First of all, let me start by saying am not in anyway a legal luminary but I am going to try and base my suggestion and arguments on facts
Section 50 of the Constitution said 2/3 of the members of the house can remove, nothing about any quorum or something in the regard
Section 143 of the Constitution clearly states it that 2/3 of the whole members in the house can impeach a governor or president,no mention of the quorum
By comparing and contrasting these two sections of the Constitution,is the eminent professor saying the 2/3 mentioned in section 50 is different from section 143??

In 1999 when the senate president EVAN ENWEREM was impeached on allegations of Age falsification ,he was remove by 90 senators of the 99 present that day

His successor CHUBA OKADIGBO was impeached in 2000, 81 members voted for his removal while 11 voted against it.
In this two instances it Wasn't a quorum that voted for the impeachment despite the PDP clearly having the majority in the house ,
2/3 of the entire senate were definitely present on the days they were impeached.
The 2/3 is definitely of the entire senate ,this is done to have a semblance of stability in the leadership of the senate ,if not it will be a case of new week ,new senate leader.
It will amount to an aberration if 18 members which is two-thirds of the quorum as suggested by Prof. Itse sagay vote and impeach the senate president.
It will plunge this nation into an era of political unrest and instability .

Ok

Pa Sagay Has Lost it completely ...

I think no one should be angry with Him..

Life is a Cycle... and There comes a certain age or period when a person begins to react in an uncommon manner...

It's alright!!

2odd:
First of all, let me start by saying am not in anyway a legal luminary but I am going to try and base my suggestion and arguments on facts
Section 50 of the Constitution said 2/3 of the members of the house can remove, nothing about any quorum or something in the regard
Section 143 of the Constitution clearly states it that 2/3 of the whole members in the house can impeach a governor or president,no mention of the quorum
By comparing and contrasting these two sections of the Constitution,is the eminent professor saying the 2/3 mentioned in section 50 is different from section 143??

In 1999 when the senate president EVAN ENWEREM was impeached on allegations of Age falsification ,he was remove by 90 senators of the 99 present that day

His successor CHUBA OKADIGBO was impeached in 2000, 81 members voted for his removal while 11 voted against it.
In this two instances it Wasn't a quorum that voted for the impeachment despite the PDP clearly having the majority in the house ,
2/3 of the entire senate were definitely present on the days they were impeached.
The 2/3 is definitely of the entire senate ,this is done to have a semblance of stability in the leadership of the senate ,if not it will be a case of new week ,new senate leader.
It will amount to an aberration if 18 members which is two-thirds of the quorum as suggested by Prof. Itse sagay vote and impeach the senate president.
It will plunge this nation into an era of political unrest and instability .

Why don't you leave that to the lawyers to handle.
Since you can't second guess a doctor or engineer,let the professionals do their thing.
You and i know the word CAN in a sentence means one thing but to a lawyer that same CAN means more than one thing.

Boss there's nothing professional about interpretation of English language, if I raise 4 fingers up ,you can simply say it's 4 but , When and if you want to muddle it up ,you will say "it seems like 4"
Prof Sagay just want to set a bad precedent in the house with his unbridled utterances

dat9jaguy:




Why don't you leave that to the lawyers to handle.
Since you can't second guess a doctor or engineer,let the professionals do their thing.
You and i know the word CAN in a sentence means one thing but to a lawyer that same CAN means more than one thing.

2odd:
Boss there's nothing professional about interpretation of English language, if I raise 4 fingers up ,you can simply say it's 4 but , When and if you want to muddle it up ,you will say "it seems like 4"
Prof Sagay just want to set a bad precedent in the house with his unbridled utterances

Simple!

instead of APC to challenge their resources to confront the problems (bokoharam,kidnapping,armed robbery, herdsmen attack and others) besieging the country, they are there wasting millions of naira in an attempt to remove saraki, they are using saraki to distract some sensible nigerians from realising how woefully they have failed.

2odd:
Boss there's nothing professional about interpretation of English language, if I raise 4 fingers up ,you can simply say it's 4 but , When and if you want to muddle it up ,you will say "it seems like 4"
Prof Sagay just want to set a bad precedent in the house with his unbridled utterances

but saraki was elected in the presence of of only 57 senators which is not up to 2/3 of the total 109 senators, so what did the law say about it?

instead of APC to channel their resources to confront the problems (bokoharam,kidnapping,armed robbery, herdsmen attack and others) besieging the country, they are there wasting millions of naira in an attempt to remove saraki, they are using saraki to distract some sensible nigerians from realising how woefully they have failed.

SUPERPACK:
but saraki was elected in the presence of of only 57 senators which is not up to 2/3 of the total 109 senators, so what did the law say about it?

You do not need a law degree here. Elected officers are protected by constitution. Was President Buhari elected by 2/3 of voters? He got there by simple majority and winning at least 1/3 of 2/3 of the states. Even GEJ got 1/3 of more than 24 states, Buhari won by simple majority.
President of the Senate is elected by simple majority once a quorum is formed. Removal is a different kettle of fish.

at least we know prof sagay...please who are you?.... you guys need to spend more time developing yourselves, instead of quoting politicians that don't care about you...they are all the same.. saraki,oshiomole, and co

After he has been impeached, he can go to court for redress and APC will take it to Supreme court for interpretation. The legal battle would be over after 2019 election.

The law says Senate President can be impeached by the votes of not less than two-thirds majority of the members of that House. The colored red phrase does not say the total 109 members or those present in the plenary. So until the Supreme court gives us a clear definition, APC can go ahead and let those not in fine-tune with the impeachment should held to court.

Like Oshiomhole mentioned, there is no illegality in impeachment of a senate head and his deputy. There is no illegality if APC fires on. There are lot of precedence the party will fall on. The worst PDP will do is to call an international conference, make some noise on the pages of newspaper, television and radio, boil the cyber space with silly rants and go to court. Now of this action is going to return Saraki to senate president seat

FOLYKAZE:
After he has been impeached, he can go to court for redress and APC will take it to Supreme court for interpretation. The legal battle would be over after 2019 election.

The law says Senate President can be impeached by the votes of not less than two-thirds majority of the members of that House. The colored red phrase does not say the total 109 members or those present in the plenary. So until the Supreme court gives us a clear definition, APC can go ahead and let those not in fine-tune with the impeachment should held to court.

Like Oshiomhole mentioned, there is no illegality in impeachment of a senate head and his deputy. There is no illegality if APC fires on. There are lot of precedence the party will fall on. The worst PDP will do is to call an international conference, make some noise on the pages of newspaper, television and radio, boil the cyber space with silly rants and go to court. Now of this action is going to return Saraki to senate president seat

Am not saying saraki shouldn't/can't be removed ,but APC should do so legally, under no law will 24 or so members impeach the senate president.
What's stopping PDP members to remove whoever APC put there under 24 hrs ?? At least they have about 49 or so members. The rollercoaster will go on for ever ,no meaningful thing will be achieved.

2odd:

Am not saying saraki shouldn't/can't be removed ,but APC should do so legally, under no law will 24 or so members impeach the senate president.
What's stopping PDP members to remove whoever APC put there under 24 hrs ?? At least they have about 49 or so members. The rollercoaster will go on for ever ,no meaningful thing will be achieved.

APC should go ahead if they have the ⅔ of the senate sitting in the plenary on that day. The court will sort the rest. Goodnight

babyfaceafrica:
at least we know prof sagay...please who are you?.... you guys need to spend more time developing yourselves, instead of quoting politicians that don't care about you...they are all the same.. saraki,oshiomole, and co

Mr developer, standing aloof and not keeping abreast of the situation in ur country is criminal to be blunt, saying the right thing and dissuading illegality won't stop you or I from developing ourselves ,right ??.

FOLYKAZE:


APC should go ahead if they have the ⅔ of the senate sitting in the plenary on that day. The court will sort the rest. Goodnight

My dear if you even succeed with this on the Monday the reverse will happen immediately on Tuesday

Nobody will go to court for you

You think you have absolute control of the security forces but you forgot that while you have been in power for 3.5 years, PDP has been there for 16years

If you want to invite Anarchy Goodluck with that but it may not necessarily go your way!

FOLYKAZE:


APC should go ahead if they have the ⅔ of the senate sitting in the plenary on that day. The court will sort the rest. Goodnight

Well the APC will never have 2/3 of sitting of any plenary. You idiots has already made your plots public.

krendo:


My dear if you even succeed with this on the Monday the reverse will happen immediately on Tuesday

Nobody will go to court for you

You think you have absolute control of the security forces but you forgot that while you have been in power for 3.5 years, PDP has been there for 16years

If you want to invite Anarchy Goodluck with that but it may not necessarily go your way!

Don't mind the idiots.No one will go to any court. Any illegal impeachment won't stand, Saraki will remain Senate president and they will be the ones to go to court

dat9jaguy:




Why don't you leave that to the lawyers to handle.
Since you can't second guess a doctor or engineer,let the professionals do their thing.
You and i know the word CAN in a sentence means one thing but to a lawyer that same CAN means more than one thing.

Take this level of shallowness away from here please

@OP, you've further substantiated Sagay's innovative interpretation of the senate President's removal. Was it the entire senate members that were required for him to be made a senate president? If no is your answer, what makes you think senate sittings are held with all senators available in the chamber? It's the number present in a sitting that there decision matters and not that of those absent. Sagay is indeed, a professor of law. Let SANs dispute his averment and not a lay man like you.

He is not a Mathematician. He is just a clumsy Lawyer.

JusticeSeeker:
@OP, you've further substantiated Sagay's innovative interpretation of the senate President's removal. Was it the entire senate members that were required for him to be made a senate president? If no is your answer, what makes you think senate sittings are held with all senators available in the chamber? It's the number present in a sitting that there decision matters and not that of those absent. Sagay is indeed, a professor of law. Let SANs dispute his averment and not a lay man like you.

Simple question,was it the whole nigeria that voted for Buhari ??,
Pls go and read section 50 of the nigerian Constitution
And 57 Senators voted for him,57 out of 109 leave you with 52,
In cricket they call something unassailable lead ,meaning there's no way he's gonna lose even if the rest voted against him,
The law did not say 2/3 of the entire have to be present for him to be elected.
But to remove him you need 2/3 of the entire house ,not 2/3 of a quorum.
Section 50 (2)b
when the House of which he was a member first sits after any dissolution of that House;
This part clearly state wat that "house" mean not 2/3 or 1/3
It means the entire house ,which mean if the senate president is in his first year at the end of the eighth republic,he won't carry the presidency from *that* house , eighth republic to the ninth republic.which is another house entirely.
The law is very clear, it's simple English not aramic or hieroglyphics

2odd:

Simple question,was it the whole nigeria that voted for Buhari ??,
Pls go and read section 50 of the nigerian Constitution

You simply refuse to be logical? It's highly improbable that an entire 109 senators will be at a sitting. Example, One is in jail right now, 2 seats are vacant as a result of death, on a good day, some may go abroad for official functions. Now, a decision made by those behind can't be legal because because it's not the entire 109 senators that took the decision. Is that your thinking? Guy get some sense.

JusticeSeeker:
@OP, you've further substantiated Sagay's innovative interpretation of the senate President's removal. Was it the entire senate members that were required for him to be made a senate president? If no is your answer, what makes you think senate sittings are held with all senators available in the chamber? It's the number present in a sitting that there decision matters and not that of those absent. Sagay is indeed, a professor of law. Let SANs dispute his averment and not a lay man like you.

Go and check the Constitution..... it requires only a simply majority of the house to elect both officials.....its stated clearly.

JusticeSeeker:
You simply refuse to be logical? It's highly improbable that an entire 109 senators will be at a sitting. Example, One is in jail right now, 2 seats are vacant as a result of death, on a good day, some may go abroad for official functions. Now, a decision made by those behind can't be legal because because it's not the entire 109 senators that took the decision. Is that your thinking? Guy get some sense.

No you are the illogical one here 2/3 of the entire house ,have to vote for the senate president removal , 80 can be present
I can see that you clearly didn't read the two examples ,not all members were present when Evan ENWEREM and CHUBA OKADIGBO were impeached but more than 2/3 of the entire house voted for their removal .

Amitez:


You do not need a law degree here. Elected officers are protected by constitution. Was President Buhari elected by 2/3 of voters? He got there by simple majority and winning at least 1/3 of 2/3 of the states. Even GEJ got 1/3 of more than 24 states, Buhari won by simple majority.
President of the Senate is elected by simple majority once a quorum is formed. Removal is a different kettle of fish.

The summary is that you accepted your ignorance by confessing that you are neither a lawyer nor an Authority


Legal matters are beyond mere English language and that's why lawyers are hired to interpret the Constitution


Thinking that an Authority in Law like Sagay doesn't know what the Constitution says shows only your level of delusion and hatred for PMB

Even the 2/3 of plenary the APC will not see.Their majority us even very thin. Even if 10 PDP senators are absent at plenary, they still will not be able to secure 2/3 majority of that sitting. There are only noise makers and empty chest beaters

JusticeSeeker:
@OP, you've further substantiated Sagay's innovative interpretation of the senate President's removal. Was it the entire senate members that were required for him to be made a senate president? If no is your answer, what makes you think senate sittings are held with all senators available in the chamber? It's the number present in a sitting that there decision matters and not that of those absent. Sagay is indeed, a professor of law. Let SANs dispute his averment and not a lay man like you.

Trash

greatiyk4u:



The summary is that you accepted your ignorance by confessing that you are neither a lawyer nor an Authority


Legal matters are beyond mere English language and that's why lawyers are hired to interpret the Constitution


Thinking that an Authority in Law like Sagay doesn't know what the Constitution says shows only your level of delusion and hatred for PMB

Really !!! , So law is now abstract algebra where the meaning of words like concurrently is different from the English meaning ,abi ?
Let me bust your bubble, HAROLD J. STEWART defended himself in court without a lawyer in a murder case and guess what , he WON, without the so called law interpreters

Edward lawson
Jackie dinorsico
Gideon v wainright

krendo:


My dear if you even succeed with this on the Monday the reverse will happen immediately on Tuesday

Nobody will go to court for you

You think you have absolute control of the security forces but you forgot that while you have been in power for 3.5 years, PDP has been there for 16years

If you want to invite Anarchy Goodluck with that but it may not necessarily go your way!

PDP and scare mongering. No one blink an eye for chicken little like you. Cheers

Have you noticed no lawyer has challenged the prof?

Only people who think they know too much