₦airaland Forum

PHAYOL81:
Perhaps you missed the part where I pointed that the government must have given them a very good reason why the people they voted for were not right to represent them. I even started by saying something is wrong with both the government (for creating such situation) and the residents (for keeping mute about it). Check my subsequent posts too to see I was in no way supporting such nonsense. I was only trying to play the devil advocate so it doesn't look like I already tilt my interest on any of the party.

My point is the government has no reason whatsoever, no matter how good, to decide who it prefers to be people's representatives. People had already elected who they wanted. If the need be,they should also be the ones to reject their representatives.

Omobada:
My point is the government has no reason whatsoever, no matter how good, to decide who it prefers to be people's representatives. People had already elected who they wanted. If the need be,they should also be the ones to reject their representatives.

There are some certain reasons some elected politicians can be stopped from serving which may include criminal record discovered after the election or the one that happened after it, the mental health degradation discovered after election or the one that occured after it, accidenal occurence that may affect proper discharge of duty, among others. If any of this occur, the government may give reasons why such and such may not be allowed to represent and at the same time, enjoin the populace to go back to the polling booth for replacement after they must have gotten court order.
As already stated, I was only playing the devil's advocate: the case at hand is bulls.hit. I don't support the nonsense because there are/were no unthrashable reasons why the lawmakers weren't sworn in. And that the house continued with a bigger chunk of it away is the biggest bulls.hit the state shouldn't have allowed. But what do I know? If it suits them, who am I to complain?

PHAYOL81:
There are some certain reasons some elected politicians can be stopped from serving which may include criminal record discovered after the election or the one that happened after it, the mental health degradation discovered after election or the one that occured after it, accidenal occurence that may affect proper discharge of duty, among others. If any of this occur, the government may give reasons why such and such may not be allowed to represent and at the same time, enjoin the populace to go back to the polling booth for replacement after they must have gotten court order.
As already stated, I was only playing the devil's advocate: the case at hand is bulls.hit. I don't support the nonsense because there are/were no unthrashable reasons why the lawmakers weren't sworn in. And that the house continued with a bigger chunk of it away is the biggest bulls.hit the state shouldn't have allowed. But what do I know? If it suits them, who am I to complain?

My friend, I understood that you're neither supporting Obaseki nor backing the concerned legislatures but the fact still remains that you're getting it wrong constitutionally and democratically... By generalising it using "elected politicians" simply means that you have little knowledge about the provisions of laws.
Executive has no such power overtly over legislative... It can only gain such momentum covertly by instigating the constituencies secretly to recall their representatives. This will be my last response... You can ask lawyer around you for more elucidation. Thanks

Omobada:
My friend, I understood that you're neither supporting Obaseki nor backing the concerned legislatures but the fact still remains that you're getting it wrong constitutionally and democratically... By generalising it using "elected politicians" simply means that you have little knowledge about the provisions of laws.
Executive has no such power overtly over legislative... It can only gain such momentum covertly by instigating the constituencies secretly to recall their representatives. This will be my last response... You can ask lawyer around you for more elucidation. Thanks

Now I see where the misunderstanding is. You're thinking all along that I gave the executive the power of all the arms of government when my posts are suggesting otherwise. And of course, generalising using the elected politician is showing I wasn't thinking about Obaseki or Edo alone when I made my last post about the valid reason for stopping elected officer from assuming office. Perhaps, we need to revisit my latest post to dissect and analyse.

PHAYOL81:
There are some certain reasons some elected politicians can be stopped from serving which may include criminal record discovered after the election or the one that happened after it, the mental health degradation discovered after election or the one that occured after it, accidenal occurence that may affect proper discharge of duty, among others.

You'll agree with me that these points are valid anywhere in the world. No constitutions support having a criminal, mentally unstable and/or physically unfit politician in office. So the moment such is discovered even after the person might have won an election, s/he becomes inappropriate for the job and the onus to replace him would fall on all the arms of government to deliberate hence the continual use of the government in my posts and not the executive or the governor. And moreso, the people have to be properly carried along to play their parts towards the appointment of another. Check through them posts all again. Or still, part of the last one below:

If any of this occur, the government may give reasons why such and such may not be allowed to represent and at the same time, enjoin the populace to go back to the polling booth for replacement after they must have gotten court order.

Most of my early posts even berated the people of the state for keeping mute. They have the power to right the wrong but chose to stay dumb. And I didn't exonerate the remaining lawmakers too for carrying on as if everything was alright. If the law was to take a proper course, all the laws the house had ever made are invalid considering that majority of the members were absent and the constitutions says the 2/3 of the expected number must support a motion before it proceed to another phase. So, everything about that process was extremely wrong but the people of the state chose what they want anyway by looking away as if everything was alright. Below is my conclusion to that effect, still in the same last post:

... And that the house continued with a bigger chunk of it away is the biggest bulls.hit the state shouldn't have allowed. But what do I know? If it suits them, who am I to complain?

I agree we don't have to keep going back and forth over the thrash. It's wrong means it's wrong. Thank for your time too.