₦airaland Forum

The notion that our courts did something mysterious when they treated the FCT like a state has to be corrected. Absolutely no magic was performed. A major part of the controversy stems from the interpretation and understanding of the relevant constitutional provisions. Then you have those who are using it as propaganda.

The lack of trust in the system is largely responsible for the cynicism and dismissal of issues by people before they understand them.

In the 2023 presidential election petition, the petitioners made a special-status claim at the Presidential Election Petition Court: that a candidate must get 25% in the FCT in addition to two-thirds of the 36 states to be president. The petition was dismissed for lacking merit, and the dismissal was upheld by the Supreme Court because a candidate does not need 25% of the votes in the FCT to be declared president.

I agree with the decision of the courts on this issue because of what the consequence would be if they had held otherwise. To ascribe a special status to the FCT in the manner sought by the petitioners in the 2023 presidential election petition would mean that a candidate with 25% in 36 states but 10% in the FCT would lose the election. That would make the FCT more powerful than the 36 states combined. What does that say about our democracy?

Acceding to the demands of the petitioners would have resulted in the conferment of a type of superiority on the FCT not intended by the Constitution. The FCT is not superior to the 36 states. So if any treatment is to be given to it, such treatment should not surpass that accorded to the 36 states. Losing the FCT should not stop a candidate from being president when the constitutional requirements have been met.

The law:

Section 134(2)(a)(b) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) provides that a candidate shall be deemed duly elected to the office of President where the candidate has:

(a) The highest number of votes cast at the election; and
(b) Not less than one-quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the states in the Federation and the FCT.

This means 36 states and the FCT equals 37 for the computation of results. A candidate needs 1/4 (25%) in two-thirds of 37 to win. A candidate with 25% in 25 states, with or without the FCT, wins. According to INEC, Tinubu scored 25% of the valid votes cast in 29 states of the Federation, which makes him the winner.

If we apply the rules of interpretation of statutes, one of the first rules is that words be given their ordinary meaning. A careful reading of that section still aligns with the decision of the courts if the literal approach is used.

If we also go by the golden rule, which allows for departure from the literal rule when its application would be repugnant to or inconsistent with some other provisions in the statute, or would lead to what the court considers an absurdity, then the absurdity would be that a candidate with 25% in 25 states but 19% in the FCT would lose the election.

That would make the FCT more powerful than the rest of the states and a special decider in who becomes President. It would mean that all the states could vote a certain way, but if those in the FCT go in the opposite direction, then the other votes would not matter. That is a kind of veto.

Finally, Section 299 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) states that the provisions of the Constitution shall apply to the FCT, Abuja, as if it were one of the states of the Federation.

The courts clearly made the right decision on this issue and should not be vilified for it.

Obidients cried hard after that judgement of 2/3 of 34 states or whatever and FCT, that was good enough for me.

Imagine an Obidient saying FCT was special and votes of the people there should be elevated higher than those in other places.

Wickedness of a high magnitude in trying to force Peter Obí down our throat.

aswani:
Obidients cried hard after that judgement of 2/3 of 34 states or whatever and FCT, that was good enough for me.

Imagine an Obidient saying FCT was special and votes of the people there should be elevated higher than those in other places.

Wickedness of a high magnitude in trying to force Peter Obí down our throat.

That was the begining of several of more of their backdoor antics to stop Tinubu from being sworn in.

One Chiamanda even wrote an epistle to Joe Biden not to recognise Tinubu as the newly elected President.

They went as far as to call for a coup to prevent Tinubu from being sworn in and also were openly threatening the Judiciary if they upheld Tinubu's electoral win.

BondRiv:
The notion that our courts did something mysterious when they treated the FCT like a state has to be corrected. Absolutely no magic was performed. A major part of the controversy stems from the interpretation and understanding of the relevant constitutional provisions. Then you have those who are using it as propaganda.

The lack of trust in the system is largely responsible for the cynicism and dismissal of issues by people before they understand them.

In the 2023 presidential election petition, the petitioners made a special-status claim at the Presidential Election Petition Court: that a candidate must get 25% in the FCT in addition to two-thirds of the 36 states to be president. The petition was dismissed for lacking merit, and the dismissal was upheld by the Supreme Court because a candidate does not need 25% of the votes in the FCT to be declared president.

I agree with the decision of the courts on this issue because of what the consequence would be if they had held otherwise. To ascribe a special status to the FCT in the manner sought by the petitioners in the 2023 presidential election petition would mean that a candidate with 25% in 36 states but 10% in the FCT would lose the election. That would make the FCT more powerful than the 36 states combined. What does that say about our democracy?

Acceding to the demands of the petitioners would have resulted in the conferment of a type of superiority on the FCT not intended by the Constitution. The FCT is not superior to the 36 states. So if any treatment is to be given to it, such treatment should not surpass that accorded to the 36 states. Losing the FCT should not stop a candidate from being president when the constitutional requirements have been met.

The law:

Section 134(2)(a)(b) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) provides that a candidate shall be deemed duly elected to the office of President where the candidate has:

(a) The highest number of votes cast at the election; and
(b) Not less than one-quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the states in the Federation and the FCT.

This means 36 states and the FCT equals 37 for the computation of results. A candidate needs 1/4 (25%) in two-thirds of 37 to win. A candidate with 25% in 25 states, with or without the FCT, wins. According to INEC, Tinubu scored 25% of the valid votes cast in 29 states of the Federation, which makes him the winner.

If we apply the rules of interpretation of statutes, one of the first rules is that words be given their ordinary meaning. A careful reading of that section still aligns with the decision of the courts if the literal approach is used.

If we also go by the golden rule, which allows for departure from the literal rule when its application would be repugnant to or inconsistent with some other provisions in the statute, or would lead to what the court considers an absurdity, then the absurdity would be that a candidate with 25% in 25 states but 19% in the FCT would lose the election.

That would make the FCT more powerful than the rest of the states and a special decider in who becomes President. It would mean that all the states could vote a certain way, but if those in the FCT go in the opposite direction, then the other votes would not matter. That is a kind of veto.

Finally, Section 299 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) states that the provisions of the Constitution shall apply to the FCT, Abuja, as if it were one of the states of the Federation.

The courts clearly made the right decision on this issue and should not be vilified for it.

I initially wanted to ignore this nonsense you wrote up here, but for the sake of posterity, I will address it, one thing I have noticed about you people is that you people hate applying rationality and logic to your reasoning and it is majorly because of tribal, religious and political supremacy and bias ideology.

So you people hate to be rational or logical, let me first ask you a question.

Do you think the people who sat down to write down the law were not trying to be logical and rational?

No, you won't see it that way, because your reasoning is already biased and I will tell you why...

You asked a question if Abuja is more powerful than the 36 states?

Good question, but you forgot to also ask if the 36 states are also more powerful than Abuja for having about 99% of their law makers selected by the 36 states, Abuja has only one senator, you forgot that the law makers in Abuja also double as the Abuja state house of Assembly and 99% are picked by the remaining 36 states, they are the ones doing the work of their local assembly there.

Secondly, you also forgot that the presidential elections doubles as the governorship election for the people of Abuja, that's why the president has to appoint someone to represent him as governor in form of a minister, which other state in Nigeria is their governor appointed to govern them and most likely not even indigenous to the state?

That's why they have never had an indigenous minister since the creation of Abuja...

Imagine the 36 states choosing 99% of your law makers and choosing who your governor will be, then there will be no provision to at least protect you?

Of course you won't see it that way, why?

Your reasoning is biased and not logical...

That was why those who wrote the law tried to give them some form of protection by saying, for their governorship election which doubles as the presidential election, give them at least 25% to decide who governs them.

No one is saying the person who doesn't score 25% should lose if he scored the highest, what should have been done was a rerun among the one scored 25% in FCT and met other requirements across the 36 states with the person who score highest votes and met with other requirements across the 36 states, that way only one winner can come out, since they are only 2 this time around...

So other votes that were shared to other candidates must be shared among the 2 and no how, one winner will emerge meeting all the requirements...

But no, the biased judges supported by Tinubu and people like you threw logic and rational reasoning away just for Tinubu to have his way....

We can all see all the nonsense he is busy doing today with the same office he cheated his way through to get...

Nigeria is the way it is today because people who reason like you are currently the people in power, ask yourself, does the Nigeria of today look like what rational thinking people are governing?

Brendaniel:
That was why those who wrote the law tried to give them some form of protection by saying, for their governorship election which doubles as the presidential election, give them at least 25% to decide who governs them.

Who did you speak to or where did you read this nonsense from?

No one clutches at straws more than Obidients sha, ah ah.

Protection indeed, what are they protecting them from? Their governorship election doubling as Presidential elections. Where did all this absolute trash come from?

How do you sit down to write a long post based on a complete fallacy. What special kind of mental gymnastics is this?

You want to shoehorn Peter Obí into a run off based on an illogicality.

aswani:
Who did you speak to or where did you read this nonsense from?

No one clutches at straws more than Obidients sha, ah ah.

Protection indeed, what are they protecting them from? Their governorship election doubling as Presidential elections. Where did all this absolute trash come from?

How do you sit down to write a long post based on a complete fallacy. What special kind of mental gymnastics is this?

You want to shoehorn Peter Obí into a run off based on an illogicality.

I didn't talk to you...

Brendaniel:
I didn't talk to you...

I didn't talk to you either, you gave an opinion on a public discussion portal on Nigerian politics, same thing I did.

aswani:
I didn't talk to you either, you gave an opinion on a public discussion portal on Nigerian politics, same thing I did.

It seems like you really want to expose your ignorance, let me help you....

Who is the governor of Abuja and who are their lawmakers?

Brendaniel:
It seems like you really want to expose your ignorance, let me help you....

Who is the governor of Abuja and who are their lawmakers?

Where did you read that they wanted to protect Abuja residents because the Presidential elections doubled as the gubernatorial elections?

Have a go at answering my question first, seeing as I asked first that's only fair right?

Stop making things up to favour Peter Obí, them being bitter about them when they are proven untrue.

aswani:
Where did you read that they wanted to protect Abuja residents because the Presidential elections doubled as the gubernatorial elections?

Have a go at answering my question first, seeing as I asked first that's only fair right?

Stop making things up to favour Peter Obí, them being bitter about them when they are proven untrue.

Are you saying a governorship election can take place in a state and there would be no requirement for the winner to be declared winner as governor?

Brendaniel:
Are you saying a governorship election can take place in a state and there would be no requirement for the winner to be declared winner as governor?

I never said that, why you are saying that is baffling as it has nothing to do with anything?

Why not tell us where you got your protection for Abuja residents from or admit to deliberately misreading it in a way to favour Peter Obí.

aswani:
I never said that, why you are saying that is baffling as it has nothing to do with anything?

Why not tell us where you got your protection for Abuja residents from or admit to deliberately misreading it in a way to favour Peter Obí.

You never said that, so what do you think requirement means?

If not that people like you hate been logical and rational in thinking, you would have known that requirement also means protection, that is why organisations, countries, institutions and so on put requirements on various things, it is for protection, either to protect the organisation, the country, the institution, the state from one thing or the other....

I know your brain will not tell you that or it is telling you and you are ignoring it because you want to be biased...

You cannot be logical because already you want to be biased...

So if you agree that the president also doubles as the de-facto governor of Abuja, what is the requirement to become the governor to govern Abuja people?

Brendaniel:
You never said that, so what do you think requirement means?

If not that people like you hate been logical and rational in thinking, you would have known that requirement also means protection, that is why organisations, countries, institutions and so on put requirements on various things, it is for protection, either to protect the organisation, the country, the institution, the state from one thing or the other....

I know your brain will not tell you that or it is telling you and you are ignoring it because you want to be biased...

You cannot be logical because already you want to be biased...

So if you agree that the president also doubles as the de-facto governor of Abuja, what is the requirement to become the governor to govern Abuja people?

What do you mean by de factor, where are you picking all this stuff from.

Abuja is the Federal capital territory governed by an appointee of the President, that's what is in the constitution, not Your Peter Obi tainted interpretation of it.

aswani:
What do you mean by de factor, where are you picking all this stuff from.

Abuja is the Federal capital territory governed by an appointee of the President, that's what is in the constitution, not Your Peter Obi tainted interpretation of it.

I've told you, you cannot be logical or rational with your thinking, because you want to be biased, that is why Nigeria is the way it is today because who reason like you are currently the people ruling Nigeria and they have supporters like you...

Very ignorant and arrogant set of people with biased reasoning...

Brendaniel:
I've told you, you cannot be logical or rational with your thinking, because you want to be biased, that is why Nigeria is the way it is today because who reason like you are currently the people ruling Nigeria and they have supporters like you...

Very ignorant and arrogant set of people with biased reasoning...

So what has all this defacto got to do with anything? Why should Abuja votes count more in federal elections?

Where is the common sense or logic in anything you have posted?

By the way, why did you get the information from a Facebook page and not the constitution itself.

aswani:
So what has all this defacto got to do with anything? Why should Abuja votes count more in federal elections?

Where is the common sense or logic in anything you have posted?

By the way, why did you get the information from a Facebook page and not the constitution itself.

Why should the 36 states votes count more and decide those who govern Abuja people?

BondRiv:
The notion that our courts did something mysterious when they treated the FCT like a state has to be corrected. Absolutely no magic was performed. A major part of the controversy stems from the interpretation and understanding of the relevant constitutional provisions. Then you have those who are using it as propaganda.

The lack of trust in the system is largely responsible for the cynicism and dismissal of issues by people before they understand them.

In the 2023 presidential election petition, the petitioners made a special-status claim at the Presidential Election Petition Court: that a candidate must get 25% in the FCT in addition to two-thirds of the 36 states to be president. The petition was dismissed for lacking merit, and the dismissal was upheld by the Supreme Court because a candidate does not need 25% of the votes in the FCT to be declared president.

I agree with the decision of the courts on this issue because of what the consequence would be if they had held otherwise. To ascribe a special status to the FCT in the manner sought by the petitioners in the 2023 presidential election petition would mean that a candidate with 25% in 36 states but 10% in the FCT would lose the election. That would make the FCT more powerful than the 36 states combined. What does that say about our democracy?

Acceding to the demands of the petitioners would have resulted in the conferment of a type of superiority on the FCT not intended by the Constitution. The FCT is not superior to the 36 states. So if any treatment is to be given to it, such treatment should not surpass that accorded to the 36 states. Losing the FCT should not stop a candidate from being president when the constitutional requirements have been met.

The law:

Section 134(2)(a)(b) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) provides that a candidate shall be deemed duly elected to the office of President where the candidate has:

(a) The highest number of votes cast at the election; and
(b) Not less than one-quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the states in the Federation and the FCT.

This means 36 states and the FCT equals 37 for the computation of results. A candidate needs 1/4 (25%) in two-thirds of 37 to win. A candidate with 25% in 25 states, with or without the FCT, wins. According to INEC, Tinubu scored 25% of the valid votes cast in 29 states of the Federation, which makes him the winner.

If we apply the rules of interpretation of statutes, one of the first rules is that words be given their ordinary meaning. A careful reading of that section still aligns with the decision of the courts if the literal approach is used.

If we also go by the golden rule, which allows for departure from the literal rule when its application would be repugnant to or inconsistent with some other provisions in the statute, or would lead to what the court considers an absurdity, then the absurdity would be that a candidate with 25% in 25 states but 19% in the FCT would lose the election.

That would make the FCT more powerful than the rest of the states and a special decider in who becomes President. It would mean that all the states could vote a certain way, but if those in the FCT go in the opposite direction, then the other votes would not matter. That is a kind of veto.

Finally, Section 299 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) states that the provisions of the Constitution shall apply to the FCT, Abuja, as if it were one of the states of the Federation.

The courts clearly made the right decision on this issue and should not be vilified for it.

Good write up.

Anyway, at the end, the oppostion lost because they were not united. For our sakes, they better unite.

Brendaniel:
Why should the 36 states votes count more and decide those who govern Abuja people?

Because that is where the nations seat of power is, they have no right for their votes to count more than others. You can't have Abuja having an opposition governor, it will be total chaos and unworkable.

By moving to Abuja, you accept you are not in a state structure. They appoint someone to rule over you, chikena. You can leave FCT if you are not happy with the arrangements.

aswani:
Because that is where the nations seat of power is, they have no right for their votes to count more than others. You can't have Abuja having an opposition governor, it will be total chaos and unworkable.

By moving to Abuja, you accept you are not in a state structure. They appoint someone to rule over you, chikena. You can leave FCT if you are not happy with the arrangements.

Oh, so you just stated that the 36 states are more powerful than Abuja and the people of Abuja are less important than the people from the 36 states?

J

Brendaniel:
Oh, so you just stated that the 36 states are more powerful than Abuja and the people of Abuja are less important than the people from the 36 states?

Where did you read that, what you interpreted is certainly not what you read?

aswani:
J

Where did you read that, what you interpreted is certainly not what you read?

By moving to Abuja, you accept you are not in a state structure. They appoint someone to rule over you, chikena. You can leave FCT if you are not happy with the arrangements.

Your words, not mine...

Brendaniel:
By moving to Abuja, you accept you are not in a state structure. They appoint someone to rule over you, chikena. You can leave FCT if you are not happy with the arrangements.

Your words, not mine...

How does that salient truth make people superior or inferior?

By moving to Oyo, you accept the additional monies giving to state governors of places with oil is found is not going to reach whoever you voted for, you can leave Oyo if you don't like it.

Who is superior and who is inferior?

aswani:
How does that salient truth make people superior or inferior?

By moving to Oyo, you accept the additional monies giving to state governors of places with oil is found is not going to reach whoever you voted for, you can leave Oyo if you don't like it.

Who is superior and who is inferior?

So are you saying there were no indigenous people in Abuja before Abuja was created and made FCT?

So are the indigenous people there inferior to people from the 36 states that they deprived them from picking their own governor and law makers?

Are there not people who are originally from Abuja, who are their law makers?

Who are the people representing them?

Who are the people making their laws?

Who is the governor representing them?

Are they not equal citizens like other citizens from the 36 states?

Brendaniel:
So are you saying there were no indigenous people in Abuja before Abuja was created and made FCT?

I am not going to teach you history, type exactly that into Google to see exactly what happened to the indigenous people.

Go and ask Aisha Yesufu why she left Ẹdo North and was bitter that NDC dribbled her in her quest to represent indigenous people.

By the way, Ndigbo votes in alayoruba count the same as In Aligbo and FCT. So indigines or not, people have the same vote strength.

Your "point", not surprising as you area Obidient, is all over the place, unfocused and now getting tiresome.

aswani:
I am not going to teach you history, type exactly that into Google to see exactly what happened to the indigenous people.

Go and ask Aisha Yesufu why she left Ẹdo North and was bitter that NDC dribbled her in her quest to represent indigenous people.

By the way, Ndigbo votes in alayoruba count the same as In Aligbo and FCT. So indigines or not, people have the same vote strength.

Your "point", not surprising as you area Obidient, is all over the place, unfocused and now getting tiresome.

So you are saying there was no law made to protect the indigenous people of Abuja from depriving them of representation in government?

Brendaniel:
I initially wanted to ignore this nonsense you wrote up here, but for the sake of posterity, I will address it, one thing I have noticed about you people is that you people hate applying rationality and logic to your reasoning and it is majorly because of tribal, religious and political supremacy and bias ideology.

So you people hate to be rational or logical, let me first ask you a question.

Do you think the people who sat down to write down the law were not trying to be logical and rational?

No, you won't see it that way, because your reasoning is already biased and I will tell you why...

You asked a question if Abuja is more powerful than the 36 states?

Good question, but you forgot to also ask if the 36 states are also more powerful than Abuja for having about 99% of their law makers selected by the 36 states, Abuja has only one senator, you forgot that the law makers in Abuja also double as the Abuja state house of Assembly and 99% are picked by the remaining 36 states, they are the ones doing the work of their local assembly there.

Secondly, you also forgot that the presidential elections doubles as the governorship election for the people of Abuja, that's why the president has to appoint someone to represent him as governor in form of a minister, which other state in Nigeria is their governor appointed to govern them and most likely not even indigenous to the state?

That's why they have never had an indigenous minister since the creation of Abuja...

Imagine the 36 states choosing 99% of your law makers and choosing who your governor will be, then there will be no provision to at least protect you?

Of course you won't see it that way, why?

Your reasoning is biased and not logical...

That was why those who wrote the law tried to give them some form of protection by saying, for their governorship election which doubles as the presidential election, give them at least 25% to decide who governs them.

No one is saying the person who doesn't score 25% should lose if he scored the highest, what should have been done was a rerun among the one scored 25% in FCT and met other requirements across the 36 states with the person who score highest votes and met with other requirements across the 36 states, that way only one winner can come out, since they are only 2 this time around...

So other votes that were shared to other candidates must be shared among the 2 and no how, one winner will emerge meeting all the requirements...

But no, the biased judges supported by Tinubu and people like you threw logic and rational reasoning away just for Tinubu to have his way....

We can all see all the nonsense he is busy doing today with the same office he cheated his way through to get...

Nigeria is the way it is today because people who reason like you are currently the people in power, ask yourself, does the Nigeria of today look like what rational thinking people are governing?

I don’t think you understood the topic. You rushed in with rage and a mind full of accusations, despite your glaring lack of knowledge and understanding of constitutional law.

I made a legal analysis. It has nothing to do with Tinubu. I’m not even his supporter. I support Nigeria. For me, this country comes first, which is why I have no hesitation in criticising the rot in this administration.

I also carefully went through all your comments here, and nowhere did you cite the Constitution or any law to support your baseless position. Instead, you made up for your inadequacies with uncontrolled emotions and conjecture.

There is a reason non-lawyers are referred to as laymen, and you showcased that here. You threw around the words "illogical" and "bias," but it is clear from your comments that you don’t know what they mean.

BondRiv:
I don’t think you understood the topic. You rushed in with rage and a mind full of accusations, despite your glaring lack of knowledge and understanding of constitutional law.

I made a legal analysis. It has nothing to do with Tinubu. I’m not even his supporter. I support Nigeria. For me, this country comes first, which is why I have no hesitation in criticising the rot in this administration.

I also carefully went through all your comments here, and nowhere did you cite the Constitution or any law to support your baseless position. Instead, you made up for your inadequacies with uncontrolled emotions and conjecture.

There is a reason non-lawyers are referred to as laymen, and you showcased that here. You threw around the words "illogical" and "bias," but it is clear from your comments that you don’t know what they mean.

If only you tried to read my comment with an unbiased mind, you will know that my point was that the supreme court gave a wrong judgment by declaring that 25% in the FCT was not necessary because it ultimately rendered the people of FCT without a say on the people who govern them both now and in the future till that judgment is upturned...


And I tried to even give you reasons with the same constitution but you won't see it that way because already your mind is biased.

I mean, how can you come from a supposed state and you don't determine who 99% of your lawmakers are, the 36 states does, and then the person who double as your governor, you then don't even have 1% stake to determine who becomes that governor, while the 36 states does ?

Does it sound rational to you?


Secondly, I know you very well, you supported Tinubu into office, you supported vigorously, you are only starting to get disappointed with his nonsense he is doing and started criticizing him and I the question that keeps pooping up in my mind is:

What were you thinking and expecting from Tinubu?

Where you sincerely dumb or just acting it when you were throwing all the support?

Brendaniel:
If only you tried to read my comment with an unbiased mind, you will know that my point was that the supreme court gave a wrong judgment...

I mean, how can you come from a supposed state and you don't determine who 99% of your lawmakers are, the 36 states does, and then the person who double as your governor, you then don't even have 1% stake to determine who becomes that governor, while the 36 states does ? Does it sound rational to you?

What legal qualifications do you have to make that claim? You can't even make a proper legal analysis. I have clearly outlined the reason for the decision with constitutional provisions. There was no intendment to confer any special status on the FCT with regard to presidential elections. I won't go back and forth with you on this. I have already analysed why.

Again with your allegations, how did I support Tinubu into office? Do you have evidence that I voted for him? My interest is Nigeria. If he does something good for the country, I will acknowledge it. I'm not interested in your bitter politics.

BondRiv:
What legal qualifications do you have to make that claim? You can't even make a proper legal analysis. I have clearly outlined the reason for the decision with constitutional provisions. There was no intendment to confer any special status on the FCT with regard to presidential elections. I won't go back and forth with you on this. I have already analysed why.

Again with your allegations, how did I support Tinubu into office? Do you have evidence that I voted for him? My interest is Nigeria. If he does something good for the country, I will acknowledge it. I'm not interested in your bitter politics.

You see why I said you people are not rati0nal and l0gical thinking folks.

That's why the other guy ran away, I asked him a question, and I will ask you the same question, the indigenous people of Abuja are in millions.

Who are their law makers?

Who represents them as governor ?

Who chooses them ?

Secondly, you don't need to vote for Tinubu before supporting him, when you fight for him online, you are throwing support already...

So you want to tell me you sincerely thought that Tinubu was coming to do something good for Nigeria?

If truly you were seeing him as someone coming to do good for Nigeria, sincerely speaking I see you as a dmb fellow( sorry to say), because it was glaring he never had any good intention for Nigeria and he was even vocal about it in words and action...

Except you were just acting to be dmb...

Brendaniel:
That's why the other guy ran away, I asked him a question, and I will ask you the same question, the indigenous people of Abuja are in millions.

..

If you are referring to me, I didn't run away.

There is only so much time I can give to interacting with Obidients who don't have any interest in logical thinking or reasoning.

You pull things out of thin air and expect people to engage in debate with you but at no time do you shift your position even when you can clearly see your ridiculous stance being comprehensively dismantled.

Bondriv said he doesn't support President Tinubu and without any proof, you double down on (false) claims that they did.

Only you one sabi wetin constitution drafting committee nor put for constitution.