₦airaland Forum

1.2m

laudate:
You do not even know the kind of qualifications I hold in international law, yet you are here making unfounded noise. I told you before : "The more you talk, the more you expose your unmitigated ignorance and delusion. You have NOT been able to answer any of the questions posed to you so far, instead you take refuge in sly derision, contemptuous comments and insulting innuendoes." And you just proved it again with your lengthy needless epistle, full of sound and fury signifying nothing! Now, have the floor and continue to spew more garbage, so that everyone can actually see that you have nothing upstairs.

What qualification do you have? If at all you have any such qualification in international law, I bet you must have been taught by a misguided prof like Oyebode in one of those private schools dotting all over the Nigerian landscape. Little wonder you reason like a historian journalist only interested in interviewing for answers rather than reading for them, especially when you have been referred to a source. Your problem is self-inflicted. Should you want to do another academic program, please choose a school properly so called.

laudate:
You do not even know the kind of qualifications I hold in international law, yet you are here making unfounded noise. I told you before : "The more you talk, the more you expose your unmitigated ignorance and delusion. You have NOT been able to answer any of the questions posed to you so far, instead you take refuge in sly derision, contemptuous comments and insulting innuendoes." And you just proved it again with your lengthy needless epistle, full of sound and fury signifying nothing! Now, have the floor and continue to spew more garbage, so that everyone can actually see that you have nothing upstairs.

What qualification do you have? If at all you have any such qualification in international law, I bet you must have been taught by a misguided prof like Oyebode in one of those private schools dotting all over the Nigerian landscape. Little wonder you reason like a historian journalist only interested in interviewing for answers rather than reading for them, especially when you have been referred to a source. Your problem is self-inflicted. Should you want to do another academic program, please choose a school properly so called.

Well said.

laudate:
You know what? The more you talk, the more you expose your unmitigated ignorance and delusion. You have NOT been able to answer any of the questions posed to you so far, instead you take refuge in sly derision, contemptuous comments and insulting innuendoes. Your plight is really beyond redemption. I cannot help you if you refuse to learn, or to free your mind. The day you decide to list all the substantive issues addressed by the ICJ in the Nigeria vs. Cameroun case concerning Bakassi peninsula, in accordance with international law principles, then you would be taken seriously. Now, please kindly get off my mentions.

You are an archetype of Nigeria and a true example of the problem with Nigeria, always waiting to be spoon fed with everything, always seeking the next shortcut to solution.

I won't indulge you pathological shortcut mentality here; it's not my making that you are not grounded in the subject under discussion. Take the advice I proffered and get schooled in a proper academic environment.

All your driveling and antics for me to chronicle ALL issues in the Cameroun case are just consistent with your nature but I won't be moved by it. I referred you to the case ab initio and if it's in your nature to refer people to a subject you know nothing about, well I am different.

Go and read the case as advised or, better still, go and study international law. By so doing you would have solved one of Nigeria's problems of shortcut and hard work in your own life.

They have come again o.

We can't wait to have our president back. And we hope it will be permanent home coming for him.

We can no longer afford to have a president in absentia.

By a unanimous voice vote, members of the House of Representatives at plenary on Tuesday jettisoned the government policy which subsumed Christian Religious Knowledge, CRK in Civic Education as a compulsory subject in the Secondary School curriculum.
Christian Religious Knowledge
This followed a motion titled “Call to make Civic Education an optional instead of a compulsory subject for Senior Certificate Examination”, filed by Hon. Beni Lar from Plateau State.
The members after an exhaustive debate on the motion agreed that the policy was incongruent with the spirit and letters of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) on the provision of religious liberties.
The members agreed that students with the inputs of their parents at formative years should be taught the religious subjects of their choice in school.
Essentially, the House while pointing out that the policy makers erred ab initio also agreed Islamic Studies and CRK should be taught independently and separately in the spirit of the constitution.
It will be recalled that the issue recently became a subject of controversy whereupon tempers flared.

True.

laudate:
You see, until you can free your mind to think logically, I can't help you. You keep running from pillar to post clutching at straws, in a bid to sound important. Unfortunately, your ignorance becomes more apparent with every effort you make.

You started by trying to use the matrimonial causes act, to draw parallels with principles of international law. Next, you laid emphasis on Nigeria's argument at the Nigeria vs Cameroun case at the ICJ, where you stated that 'Nigerian domestic arrangement was used as a basis to escape its international obligations,' as if that argument was a superior one. Now, you have started rambling about how 'the judgement of the court in that case has several issues which came up.' Your statements are full of form without substance. Can you see all the empty shadows you have been chasing?

Ok, outline those several issues contained in the judgement of the court, so that everyone can see what you are trying to say. List them out one by one. Just ensure you do not end up confusing yourself as usual, in your parochial stubbornness.

My friend, I am not a historian like you. And if you expect me to embark on a narrative of the issues addressed by the court in Cameroun case when I don't need to for obvious reasons (which cannot be obvious to a historian like you), you are wasting your time. I have already drawn your attention to the issue relevant to the matter in hand but you keep on carrying on like the historian you are. It's not my fault that you don't know case analysis which belongs in the realm of advocacy; I won't turn a lecturer here on case analysis just to pull you out of legal oblivion.

This your enumerate this and that can't portray you as knowing what you are saying, when you can't even make a head or tail of what I am talking about.

If someone is ignorant of a rocket science it is a waste of time trying to remedy his plight on Nairaland forum, especially where the ignoramus has no potential whatsoever for a good student on the subject.

International law was one my favorite areas as a student and I have some of the best authoritative texts in it my library. Just so you know. If you want to know case analysis, go and study law and stop exposing your ignorance here.

laudate:
Oga, it is you who has adopted 'evasiveness' as your middle name. And it is your own ignorance that is so appalling, o! I have made it clear to you, the various facts that the ICJ relied upon, in order to arrive at their judgement. They include (but are not limited to) pre-colonial maps, the fact that Bakassi fell within Cameroun's territory etc. The Anglo-German agreements concerning Bakassi, the historical antecedents to the dispute, international border demarcations, The Lagos Declaration of June 21, 1971 and The Kano Declaration of September 1, 1974 etc., were also some of the key issues considered by the ICJ in reaching a decision.

Instead of looking at those facts, you keep pointing to Nigeria's argument in the Nigeria vs. Cameroun case, as if Nigeria's argument survived the scrutiny of the ICJ, or as if it won them victory in that case. You are waving the argument made by Nigeria, (or to use your own words - 'using Nigerian domestic arrangement as a basis to escape its international obligations')- in the air, as if it is foolproof. Ok, state the part of Nigeria's argument that grabbed your attention, which you feel should have won the case for them. The fact that such an argument did not win the case, shows that it was defective from day one. So why are you still making noise about it?

Now, you need to take your own advice and stop being clever by half and ask your people to get expert international lawyers to offer them sound advice on the next steps to take!

My friend, that you quoted some report of what the ICJ said to the two parties in paraphrase has actually lent credence to what I've been saying. The judgement of the court in that case has several issues which came up and it's one of those that I've been drawing your attention to but your parochial stubbornness won't allow you to understand basic principles of advocacy. I am beginning to think that I have been wasting my time and I doubt if you are even a lawyer. Otherwise, how on earth can you not understand rudimentary aspects of analysis of judgment.

Well, you ask: "So why are you still making noise about it?" It's simply because your so called Russia trained prof is putting up similar feeble arguments in his interview as was done by Bola Ajibola (and Co) who was a judge advocate in the case.

All your submissions are are akin to what a historian will do: just give us a narrative of what took place without more. This is not an issue for historians, okay? Thank you.

I have come to realize that the point I am making is beyond your understanding and apparently there is nothing I can do to change you except you take your time to undergo proper training in international law, case analysis and advocacy in a proper university, not all these Nigerian private universities you people run to for quick action

Ooh

laudate:
Oga, you are just dribbling and trying to rigmarole your way out of the whole issue. Are you a divorce lawyer that you are now citing the matrimonial causes act, in a situation that has to do with international law? Oga, go and educate yourself on what international law is all about.

You are clutching at straws by citing "the place of domestic legislative instruments (the constitution inclusive) and positive international law especially jus cogens." Did the judges at the ICJ rely on domestic legislative instruments of Nigeria or Cameroun, in order to pass judgement, or did they apply principles of international law?

I had told you what made the ICJ rule in favour of Cameroun in the Nigeria vs Cameroun case, but from your response you certainly did not read the judgement, which is why you are talking about the argument put forward by the Nigerian side. What did the judges rely on, before they granted judgement in favour of Cameroun? Was it Nigeria's argument or the proof and documents placed before them, including old colonial maps and evidence of Bakassi being located within Camerounian territory?

My friend, what's with you and evasiveness? You just keep yapping about maps and Bakassi location in Cameroun. If you've read that judgment you would know that so many issues came up before the court for determination beside this your maps and Bakassi location. One of such issues was the argument by Nigeria using Nigerian domestic arrangement as a basis to escape its international obligations....

Abacha's case is another case where attempt to use the absence of an item in the Nigerian constitution as a basis to deny the inalienable rights of every human being. Go and read it and be better informed.

Forget about what you heard or read in the papers and stop being clever by half. It won't do you any good. It only magnifies your ignorance the more, in spite of your attempts to appear learned or smart.

This babe fine sha, if not for that nose ring that makes her look like she always has mucus sipping out of her nose. Wonder why she has that blemish on her beautiful face.

ogunwalea:
Being spiritual does not mean that you should suspend your brain"

Pastor Sam Adeyemi just hit the nail on the head with this statement... Most Christians now are so engrossed with this spiritual thing that they forget that they are humans. Can you just imagine, a lady who caught her fiance having sex with his blood sister and still went ahead to marry Him claiming God will change him later. After the wedding, he was caught on several cases with the maid and other ladies. Now the lady wants a divorce. It's just not making sense...

Bishop Oyedepo once said "The reason why God gave us brain is for us to disturb Him less..."

My fellow Christians, let's stop disturbing God with prayers over silly things that common sense can solve... God has better things to deal with rather than dwell on your stupidity...

I won't want to talk too much. On this note, I rest my case! I'm sorry if I'm too harsh with my words.
Happy Sunday guys!

Bros, you are not too harsh. You merely stated the obvious.

Some times you need to be harsh to drive your point home.
We need more people who reason like this, especially in Nigeria.

mbhs139:
At the bold part, they don't need the advice of "international law experts...", what is the work of their Senators and House Members? This is to tell you that they are mere bunch of joker's.

Believe me, all these Biafra, IPOB and restructuring noise and brouhaha will fade away the moment Buhari and his APC loses power at the centre. Go and write it down. Then Nnamdi Kanu will now become a political big wig in the South East, who will be determining who gets what from the political booties of this present battle; he's only preparing the ground. Watch it.

Nobody is writing anything down and nobody will "watch it". You already sound like a primary school teacher giving out assignments.

It's good to know that you are prepared for the inevitable eventuality of Buhari not remaining in power beyond 2019 after all his devisive gragra thinking he is God. But God has shown him that he is a mere mortal incapable of deciding his own fate much less that of an entire race.

laudate:
Sir, you are the one bereft of sound knowledge of international law. You chaps are insulting the professor for telling you the law as it is, if the UN clause on self-determination is reviewed within the context of the Nigerian constitution. Are you aware there is also a UN article that recognises sovereignty and territorial integrity? If you go to a Nigerian court today, to file a case asking for self-determination based on the UN Charter, how do you think the judge would rule?

Go back & study the ICJ ruling on the Nigeria vs. Cameroun case before you come in here to start misyarning. Did the Bakassi people of South Cameroun go to the court asking for self-determination? Gowon had ceded the portion of Bakassi that was in contention to Cameroun when he was Head of State, so from boundary delineation, colonial maps and the agreement Gowon made earlier, the ICJ ruled in favour of Cameroun. Documents released by the Camerounians, also clearly placed Bakassi under Cameroonian Territory as a consequence of colonial era Anglo-German agreements. Get your facts straight! :

Please go and read the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. It contains several articles that are in favour of the Indigenous People and their rights. But in Article 46, that same declaration includes a caveat:

Thank you for calling in aid the provisions of the UN Charter especially article 46. But it would seem that you failed to see the essence of that caveat, as you put it. I don't want to believe that you would want the UN to recognize a right, affirm it and still go around to affirm principles that would defeat the same rights. And you don't expect the charter to be seen to encourage dismemberment of states in a manner that could cause chaos, especially in view of the concept of uti posidetis juris which discourages division of boundaries established after independence of a state from colonial rule.
However, for you to understand why the so called caveat was made you can draw analogy from matrimonial causes:

The matrimonial causes act and rules including the marriage act cannot be said to encourage divorce, can they? But they recognize the rights of a spouse to exit a marriage regardless of the 3 years period or the grounds that marriage has broken down irretrievably.
The charter merely says it does not want to be seen to be encouraging upheavals or acts aimed at dismemberment of states, it does not say it abhors it or does not recognize dismemberment of states as a result of self determination. Recognizing and affirming the right to self determination on the one hand and encouraging on the other hand are entirely different matters. Try and understand the niceties and nuances in interpretation of legal instruments.

Self determination as a right of indigenous people is not litigable as such talking about going to court to enforce rights to it or referendum is missing the point.

I referred you to the Abacha case and Cameroun case for you to understand the place of domestic legislative instruments (the constitution inclusive) and positive international law especially jus cogens. If you read those cases and appreciate arguments put forward by parties, especially by the Nigerian government, and the reasoning of the court, you will better appreciate the point I am making. It's not necessarily about what Gowon did or didn't, colonial maps and all that.

laudate:
Is there a clause on referendum within the Nigerian constitution? If you believe there is, then kindly cite it here, quoting the relevant sections. Prof. Oyebode has just told you guys, the position of the Nigerian law as it is, with respect to the UN clause on self-determination, not the position of the law as it ought to be. And you are still here comparing Scotland, Brexit, Catalonia etc., with the Nigerian situation. Scotland has provisions for referendum in its laws, Nigeria does not! Your focus should be how to get your own international law experts and constitutional lawyers to give you advice on how to insert a clause on referendum into the current constitution!

You sound like a lawyer, my friend, though one bereft of sound knowledge of international law in contradiction to domestic legal instruments. Make further findings so you can know the reach of basic human rights and discover if domestic legislative deficit can be a ground to rob it its due expression.

The case of Abacha v. Fawehimi; Nigeria v. Cameroun will give you some insight. Happy reading.

Dumaknesset:
Have you read the thesis, tell how you know it was read upside down.

Because he misrepresented the usefulness of referendum. He claimed referendum is only necessary when a colony decides whether to stay colonized or be independent. But you and I know that Nigeria and other African countries did not have to do any referendum to gain independence.

Again events clearly show that the opposite of Oyebode's position is the case. Eg Scotland, Brexit, Catalonia, etc. These countries have resorted to referendum in recent times to decide whether to be break away or not.

Dumaknesset:
Call any iPod intellectual to meet this consummate egg head, if they will not be nuked. Best things Iife are often free.

Didn't you hear that the source of his argument is a thesis researched by an Igbo professor even though he read the thesis upside down.

Who knows prof Oyebode? He is just seeking relevance riding on NK's back.
Lie lie professor.

If referendum is only necessary to migrate from colonialism to independence, pls prof., tell us who conducted the referendum that led to Nigeria's independence and the independence of other African countries?

The only time there was referendum in Nigeria was when southern Cameroun needed to decide whether to remain in Nigeria or join northern Cameroun.

It's is obvious, therefore, that referendum is necessary when a people have to decide whether to remain in a country or not; it has nothing to do with independence but self determination.

All these lie lie professors sef.

rofanx13:
And someone wil rate ambode d best governor?

Were you in Lagos in 2011 when houses were submerged, lives and properties lost, etc?

Oh lawd!

Ambode my mannest man.

Cutie.

Sall:
I can't believe I just watched the entire video of this KANU of a guy. Jesus Christ himself might be jealous of KANU with the way he was able to attract and command such a massive crowd .

Pls leave Jesus out of this, biko. The Almighty is a jealous God.

You need that implement wey badoo guys dey use. Wettin be im name..... em em em...

GRINDING STONE. Yes!

ElSherriff:
Bros you wicked o. Na this thing you wan sell 380k? I recently got a nissan primera, clean as hell for 350k. go and throw it in the river sir.

Don't mind him. He is even giving fraudulent condition. Onyoshi.

Plz note if prices are negotiated on phone they are deemed as final price and would not be re - negotiated any[/quote]Which kain condition be that? You are not serious.

Prominent Igbo lawyer and former President of the Nigerian Bar Association, Dr . Olisa Agbakoba ( SAN ) , on Tuesday condemned the call for the country’ s restructuring , describing it as a political calculation by the elite to grab power in 2019 .
Rather , Agbakoba justified the demand for self - determination by the Nnamdi Kanu- led Indigenous People of Biafra , which is seeking a referendum to achieve same.
Agbakoba , who rejected the declaration by acting President Yemi Osinbajo that Nigeria ’ s sovereignty was not negotiable , said IPOB ’ s quest for self - determination was lawful and found justification in Article 1 (2 ) of the United Nations Charter and Article 20 (1 ) of the African Charter of Human and Peoples Rights , to which Nigeria was a signatory.
He said the Federal Government must immediately initiate a process to put the continued existence of Nigeria as a sovereign entity to a debate , stressing that restructuring was not the road map to federalism .
The legal luminary addressed journalists in Lagos on Tuesday at his Ikoyi office on “ The future of Nigeria . ”
Agbakoba said , “ I see every politician now says restructure but I disagree . I also think the acting President was wrong to say that Nigeria is insoluble . There is nothing sacrosanct about Nigeria . It can blow up anytime. It’ s an artificial creation , which was made in 1914 and when it was amalgamated we were not there . It was amalgamated in the interest of the colonialists . ”
Agbakoba said it was unfortunate that since 1914 when amalgamation was thrust on the people, there had not been any home - grown process to resolve the will of the people to co -exist .
Agbakoba , who had once sued the Federal Government for neglecting the South- East , argued that the Federal Government goofed by charging the IPOB leader with treasonable felony for seeking self -determination .
He said , “ For me , the best that he can be charged with is unlawful assembly and an act capable of breaching public peace. Those are the things he can be charged with , but not treason; because Nigeria is a signatory to the United Nations ’ Charter, which recognises the right for self -determination . ”
When asked whether he aligned with IPOB ’ s call for a referendum towards self - determination , Agbakoba , who said he had nothing against Kanu, responded, “ Absolutely ! What is sacrosanct about Nigeria ? Nothing . What is sacrosanct about Nigeria is our agreement to be part of Nigeria . I ’ m not suggesting that Nigeria should not exist but to say that Nigeria ’ s sovereignty is not negotiable , nobody should talk about it. ”
Agbakoba , who was a delegate at the 2014 National Conference , also said implementing the resolutions of the conference would not quell the various secessionist agitations in the country.
He argued that while it was politically incorrect for the Arewa youths to give the Igbo living in the North a quit notice , there was no legal basis to call for their arrest .
He said , “ Did they commit any crime? They just said , ‘ leave our place, ’ that ’ s all. It’ s not in the criminal code that if I tell a man to leave my house I have committed a crime . I have a right to tell you , this is my house , leave . It’ s politically incorrect to tell the Igbo to leave but I don ’ t see any crime . And let’ s be clear , we should not make this thing sound legalistic… it is political.