₦airaland Forum

Tetehjewels:
You clearly are not since you never bothered to take into consideration every expression as laid down in what you tried to argue against

is it that simple to argue with an ignorant? I think otherwise not for political affliation or anything sentimental but for sanity of society everyody must not be mad..

Enjoy ur evening Honourable.

Buckubuck:
The CCT does not have such powers to order the suspension of the CJN. Buhari and his co-presidents in the presidency are just being clever by half

That is why we should encourage the suspended CJN to appeal the CCT order. Until a superior court sets it aside, it remains very valid.

What most Nigerians don't understand is that in a presidential system of Govt like what happens in Nigeria or the US, the President has so much powers that is backed by the constitution. The President can do and undo, imagine trump shutting down all fed govt parastatals for over a month now just because he wants money for a border wall. If you check the constitution properly and not just the one side the cjn supporters are quoting, there are sections that back all what pmb has done today. The President in a presidential system of govt is too powerful and can hire or fire any day or time. This also applies to Governors in their states, they can fire or hire any judge they want.

This is why I prefer the parliamentary system of govt where every govt policy and procedure is discussed in the parliament by the prime minister which to me is the best form of democracy but in the presidential system of govt, the president is the numero uno. Obj, yar adua and gej all exhibited this executive powers even when we thought that they have breached our constitution. That's the just the way it is like the way Donald trump is firing too in the US

seunmsg:
The CCT order remains valid until the court of appeal sets it aside. As at today, there is no court of appeal order setting aside the order of the CCT.

I understand that the appeal court already refrained the CCT from hearing or ruling on the matter.

Buckubuck:
If you are not being mischievous, you'll realize that this act says "power" to remove or suspend. The power here is not absolute for the president especially if there are laws which are spelt out in the constitution for removal. If we are to follow your logic, then it can be said that since the president can only be elected by popular vote, then he can only be removed by popular vote. This we all know is not true since he can be impeached by the national assembly subject to the Chief Justice's committee, or by a proclamation of the FEC. In other words, it has been clearly spelt out here that the process of suspension OR removal should be the same as clearly spelt out in the constitution.

The word there is REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION.

Buhari did not remove as covered by the constitution on who should do that before buhari can act.

He suspended and the constitution is silent on this

NothingDoMe:
For those saying suspension is not removal

Legal interpretation is not for your dictionary

Afriifa:
is it that simple to argue with an ignorant? I think otherwise not for political affliation or anything sentimental but for sanity of society everyody must not be mad..

Enjoy ur evening Honourable.

You just said nothing at the end of the day

the interpretation act is a subset of the constitution which enables you to interpret the main constitution.
it does not act in isolation different from your constitution.
the president can appoint as interpreted by the interpretation act and can remove as defined in the interpretation act.
therefore the president cannot remove,suspend if he does not fulfill what is required in the constitution.
just deal with it.the president has broking the law

Tetehjewels:
Legal interpretation is not for your dictionary

The law is a horse my learned friend. Such was the case a year or two ago when magu's case was being deliberated.

But You forgot that Buhari does not have the power to unilaterally appoint the Chief justice without the recommendation of the Judicial Commission hence he lack the legal jurispondence to unilaterally suspend or remove without recourse to Law and procedure .

You laws apply mostly to the appointment of Ministers

seunmsg:
I really don’t need to validate my smartness before you but for record purpose, the CBN provides for how the CBN governor can be removed.

just listen to yourself. do you believe you made sense?

NothingDoMe:
The law is a horse my learned friend. Such was the case a year or two ago when magu's case was being deliberated.

My friend Ei incumbit probatio qui

seunmsg:
Even though the interpretation act gives the president the power to suspend the CJN, PMB acted based on a very clear order of the CCT. The president cannot refuse to obey a valid court order. Onnoghen should go to court to challenge the order if he’s aggrieved.

see your life,abeg why didn't d dullard obeyed court injunction on d release of dasuki, ,I pity you

baralatie:
the interpretation act is a subset of the constitution which enables you to interpret the main constitution.
it does not act in isolation different from your constitution.
the president can appoint as interpreted by the interpretation act and can remove as defined in the interpretation act.
therefore the president cannot remove,suspend if he does not fulfill what is required in the constitution.
just deal with it.the president has broking the law

You need to understand the quagmire the constitution has placed itself by creating a loophole within itself.

The constitution when declaring the conditions for the REMOVAL of the CJN was specific with the word REMOVAL.

Nowhere did it mention suspension and this in itself is a constitutional error which can be legally exploited and that is what Buhari has legally done.

Can you show me where the constitution included suspension when talking about the removal of the CJN?

Tetehjewels:
You need to understand the quagmire the constitution has placed itself by creating a loophole within itself.

The constitution when declaring the conditions for the REMOVAL of the CJN was specific with the word REMOVAL.

Nowhere did it mention suspension and this in itself is a constitutional error which can be legally exploited and that is what Buhari has legally done.

Can you show me where the constitution included suspension when talking about the removal of the CJN?

meaning the removal of the CJN is illegal

baralatie:
meaning the removal of the CJN is illegal

No!

Meaning it is very legal because the constitution places no limitations on Mr President when it comes to a suspension. It only does so when it comes to a removal

Tetehjewels:
This CJN suspension issue and those crying foul are clearly mischief makers and in some ways may have been benefiting from the CJN and his rulings.

Attached is the Interpretation Act Chapter 192 of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990.

Kindly find attached the section 11 under Construction of Statutory powers and duties

Everyone should read it and digest it.the full link has also been provided.


http://www.nigeria-law.org/Interpretation%20Act.htm

Mynd44, lalasticlala

Nice one there. However, you need the Interpretation Act where there are ambiguities.

Secondly, every law in Nigeria takes its root from the Constitution, where the Constitution states expressly on a thing, another law cannot state otherwise.

What you are saying is that if he has the power to appoint, he should have the power to fire but in firing, recourse must be had to the Constitution.

omogidi234:
Nice one there. However, you need the Interpretation Act where there are ambiguities.

Secondly, every law in Nigeria takes its root from the Constitution, where the Constitution states expressly on a thing, another law cannot state otherwise.

What you are saying is that if he has the power to appoint, he should have the power to fire but in firing, recourse must be had to the Constitution.

Exactly! And the constitution only places a limitation on the President when it comes to removal and not when it comes to SUSPENSION .

In this regard Mr President has acted within the very boundaries of the law

Tetehjewels:
Exactly! And the constitution only places a limitation on the President when it comes to removal and not when it comes to SUSPENSION .

In this regard Mr President has acted within the very boundaries of the law

The President cannot suspend a judge not to mention the CJN.

Tetehjewels:
No!

Meaning it is very legal because the constitution places no limitations on Mr President when it comes to a suspension. It only does so when it comes to a removal

the interpretation act works in line with the main constitution. Mr president cannot introduce suspension into the body of the main constitution when it is clear that to suspend does not apply in this case because it does not exist in this particular case.it might exist in other bodies of constitution where it is defined in the constitution for example a serving minister.That is why you now have the c part which is stated clearly













8

'9
 









seunmsg:
Even though the interpretation act gives the president the power to suspend the CJN, PMB acted based on a very clear order of the CCT. The president cannot refuse to obey a valid court order. Onnoghen should go to court to challenge the order if he’s aggrieved.

Understood. But remember court of appeal has already halt same case right??

princemillla:
Understood. But remember court of appeal has already halt same case right??

Halting the trial of Onnoghen for breach of asset declaration law is an entirely different matter. FG applied to the CCT to order the suspension of the CJN and the tribunal gave the order. Onnoghen or any other interested party can only get the order set aside by appealing to the court of appeal afresh.

NothingDoMe:
I understand that the appeal court already refrained the CCT from hearing or ruling on the matter.

Yes you are right but the President chose to obey the CCT.

seunmsg:
Halting the trial of Onnoghen for breach of asset declaration law is an entirely different matter. FG applied to the CCT to order the suspension of the CJN and the tribunal gave the order. Onnoghen or any other interested party can only get the order set aside by appealing to the court of appeal afresh.

Dear friend, please download a PDF of the CCT Act 2004. I know the National Assembly has amended it but I am not sure the President has assented the new bill.

There is nothing in that law that permits the CCT to order the suspension of a Judge or CJN. Rather, the law says it shall order the removal of any public officer once he has been found guilty.

So the CCT has not even commenced the case not to mention judgment and it is ordering suspension!

omogidi234:
Dear friend, please download a PDF of the CCT Act 2004. I know the National Assembly has amended it but I am not sure the President has assented the new bill.

There is nothing in that law that permits the CCT to order the suspension of a Judge or CJN. Rather, the law says it shall order the removal of any public officer once he has been found guilty.

So the CCT has not even commenced the case not to mention judgment and it is ordering suspension!

The fact that a court can make mistake in the administration of justice is why we have appellate courts. If the CCT erred in its ruling as you are insinuating, it is left for Onnoghen to appeal the decision of the tribunal at the court of appeal. Until the CCT order is set aside, it remains valid.

Tetehjewels:
Mumu section c says


In brackets says IF ANY.

There is no limitation given to the President when it comes to SUSPENSION.

The limitation given to him is when it comes to REMOVAL

Bros, forget this overfeed chaps who can't reason anything on their own except it is popular.

They are the typical zombies.

Tetehjewels:
I can see you are unaware of the immunity clause shielding governors.

Does the CJN enjoy same immunity shield?

Bros, you are trying so hard to convince these thick headed lots.
They are clearly sentimental.

The president SUSPENDED Onnoghen, but their eyes are seeing REMOVAL ,and you expect them to reason with their brain?

Buckubuck:
If you are not being mischievous, you'll realize that this act says "power" to remove or suspend. The power here is not absolute for the president especially if there are laws which are spelt out in the constitution for removal. If we are to follow your logic, then it can be said that since the president can only be elected by popular vote, then he can only be removed by popular vote. This we all know is not true since he can be impeached by the national assembly subject to the Chief Justice's committee, or by a proclamation of the FEC. In other words, it has been clearly spelt out here that the process of suspension OR removal should be the same as clearly spelt out in the constitution.

SUSPENDED oga,not removal.

I wonder how most of you passed English as a subject ?

omogidi234:
Dear friend, please download a PDF of the CCT Act 2004. I know the National Assembly has amended it but I am not sure the President has assented the new bill.

There is nothing in that law that permits the CCT to order the suspension of a Judge or CJN. Rather, the law says it shall order the removal of any public officer once he has been found guilty.

So the CCT has not even commenced the case not to mention judgment and it is ordering suspension!

no be small thing o!

serious breaking of law from all angles

Friend01:
SUSPENDED oga,not removal.

I wonder how most of you passed English as a subject ?

You do realize though that you can only exercise such discretionary powers on someone who answers to you. Its a simple employee-employer relationship. The CJN does not answer to the President. Only the NJC can suspend a Judicial officer; that is clear from the principle of the separation of powers. The president does not unilaterally appoint a CJN. He receives recommendation from the NJC, vets it and if satisfied, forwards to the senate for confirmation. That's why he's relying on a purported suspension order from the CCT. Problem is, the CCT does not have the powers to recommend suspension of a Judicial officer to the president. Only the NJC can do that

buhari exploited the loophole in the interpretation act, no hard feelings, no emotions. even if you see it as constitutionally wrong. it is clearly stated for us to decipher. he would have breach the constitution if he removed him, but since no provision is available and contained the constitution for process of suspension, he used this as an opportunity to relieve him of his duty. The timeline to the suspension, only him knows

Tetehjewels:
Mumu section c says


In brackets says IF ANY.

There is no limitation given to the President when it comes to SUSPENSION.

The limitation given to him is when it comes to REMOVAL

Low IQ will not ruin U