwee. The lawyer called him out as an outright misrepresentation as he should know better! The damage control and childish fight over who is right or wrong is just irritating. Thats how Adebayo called out Ayo for lying and its still thesame Rufai defending nonsense on live TV. I don't care who wins Rivers political battle but don't reduce constitutional discourse to beer parlor gist and defend lies with pride. That's shitty!

Poske95:
Please enlighten is.
Also explain the President's emergency rule while you're at it.
Political referee dem

erniok2:
Go watch the video. If you can't afford data to watch it, I can't help you.

brain54:
Rufai always clashing with his guests...


If he knows everything he should interview himself!

yongg:
How do you know he asked as facts, and I hope you know journalist asks beyond facts so the other party reveals a clarification where needed as well. How is my rationale watery, lols 😂. I don't know about the Ayo lying incident you referenced but I would like to see it though. How is asking questions seeking clarification a reduction of constitutional discourse?

Buccalcavity2:
Stop dulling down your own brain coz you want to be a fan of Rufai (whos probably not as sound as you)!
Move on if you are wrong like Abati did or if you are courageous, apologize that you are wrong!
1:39 this guy insinuated that assembly members lack integrity. Lawyer called him out, he said "im just asking question". 3:52, He asked "tell me the common sense in the need to pass supplementary...". That's an assertion not a reported speech as he later claimed which the lawyer called out.
If you still can't see the fault here, then I give up. You are no different!

xjiggy:
Rufai go just dey argue rubbish, trying to convince himself and his followers say him clever. Proper journalistic work. He no go do. Them say them say journalism. See as the lawyer dey rubbish am. Him think say na all those political Aides wey no Sabi facts him dey talk to.

yongg:
You shouldn't give up too fast because the jewels of the whole adventure might just be around the corner for the taking (this is also note to self, lols). I appreciate your response but I see it differently and I will also like to assert I am not a fan per se, I only admire good work and understand that as humans there are times we are are spot on correct and when we perform badly, to blindly follow is what I actively seek to not do...


In your first reference, that question does not necessarily insinuate that but is to ensure or at least to give the lawyer the chance to ensure the audience/citizens that the integrity of the whole process is held (mind you, not even the integrity of persons, but beyond). Rufai at the point was asking to make sure the principle that avoids conflict of interest, double-jeopardy and recusal (when required) is held, which is part of the insurances of process integrity, personal integrity is a different issue entirely and probably even harder to examine from questioning for each subject maybe except the subject under scope have made blunders a couple of times known to the public domain. And do you know what's even better he (the lawyer guest) later ended up agreeing because it was clear as day he either pretended to not know that Rufai was referring to the integrity of the process of the panel (By the way, people, not just lawyers, may do this to dissuade or steer discourse away from what they want to hide... You should see them when in full cross-examination mode) or genuinely misunderstood the question.

So you see that Mr Abati himself didn't move on but rather defined (in part) the principle of conflict of interest to the lawyer guest hence implying checking whether adequate recusal (which should be total is most instances) had been applied to the process since he seemed not to understand or pretended (not enough data confirm or suspect so he enjoys benefit of that doubt) about what was being pointed to, after which the lawyer then understood and answered the question - NOW that was what made them move on. So Mr Abati basically broke down in simpler grammar Rufai's question which hit at least 3 of the intent which is super important to highlight that Rufai question captured, thereby implicitly backing Rufai in the quest to know.


About your second reference, are you saying an assertion cannot come from a reported speech? There are times when one wishes to translate an incident in words of parity or correspondence, which strips the mentions of persons or places or other unimportant details to leave the concentrated residue relevant to the discourse. A recent case where that could be applied is the petrol tanker accident that had people risking their lives to collect the spilling fuel, but that might veer us off but one thing I can assure you it brings clarity to the subjects, also the participants will likely provide answers that differ from their answers when they were actually exposed to the situation at the center of discourse all as a result of the clarity of viewing in that manner which highlights details important to the discourse, hence a teachable moment or a place to reflect the actual "why" that made the difference.

See, I understand you (meaning you will be somewhat reasonably correct when you see it like that, but your scope of correctness will be severely limited which is not what we want, well except maybe when you want to hide details by insisting on that depth which is grossly insufficient) but you need to reflect like at least one level beyond what you have stated, I say this because when you see it from just your level of examination, every other inquiry whether coming from a journalist or not, Rufai or not becomes a baited question and likely something to get offended by. Such questions can simultaneously check your boxes (or some of it) of dubious intention and my boxes (or some of it) of unbiased inquiry depending on where the observer choose to place his perspective. But that shouldn't halt asking of the question, else will we ever know anything (ha ha)?

Buccalcavity2:
😅🤣😂🤣😅.
Dude,goodluck! I don't want be like you!