₦airaland Forum

Your freedom of movement is not absolute. It is subjected to limitations under the law.

As a result of their criminality, Fulani herdsmen are not privileged to "freedom of movement" across Nigeria.

All we care for is Fulanis must gooooooooo !!

But The Problem Is That Nigeria No dey use Law nah

Fulanis movement isn't restricted...

The bone of contention here is "Trespass" and unathorised access to other people's Land

Trespass to land, called trespass “quare clausum fregit” means the interference with the possession of land without lawful justification. The phrase “quare clausum fregit” literally means “breaking the close” of the plaintiff’s land.


Fulanis don't lawfully and legally own any land in Ibarapa or Ondo forest reserve, both Land owners in Ibarapa and Ondo had in a gentleman's way told Fulanis to vacate their ancestorial land .




..

Freedom of movement but not freedom to kill.

Yes there’s always been freedom of movement. I don’t know why yorubas are crying because Fulani are coming to visit them

We keep laughing at the most sophisticated tribe of intelligent cavemen.

No one can oust any Nigerian out of any part of this nation. It is purely unconstitutional and an invitation to anarchy. But we will continue to sue for peace in this country

solmusdesigns:




Fulanis movement isn't restricted...

The bone of contention here is "Trespass" and unathorised access to other people's Land

Trespass to land, called trespass “quare clausum fregit” means the interference with the possession of land without lawful justification. The phrase “quare clausum fregit” literally means “breaking the close” of the plaintiff’s land.


Fulanis don't lawfully and legally own any land in Ibarapa or Ondo forest reserve, both Land owners in Ibarapa and Ondo had in a gentleman's way told Fulanis to vacate their ancestorial land .




..

Restricted is different from limited.

There is no need for latin quote.

If constitution says you have freedom to go everwhere then you are not trespassing by going everywhere. Correct?

Restriction is "you are not allowed".
Limited is "you are allowed but with some conditions".

Keep it simple!

ImperialYoruba:
Restricted is different from limited.

There is no need for latin quote.

If constitution says you have freedom to go everwhere then you are not trespassing by going everywhere. Correct?

Restriction is "you are not allowed".
Limited is "you are allowed but with some conditions".

Keep it simple!

All freedoms have restrictions and limitations.
Even in the freest nation, when you trespass beyond a limited area to a restricted area and constitute yourself as a clear and present danger you will asked to leave or seek permission, and if you fail...
I guess you know how that pans out.

mosdii:
Freedom of movement but not freedom to kill.

Correct!

Section 45 outlines it clearly that Section 41 is a privilege granted and to be exercised only by those who submit to democratic principles of society and are no threat or suspected of committing uncivil acts. In as long they are found short of civil principles then their freedom of movement can be de-privileged. That's a conditional freedom. It has a boundary of responsibility to others and to society.

So, are fulani herdsmen acting responsibly towards others? If they are not they loose freedom of movement privilege and the constitution supports their removal.

ImperialYoruba:
Correct!

Section 45 outlines it clearly that Section 41 is a privilege granted and to be exercised only by those who submit to democratic principles of society and are no threat or suspected of committing uncivil acts. In as long they are found short of civil principles then their freedom of movement can be de-privileged. That's a conditional freedom. It has a boundary of responsibility to others and to society.

So, are fulani herdsmen acting responsibly towards others? If they are not they loose freedom of movement privilege and the constitution supports their removal.

Simple.
Freedom to live peacefully and not to cause chaos.
Is high time, a national freedom is given to possess license firearms.

Minjim:
All freedoms have restrictions and limitations.
Even in the freest nation, when you trespass beyond a limited area to a restricted area and constitute yourself as a clear and present danger you will asked to leave or seek permission, and if you fail...
I guess you know how that pans out.

I will not disagree. The Ondo issue is not "first" a tresspass.

Governor Akeredolu has been having meetings with miyetti allah since he came to power. He is part of this problem.

There was a uproar two years ago when some residents going from Ondo to Abuja ran into a forest checkpoint mounted by fulani vigilante. They had ID badge that said Ondo branch of fulani vigilante and miyetti allah logo. So where did they get such authority? Are they tresspassing? Akeredolu need to come out in open and talk what's going on. Nonetheless, fulani need to pack out!

Fayose was governor next door in Ekiti. He gave miyetti marching orders. He told them what they must do and if they failed he applied the law on them. Did you ever hear miyetti talk to Fayose anyhow? Never. He never entertained their nonsensical meeting requests. If he met with them it was more like a summon to them to come and see him and get an earful.

Kwashiman:
Fulanis have as much rights in any part of Yorubaland as the Yorubas themselves. There are lots of second and third generation Fulani that have over the span of decades intermarried with Yorubas, and on the basis of that along with other notable factors like socialcultural assimilation... the Yorubas much less thugs like Sunday Igboho have no rights to threaten eviction on the Fulani people in any part of the South west...

Ibo man... Shame on you