greenpasture:


The question of whether a President is unfit to rule is a matter of fact that requires medical definition. A President is not unfit simply because he is sick. He is unfit to rule when he can no longer understand or be understood. Sicknesses, no matter how serious is not enough to remove him. Here are a few examples from the U.S as we share the same political system;

1. Woodrow Wilson President, 1913-1921; stroke during entire term

2. Franklin D Roosevelt President, 1933-1945; polio unable to walk during entire Presidency

3. Dwight Eisenhower President, 1953-1961; heart and Crohn's disease

4. John F Kennedy President, 1961-1963; degenerative bone disease

5. Ronald Reagan, 1981-1989; cancerous polyps

See more here
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37338018

https://www.ft.com/content/377f08c2-78f0-11e6-a0c6-39e2633162d5

As it is, he has handed over to the Vice President ensuring that there is no break in government business. I think this a tired story that needs to rest. The constitution has made adequate provision for any eventuality. But the headline point is that incapacity and not illness is the only reason a President should step aside, no matter how serious the illness is.

None of your examples were bed ridden during their tenures. Infact they were up and doing and did a lot for the US.

Pls dont dishonor their memory by comparing them with Buhari.

I wonder why you APC drones will go to any length to rationalize this regime's foolishness. Shame on you.

Breaking news- President Buhari's Health UPDATE

نور اگر رفت سایه پیدا نیست نقش دیوار و چشم خیره ما نقش سایه دگر نمی داندیوار و چشم خیره ما نقش سایه دگر نمی دان نور اگر رفت سایه پیدا نیست نقش دیوار و چشم خیره ما نور اگر رفت سایه. ر رفت سایه پیدا نیست نقش دیوار و چشم خیره ما نقش سایه دگر نمی دان نور اگر رفتدا نیست نقش دیوار و چشم خیره ما
گر رفت سایه پیدا نیست نقش دیوار و چشم خیره ما نور اگر رفت سایه. ر رفت سایه پیدا نیست نقش دیوار و چشم خیره اگر ر سایه پیدا نیست نقش دیوار و چشم خیره ما نقش سایه دگر نمی داندیوار و چشم خیره ما نقش سایه دگر نمی دان نور سایه دگر نمی دان نور اگر رفتدا نیست نقش دیوار و چشم خیره ما

If I hear anything else, I'll still let you know.

Spidermon:



None of your examples were bed ridden during their tenures. Infact they were up and doing and did a lot for the US.

Pls dont dishonor their memory by comparing them with Buhari.

I wonder why you APC drones will go to any length to rationalize this regime's foolishness. Shame on you.

Imagine putting Buhari's name in the same paragraph as those great leaders. Error of the highest order. Those men all served their countries diligently, none of them ran their economies comatose.

StOla:


That is why I wonder why people are so worried(happy) about the President's health.

He has handed over to the VicePresident who is now acting. Let his family worry over his health privately.

The day he took his oath of office he stopped being a private citizen, so Nigerians are rightly entitled to know the state of the No 1 citizen of this country.

This was when Cassandra was fit enough to be stood with, now his "Z's" can only lie with him in his "vegetable" confine

blackaxe78:
#IstandWithBuhari

And that's all u'll keep doing for the rest of Ur unproductive life

ipobarecriminals:
make una nor force the old man come back to Nigeria. His coming here is usefulness. One day,one wahala.He should remain there till 2019 after/when we'll do the needful.The cane we use for the Otuoke one still dey rooftop.

As to 2019 your comment is fair enough because I find those claiming that Otuoke man as better than Buhari as just hypocrites.

Buhari and this government is working and by 2019 hopefully what they are achieving will be much clearer than they are now.

But 4 years cannot repair a damage of a 5-year or an entire 16 years minus Ya'adua's time! So that implies that if Buhari and this government reverses the damage of this past 5 years by 2019 then Nigeria will be at the Ya'adua era and on a good stand to roll back Obasanjo era and then the proper rolling back of the military era which if not done Nigeria cannot achieve sustainable development.

Spidermon:



None of your examples were bed ridden during their tenures. Infact they were up and doing and did a lot for the US.

Pls dont dishonor their memory by comparing them with Buhari.

I wonder why you APC drones will go to any length to rationalize this regime's foolishness. Shame on you.

And you know for a fact that the President is bedridden. You didn't even read and understand the distinction between illness and incapacity that is contained in the comment neither did you even consider the context of of response.

There is so much blunt instrument, headline gazing commentary these days. We just need to deal with it and keep going.

Unlike your comment which is clearly political I have chosen to address issues. Because I know for a fact that invectives and abuse does not change anything; It merely allows people to get rid of their overflow of bile. For as long as a duly elected President is in office he has my support until the next election. I am not going to attack the pilot flying the plane I am traveling in.

The issue was does a President have to resign because he is sick? My answer is NO. He only needs to be removed or forced to resign when he is incapacitated. The issue of what constitutes incapacity is a matter for the courts to decide. This is how democracies are advanced an institutions made strong.

Everything else is beer parlour conversation.

greenpasture:


And you know for a fact that the President is bedridden. You didn't even read and understand the distinction between illness and incapacity that is contained in the comment neither did you even consider the context of of response.

There is so much blunt instrument, headline gazing commentary these days. We just need to deal with it and keep going.

Unlike your comment which is clearly political I have chosen to address issues. Because I know for a fact that invectives and abuse does not change anything; It merely allows people to get rid of their overflow of bile. For as long as a duly elected President is in office he has my support until the next election. I am not going to attack the pilot flying the plane I am traveling in.

The issue was does a President have to resign because he is sick? My answer is NO. He only needs to be removed or forced to resign when he is incapacitated. The issue of what constitutes incapacity is a matter for the courts to decide. This is how democracies are advanced an institutions made strong.

Everything else is beer parlour conversation.

You shouldnt have cooked up all that trash about US presidents. That was mechanic shed gossip.

...and do you know for a fact that your president isnt bedridden or even dead?

...do you think it is within your rights as a citizen to know the health status of your president?

N.B: Remember Obama had to release his birth certificate when rumors of his citizenship gained ground.

Those of you saying "#istandwithbuhari make una go stand and wait for am for hell

Spidermon:


You shouldnt have cooked up all that trash about US presidents. That was mechanic shed gossip.

...and do you know for a fact that your president isnt bedridden or even dead?

...do you think it is within your rights as a citizen to know the health status of your president?

N.B: Remember Obama had to release his birth certificate when rumors of his citizenship gained ground.

I have addressed your points. Write your senator and ask for the freedom of information act to be amended to compel public service holders to disclose their health condition.

As for the rest of your contribution I don't engage at that level.

greenpasture:


I have addressed your points. Write your senator and ask for the freedom of information act to be amended to compel public service holders to disclose their health condition.

As for the rest of your contribution I don't engage at that level.

If u want to write trash and not get responded to, stick with a diary.

U started this whole thing by telling lies about past US presidents.

Dont quote me again

Spidermon:


If u want to write trash and not get responded to, stick with a diary.

U started this whole thing by telling lies about past US presidents.

Dont quote me again

Telling lies about past Presidents when the news comes from the Financial times and Washington Post an BBC articles. That's trash? You obviously have no idea of scholarship and research. Of course I will keep quoting you. I will drum those links and show up your failed efforts to present yourself as a reasoned political commentator. Your prejudice keeps you from even doing basic research before making sweeping statements.

I am ready to show you up. Youve tangled with the wrong person. Reply and let's get started. I've got time for people like you.

Don't quote you ke? You've seen nothing yet. Start by clicking on there links below. That should be simple enough even for you.


Financial Times
https://www.ft.com/content/377f08c2-78f0-11e6-a0c6-39e2633162d5

Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/09/12/the-secret-history-of-presidential-disease-sickness-and-deception/?utm_term=.d9c201bc86fa

BBC
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37338018

greenpasture:


Telling lies about past Presidents when the news comes from the Financial times and Washington Post an BBC articles. That's trash? You obviously have no idea of scholarship and research. Of course I will keep quoting you. I will drum those links and show up your failed efforts to present yourself as a reasoned political commentator. Your prejudice keeps you from even doing basic research before making sweeping statements.

I am ready to show you up. Youve tangled with the wrong person. Reply and let's get started. I've got time for people like you.

Don't quote you ke? You've seen nothing yet. Start by clicking on there links below. That should be simple enough even for you.


Financial Times
https://www.ft.com/content/377f08c2-78f0-11e6-a0c6-39e2633162d5

Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/09/12/the-secret-history-of-presidential-disease-sickness-and-deception/?utm_term=.d9c201bc86fa

BBC
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37338018

Spent all night researching just for me?

Awwww....

Ok. I need articles that prove that all the US presidents you initially mentioned were flown out of their country and went incommunicado for this kinda length of time.

N:B : Unless you are not a product of the Nigerian educational system, pls miss me with all that scholastic high horse BS.

Spidermon:


Spent all night researching just for me?

Awwww....

Ok. I need articles that prove that all the US presidents you initially mentioned were flown out of their country and went incommunicado for this kinda length of time.

N:B : Unless you are not a product of the Nigerian educational system, pls miss me with all that scholastic high horse BS.

You don't know how to frame your research by identifying the underlying issues so instead you want research that has similar facts. This is K2 type thinking and it's perfectly ok to have this level of thinking even as an adult. Disability is no crime.

Here is the thing, you attempt to win an argument by reframing the question to suit your shifting position. That's not disability - that is intellectual dishonesty. You joined a conversation based on the question of whether " the president should resign or be impeached for sickness" The issues are "under what circumstances of illness should a sitting President resign or be impeached? I framed my answers thus;
1. There is a distinction between sickness and incapacity
2. Numerous American Presidents have served with serious ailments.
3. Incapacity can only be decided by the court and not by public opinion
4. In addition ,freedom of information act does not require a public servant to disclose his health issues. That is the current law

Of course you have a problem with issues so you do invectives and polemics. Unfortunately you don't realise you can leaving an audit trail of yourself all over the Internet. One that will haunt you sooner than later.

As for education, I think you suffer from a feeling of entitlement thinking that because you were not educated in Nigeria you are smarter than everyone who was. This is self deception on a grand scale and it is not even statistically true.

By the way if you want to compare our respective education, post your LinkedIn profile and I will post mine. Take of your mask a let's see what you've got. I won't run.

greenpasture:

You don't know how to frame your research by identifying the underlying issues so instead you want research that has similar facts. This is K2 type thinking and it's perfectly ok to have this level of thinking even as an adult. Disability is no crime.

Here is the thing, you attempt to win an argument by reframing the question to suit your shifting position. That's not disability - that is intellectual dishonesty. You joined a conversation based on the question of whether " the president should resign or be impeached for sickness" The issues are "under what circumstances of illness should a sitting President resign or be impeached? I framed my answers thus;
1. There is a distinction between sickness and incapacity
2. Numerous American Presidents have served with serious ailments.
3. Incapacity can only be decided by the court and not by public opinion
4. In addition ,freedom of information act does not require a public servant to disclose his health issues. That is the current law

Of course you have a problem with issues so you do invectives and polemics. Unfortunately you don't realise you can leaving an audit trail of yourself all over the Internet. One that will haunt you sooner than later.

As for education, I think you suffer from a feeling of entitlement thinking that because you were not educated in Nigeria you are smarter than everyone who was. This is self deception on a grand scale and it is not even statistically true.

By the way if you want to compare our respective education, post your LinkedIn profile and I will post mine. Take of your mask a let's see what you've got. I won't run.

I would ignore your first paragraph. That jab missed its mark with too wide a margin.

As for your second, I think you should recheck your initial post i quoted and compare with your rephrased points. You seem to be the one playing gymnastics with the facts.

Public servants can of course serve with serious ailments but not to the point where it generates enough negative speculation that the presidency's media team cant even quench. Buhari's condition until proven otherwise looks like incapacity.

It is the Legislative arm that impeachs, a arm of government whose actions majorly is driven by public opinion of their constituents....the same citizens who are asking for the truth. You think the US congress hasnt addressed matters of even lesser implications when it comes to the Presidency vs public opinion??

I have dropped my personal details many times on NL. People's anonymity has been breached with even less...to tell you i aint hiding.

And as for your remarks to my education, your inference from my statement concerning yours only illustrates how you jump to conclusions like a Lhasa puppy without gripping the point.

I am a product of the Nigerian system with a d@#$%& degree and I never said or implied otherwise. As for Linkedin profile, if you have a profitable offer for me, I will send it to you.

Now that opinions have been thoroughly expressed, that would be all.

If you throw any jabs at my person, wether it makes sense or not, I will ignore the meaning of the thread and get nasty with you. I no wear pant ooo.

Spidermon:


I would ignore your first paragraph. That jab missed its mark with too wide a margin.

As for your second, I think you should recheck your initial post i quoted and compare with your rephrased points. You seem to be the one playing gymnastics with the facts.

Public servants can of course serve with serious ailments but not to the point where it generates enough negative speculation that the presidency's media team cant even quench. Buhari's condition until proven otherwise looks like incapacity.

It is the Legislative arm that impeachs, a arm of government whose actions majorly is driven by public opinion of their constituents....the same citizens who are asking for the truth. You think the US congress hasnt addressed matters of even lesser implications when it comes to the Presidency vs public opinion??

I have dropped my personal details many times on NL. People's anonymity has been breached with even less...to tell you i aint hiding.

And as for your remarks to my education, your inference from my statement concerning yours only illustrates how you jump to conclusions like a Lhasa puppy without gripping the point.

I am a product of the Nigerian system with a d@#$%& degree and I never said or implied otherwise. As for Linkedin profile, if you have a profitable offer for me, I will send it to you.

Now that opinions have been thoroughly expressed, that would be all.

If you throw any jabs at my person, wether it makes sense or not, I will ignore the meaning of the thread and get nasty with you. I no wear pant ooo.

I will address the two points in your response. Other non cognitive points I will ignore. Emotional bias cannot be addressed by reason.

[/b]Public servants can of course serve with serious ailments but not to the point where it generates enough negative speculation that the presidency's media team cant even quench. Buhari's condition until proven otherwise looks like incapacity[b]

The burden of proving an assertion rests , and party making the assertion. The legal maxim is "EL INCOMBIT PROBOTION QUI DECIT NON QUI NEGAT ( He who asserts, not he who denies, must prove...) The Presidency does not need to prove th Presidents health, it is those that state otherwise that must prove that he is incapacitated. Public opinion can be expressed in 2019 during an election.


[/b]It is the Legislative arm that impeachs, a arm of government whose actions majorly is driven by public opinion of their constituents....the same citizens who are asking for the truth. You think the US congress hasnt addressed matters of even lesser implications when it comes to the Presidency vs public opinion??[b]
The action of the Legislative may be influenced by public sentiment but it remains subordinated to the Constitution which does not permit civil coups. The determination of the President's incapacity is a matter for the Supreme Court who will call expert witnesses to evidence and give all sides the opportunity to state their case. In the US, under the 25th amendment clause 4, the VP and the cabinet may tell the house that the President is incapacitated but even this is subject to the strictest proof by leading physicians acceptable to all parties.

I've been a lawyer since 1983 and there is no complexity here. The people will have their say and the courts will have their way. That is the beauty of democracy.

If the courts hold that the President is incapacitated and cannot perform his duties he will be removed and the VP sworn in to complete his term. For the matter to be left to the preserve of the House is to remove the possibility of an effective Government with a minority in both houses. Why did the majority of the US Senate and Representatives not remove Obama using their majority on the basis of right wing opinion? Simple, it was not in their power to do so without a legal challenge. Why do you think every President wants to stack the Supreme Court in their favour?

Regarding the other parts of your response, I am now inclined to be silent. Some things are self evident.

greenpasture:


I will address the two points in your response. Other non cognitive points I will ignore. Emotional bias cannot be addressed by reason.

[/b]Public servants can of course serve with serious ailments but not to the point where it generates enough negative speculation that the presidency's media team cant even quench. Buhari's condition until proven otherwise looks like incapacity[b]

The burden of proving an assertion rests , and party making the assertion. The legal maxim is "EL INCOMBIT PROBOTION QUI DECIT NON QUI NEGAT ( He who asserts, not he who denies, must prove...) The Presidency does not need to prove th Presidents health, it is those that state otherwise that must prove that he is incapacitated. Public opinion can be expressed in 2019 during an election.


[/b]It is the Legislative arm that impeachs, a arm of government whose actions majorly is driven by public opinion of their constituents....the same citizens who are asking for the truth. You think the US congress hasnt addressed matters of even lesser implications when it comes to the Presidency vs public opinion??[b]
The action of the Legislative may be influenced by public sentiment but it remains subordinated to the Constitution which does not permit civil coups. The determination of the President's incapacity is a matter for the Supreme Court who will call expert witnesses to evidence and give all sides the opportunity to state their case. In the US, under the 25th amendment clause 4, the VP and the cabinet may tell the house that the President is incapacitated but even this is subject to the strictest proof by leading physicians acceptable to all parties.

I've been a lawyer since 1983 and there is no complexity here. The people will have their say and the courts will have their way. That is the beauty of democracy.

If the courts hold that the President is incapacitated and cannot perform his duties he will be removed and the VP sworn in to complete his term. For the matter to be left to the preserve of the House is to remove the possibility of an effective Government with a minority in both houses. Why did the majority of the US Senate and Representatives not remove Obama using their majority on the basis of right wing opinion? Simple, it was not in their power to do so without a legal challenge. Why do you think every President wants to stack the Supreme Court in their favour?

Regarding the other parts of your response, I am now inclined to be silent. Some things are self evident.

Sir,

I apologize.

I mistakened you for one of the paid political agents on this forum hence my vitriolics. I realize now that is far from the case and that you were just being objective, as only a lawyer could in our present political circumstances and I can deduce now you are my elder.

Accept my best wishes.

Spidermon:


Sir,

I apologize.

I mistakened you for one of the paid political agents on this forum hence my vitriolics. I realize now that is far from the case and that you were just being objective, as only a lawyer could in our present political circumstances and I can deduce now you are my elder.

Accept my best wishes.

Thank you.
I know there are a lot of paid agents of all persuasions on these forums and the mistake is easy to make. My original purpose of being here was to stay in touch with the feelings and aspirations of millenials, Gen X and Gen Y as I have a tech/ social enterprise incubator in lagos and many of our people come from these age brackets. Unfortunately I sometimes get drawn into these discussions and sometimes that's good, sometimes not.

Your apology is accepted but I hope this will not stop you from politely butbfirmly disagreeing with older people where you are convinced to the contrary. Each disagreement drives us to discovery and provides resistance to the hijack of the state solely on the basis of age. Stay sharp and focused. We are passing through a period when our attention is bring taken up into short term news that does not progress our capabilities or mission.

Don't allow Nigeria to frustrate you as it did prior generations, wasting them in the process. In every challenge there is opportunity. Believe me. Look for opportunity and Innovate to conquer it. Money is not as important as they would have you believe. They only want you to think that way to frustrate you and make you dependent on them. That is the way they conquer society. There are grants, venture philanthropic funds and of course local Incubators an accelerators.

I wish you well and trust and pray that you will find mission, resource and fulfilment.

greenpasture:


I will address the two points in your response. Other non cognitive points I will ignore. Emotional bias cannot be addressed by reason.

[/b]Public servants can of course serve with serious ailments but not to the point where it generates enough negative speculation that the presidency's media team cant even quench. Buhari's condition until proven otherwise looks like incapacity[b]

The burden of proving an assertion rests , and party making the assertion. The legal maxim is "EL INCOMBIT PROBOTION QUI DECIT NON QUI NEGAT ( He who asserts, not he who denies, must prove...) The Presidency does not need to prove th Presidents health, it is those that state otherwise that must prove that he is incapacitated. Public opinion can be expressed in 2019 during an election.


[/b]It is the Legislative arm that impeachs, a arm of government whose actions majorly is driven by public opinion of their constituents....the same citizens who are asking for the truth. You think the US congress hasnt addressed matters of even lesser implications when it comes to the Presidency vs public opinion??[b]
The action of the Legislative may be influenced by public sentiment but it remains subordinated to the Constitution which does not permit civil coups. The determination of the President's incapacity is a matter for the Supreme Court who will call expert witnesses to evidence and give all sides the opportunity to state their case. In the US, under the 25th amendment clause 4, the VP and the cabinet may tell the house that the President is incapacitated but even this is subject to the strictest proof by leading physicians acceptable to all parties.

I've been a lawyer since 1983 and there is no complexity here. The people will have their say and the courts will have their way. That is the beauty of democracy.

If the courts hold that the President is incapacitated and cannot perform his duties he will be removed and the VP sworn in to complete his term. For the matter to be left to the preserve of the House is to remove the possibility of an effective Government with a minority in both houses. Why did the majority of the US Senate and Representatives not remove Obama using their majority on the basis of right wing opinion? Simple, it was not in their power to do so without a legal challenge. Why do you think every President wants to stack the Supreme Court in their favour?

Regarding the other parts of your response, I am now inclined to be silent. Some things are self evident.

Let me come in here.
I don't know who's constitution you've been reading,but the determination of the President's incapacity lies with the Federal Executive Council and the National Assembly,as per the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.The Judiciary has no role,whatsoever.
It's strictly the Cabinet and the National Assembly.
The FEC sets the ball rolling,while the NASS constitutes the medical panel that reports on the President's health and also accepts and give effect to said report.

Dhugal:

Let me come in here.
I don't know who's constitution you've been reading,but the determination of the President's incapacity lies with the Federal Executive Council and the National Assembly,as per the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.The Judiciary has no role,whatsoever.
It's strictly the Cabinet and the National Assembly.
The FEC sets the ball rolling,while the NASS constitutes the medical panel that reports on the President's health and also accepts and give effect to said report.

None of the bodies you've mentioned can interpret the law. They can only function in this way in the absence of a legal challenge. The Constitutional provision providing for the cabinet and the house to work together only function without outside involvement where the issue of incapacity is uncontested. The Constitution as is silent on the process of a contested removal on the grounds of incapacity. In such a case; and there a gaps in constitutional law, they are filled by judicial interpretation.

greenpasture:


None of the bodies you've mentioned can interpret the law. They can only function in this way in the absence of a legal challenge. The Constitutional provision providing for the cabinet and the house to work together only function without outside involvement where the issue of incapacity is uncontested. The Constitution as is silent on the process of a contested removal on the grounds of incapacity. In such a case; and there a gaps in constitutional law, they are filled by judicial interpretation.

"....contested removal on the grounds of incapacity".
You're shifting the goal post noe,aren't you?.
The Constitution laid down all the steps that need be taken before a president or his vice can be removed on grounds of incapacity.Quite liberal steps,if I should say,and none involved the judiciary.Only the FEC,the medical panel of five,which must include the subject's personal physician,and the National Assembly who must give immediate effect to the panel's report as soon as it's submitted.
See Section 144 CFRN
A contest can only come in if one or so of the enunciated step is not followed,and the courts only to correct the oversight or have the process done over.Procedural correction,not involving itself in the decision arrived at.
In clearer terms,the courts cannot question the medical panel's report,only that the subject's personal physician is involved.Neither can it query the FEC invoking the process nor the National Assembly setting up the panel.
Seems you're inputting the US system/relevant constitutional article here,maybe you should acquaint yourself more with the relevant Nigerian constitutional provisions

Dhugal:

"....contested removal on the grounds of incapacity".
You're shifting the goal post noe,aren't you?.
The Constitution laid down all the steps that need be taken before a president or his vice can be removed on grounds of incapacity.Quite liberal steps,if I should say,and none involved the judiciary.Only the FEC,the medical panel of five,which must include the subject's personal physician,and the National Assembly who must give immediate effect to the panel's report as soon as it's submitted.
See Section 144 CFRN
A contest can only come in if one or so of the enunciated step is not followed,and the courts only to correct the oversight or have the process done over.Procedural correction,not involving itself in the decision arrived at.
In clearer terms,the courts cannot question the medical panel's report,only that the subject's personal physician is involved.Neither can it query the FEC invoking the process nor the National Assembly setting up the panel.
Seems you're inputting the US system/relevant constitutional article here,maybe you should acquaint yourself more with the relevant Nigerian constitutional provisions

The people that wrote both the US a a Nigerian Constitution were smart people. They knew that there was a possibility that an elected President could be removed by a small number of people working in concert. The very fact that a process has been put in place does not oust judicial intervention. The constitution does not develop through the actions of one or two functions of the polity. It creates space for all three.

The very fact that you and I are discussing this, shows where a matter like this would end up. No process can oust the jurisdiction of the courts except by express provision and the side by side provision of an alternative method for resolving disputes.

greenpasture:


The people that wrote both the US a a Nigerian Constitution were smart people. They knew that there was a possibility that an elected President could be removed by a small number of people working in concert. The very fact that a process has been put in place does not oust judicial intervention. The constitution does not develop through the actions of one or two functions of the polity. It creates space for all three.

The very fact that you and I are discussing this, shows where a matter like this would end up. No process can oust the jurisdiction of the courts except by express provision and the side by side provision of an alternative method for resolving disputes.

"The people that wrote both the US a a Nigerian Constitution were smart people."
You give the Nigerian side way too much credit,but we'll leave that.
No one said that there's an ouster of the Judiciary when it comes to Constitutional interpretation.
My position is that the section dealing with incapacitation of the president laid out clear,yet simple steps to take going about his ouster on that score.Following the steps religiously,to wit two-third of the FEC voting to start the process,a panel of five medical personnel,including the subject's personal physician,investigating and submitting their report to the NASS leadership,the NASS publishing said report and pronto,subject is removed.It doesn't matter if a minority writes a dissenting report.
The courts can only intervene if one or more of these steps is not followed.Otherwise,their jurisdiction is inherently ousted.They come in only if there is procedural anomaly,not cause of contest or dissent to the vote of the two-third majority in the FEC or of majority of the medical panel's report.
See the provisions of Section 143,dealing with impeachment of president/vp due to "gross misconduct".

Dhugal:

"The people that wrote both the US a a Nigerian Constitution were smart people."
You give the Nigerian side way too much credit,but we'll leave that.
No one said that there's an ouster of the Judiciary when it comes to Constitutional interpretation.
My position is that the section dealing with incapacitation of the president laid out clear,yet simple steps to take going about his ouster on that score.Following the steps religiously,to wit two-third of the FEC voting to start the process,a panel of five medical personnel,including the subject's personal physician,investigating and submitting their report to the NASS leadership,the NASS publishing said report and pronto,subject is removed.It doesn't matter if a minority writes a dissenting report.
The courts can only intervene if one or more of these steps is not followed.Otherwise,their jurisdiction is inherently ousted.They come in only if there is procedural anomaly,not cause of contest or dissent to the vote of the two-third majority in the FEC or of majority of the medical panel's report.
See the provisions of Section 143,dealing with impeachment of president/vp due to "gross misconduct".

One question?
Is "incapacity" defined in the Constitution? If it is not, who defines it? Is there any appeal lying from such an interpretation.

The constitution is a developing document. This flexibility is built in to prevent it from becoming irrelevant to technology, societal changes and so on. The way in which it grows and assumes greater definition is through through development of case law and convention.

We are approaching this from two different roads. You are focused on the existing process considering it full and complete, I have have anticipatory approach knowing that the definition of incapacity can never be made by five wise doctors no matter who they may be. The country has not entrusted these five people with such weighty responsibility and NASS cannot contract them vicariously. It is the SC which has the final say on matters pertaining to such matters and although they are not expressly mentioned within the process we can take notice that they are not ousted by it.

If I may say so both approaches have merit and if we do not accept that an elephant looks different from different angles then we will bat endlessly to and fro without adding anything to the discussion.

greenpasture:


One question?
Is "incapacity" defined in the Constitution? If it is not, who defines it? Is there any appeal lying from such an interpretation.

The constitution is a developing document. This flexibility is built in to prevent it from becoming irrelevant to technology, societal changes and so on. The way in which it grows and assumes greater definition is through through development of case law and convention.

We are approaching this from two different roads. You are focused on the existing process considering it full and complete, I have have anticipatory approach knowing that the definition of incapacity can never be made by five wise doctors no matter who they may be. The country has not entrusted these five people with such weighty responsibility and NASS cannot contract them vicariously. It is the SC which has the final say on matters pertaining to such matters and although they are not expressly mentioned within the process we can take notice that they are not ousted by it.

If I may say so both approaches have merit and if we do not accept that an elephant looks different from different angles then we will bat endlessly to and fro without adding anything to the discussion.

Actually,the constitution did entrust said five with such weighty responsibility.
Incapacity is whatever they say it is,be it physical or mental.
And the provisions of said section are cast in stone,unless and until it's amended by the legislature
Herein lies the difference between the US constitution you're familiar with and ours.Ours is interpreted most times literally,especially when said provisions uses MANDATORY words like "shall".It becomes binding,no wriggle room to adapt it to the times.
Tell you what,download a copy of the Nigerian constitution and acquaint yourself with its provisions.I bet you,you'll start seeing the difference between what you think ought to be,given your experience of the US system,and what actually is.

Dhugal:

Actually,the constitution did entrust said five with such weighty responsibility.
And the provisions of said section are cast in stone,unless and until it's amended by the legislature
Herein lies the difference between the US constitution you're familiar with and ours.Ours is interpreted most times literally,especially when said provisions uses MANDATORY words like "shall".It becomes binding,no wriggle room to adapt it to the times.

Your answer is perfect. And does it say and the ruling of such five men is final and without recourse to appeal?

I fear I will have to leave this though. Thank you for the additional light you've shed on the matter.

greenpasture:


Your answer is perfect. And does it say and the ruling of such five men is final and without recourse to appeal?

I fear I will have to leave this though. Thank you for the additional light you've shed on the matter.

Alright.
About leaving myself.
Have a nice day