ALAT has been doing great. Arguably the best bank app

IfnobeGod20:

Why not just go and do yours and bring it here instead of using all your energy to castigate the guy. You even went extra miles to tell him he wasn't born when you'd started using data. Please do you know the guy or you're the one that gave birth to him? Nothing one no go see in this faceless forum.

I'm constrained to think "that guy" is just a jingle bell. Apologies to him.....

The background data is in public space, rather than do his own so we all can put it through public scrutiny, he has been whining and dancing around the whole thread like a scared virgin on seeing a big joystick.
It is ridiculous and against good conscience for any one to criticize another's statistical data persistently in a public forum without providing any evidence whatsoever to support his own claim(s)

JoshTim:


Oh boy, you have to admit it that the samples you used are skewed to favour Obi. If e sure for you, use another sample set and run the test, result will shock you your self.

If i begin to analyse your results and methods, you will be amased by the standard error in your result. Come alive, stop sleeping.

What is stoping you from testing your own. The background data is in public space.

It is against good conscience and reason that you are persistently fault what someone else has done without presenting a superior evidence of your own to support your nagging line of thought.

chessguru:
there is another suit going on to recover the said amount stolen "ICPC lawyer, Olubunmi Ikupolati, however, urged the court to convict Hussaini with restitution of the funds stolen.

But Umar opposed, saying such would amount to double jeopardy since his client is facing a civil matter before the FCT High Court."

Thank you, but I did not miss that.

I don't think there is any where on our criminal code that absolve a criminal from paying in full because there is a suit in another court of equal jurisdiction. Striking out the case is even better than this ridiculous judgment
It is this same court and judge that accused the ICPC of not being serious with the prosecution of the case sometime around 2020, the result is what we are seeing now after they've all connived to rubbish the process. Allowing the accused to go almost without any consequence because of double jeopardy argument is nonsensical, and what is the assurance that the second suit will be different from this one.

Fattesticles:


Umar Hussaini

You think she doesn't know.

That's how they seek attention

The rich and powerful gets option of fine

Pay 200 million in restitution after stealing 1.1 billion. Return on investment such as this, is the reason more people are motivated to dip their fingers into the cake and even wave the hands to the awe of their admirers

Padipadi:
It's crucify not crossify and nobody is crucifying him. But he can be cautioned.
Why should Obi not be cautioned on such a reckless statement?
Is he above mistakes that he ll err and can't be corrected?

The governor of Lagos State just mentioned in his statement that the accident was "totally avoidable"

I wonder why you still express displeasure with the "avoidable" used by other commentators especially when a superior authority in Lagos like the governor has corroborated same claim

Rikidony:
Nigeria a country that should be in the level of development like Singapore, South Korea, Kuwait and UAE is now attending conference of least developed nations, God help us

God bless you, exactly the comment I was waiting for.
Attending a conference such as this is a pointer to the fact that the country has not moved forward under any metric, yet people are celebrating photo ops because the president delivered a speech in a UN conference abroad.

Conference on Least Developed Nations.... Pathetic

Heathrow44:
All yoruba lawyers!

This is more of protecting yoruba presidency than nationalism

Very conspicuous

FreeStuffsNG:
Punch says otherwise o
https://punchng.com/

INEC has announced the result now. PDP won the state

blabulu2000:
BOOM 💥

When i see some Yorubas that hate Tinubu i just Laugh they forgot that he brought YORUBA back into the game of politics when we have already lost our space in in this democratic era after Obasanjo sold us out without looking back!!!

The PDP (2011-2015) didn't have a single yoruba person in the top 8 political positions of Nigeria

1. GEJ- President
2. Sambo- VP
3. David Mark- SP
4. Ekweremadu- DSP
5. Tambuwal- Speaker
6. Ihedioha- Dep. Speaker
7. Katsina-Ala - CJN
8.Anyim Pius -SGF

Tinubu brought us back into the game and now we are back in the top 8 , and we currently have OSINBAJO & GBAJABIAMILA in top 4, 2023 is also our chance to rule this great country but some of us are lost

While political participation is good, some of you don't apply reason and conscience in your activities.

MULIKAT AKANDE was nominated to become the Speaker of the House by the then government. Was it not same Yoruba elements you now claim to love Yoruba people that scuttled it and gave it to a Tambuwal a Northerner? Or is MULIKAT AKANDE from Bayelsa State?

Democracy has a long way to grow into maturity in Nigeria.

The confusion and identity politics in our party system is mind-boggling.

In another news, my concern is a governor admitted publicly to sitting over a murder case file and people were clapping for him

lexy2014:


With all this grammar, why didn't you answer numbers 1 to 3?

1. If you claim that the supreme court can't hear criminal cases, then why can't it hear a case regarding monetary policy which isn't a criminal matter? Don't you now see where you contradicted yourself?

2. you are just repeating yourself that the supreme court does not have jurisdiction over monetary policies. That's not what I asked. I asked HOW does the supreme court not have jurisdiction over monetary policies?

3. Does your claim that the supreme court does not have jurisdiction over monetary policies exempt it from adjudicating on a case relating to monetary policies?

4. How does the grammar you put up there exempt the supreme court from adjudicating on a matter that concerns CBNs implementation of a monetary policy?

The problem is you are reading my comments with a premeditated conclusion.

I seriously do not understand why you are still asking question one despite my several admonitions that it is an example of many other things the SC cannot adjudicate on unless on appeal. Which kain wahala be this... How many times do I need to say this.
The SC cannot adjudicate on criminal, civil, and any matter concerning a government agency (including CBN whether in monetary policy or otherwise) unless only on appeal. The Federal High Court has exclusive jurisprudence over such cases.
Since you obviously have issues with me writing grammar, if the Constitution say the Federal High Court nai get right to first judge any matter wey concern operations of FG and hin agencies, shey that one no clear to you say the matter na FHC e suppose go first?

Your question 4, lemme quote jurisdiction access from the constitution again whether you will disabuse your mind and read the meaning properly.

(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the Federal High Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court [/b]in civil causes and matters –
…
(q) subject to the provisions of this Constitution, [b]the operation and interpretation of this Constitution in so far as it affects the Federal Government or any of its agencies;
… (Sec. 251)
@bold. The Federal High Court exercise jurisdiction to the "EXCLUSION" of any other court exclusion here includes every other court including the SC.


Nice conversing with you. Bye

lexy2014:


1. If you claim that the supreme court can't hear criminal cases, then why can't it hear a case regarding monetary policy which isn't a criminal matter? Don't you now see where you contradicted yourself?

2. you are just repeating yourself that the supreme court does not have jurisdiction over monetary policies. That's not what I asked. I asked HOW does the supreme court not have jurisdiction over monetary policies?

3. Does your claim that the supreme court does not have jurisdiction over monetary policies exempt it from adjudicating on a case relating to monetary policies?

4. You said "The Supreme Court has a clearly defined role to play by the constitution on where it can exercise original jurisdiction.".

5. Can you provide the section of the constitution with regards the above?

(1) The Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have original jurisdiction in any dispute between the Federation and a state or between states if and in so far as that dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends.
(2) In addition to the jurisdiction conferred upon it by subsection (1) of this section, the Supreme Court shall have such original jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by any Act of the National Assembly:
Provided that no original jurisdiction shall be conferred upon the Supreme Court with respect to any criminal matter. (Sec. 232)
In (1) the SC has original jurisdiction over disputes between states vs the FG or states vs states "on disputes involving the existence or extent of a legal right" as conferred by the constitution. Now the litigation in question is not challenging the legal right of the FG through the CBN to conduct monetary policy, but it's implementation. Currency cum monetary policy belongs to the Exclusive list so states do not even have the locus standi to challenge it. Now, if I have the sole right to do something, why must the way I choose to do it be excluded from the "right" especially when there is no extant law prescribing how I must choose to exercise that right.
The case is between the States and the CBN, and independent agency of government which they wilfully omitted in the suit..... This case is meant for the Federal High Court and not the SC.

SC jurisdiction continuum:

(1) The Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction, to the exclusion of any other court of law in Nigeria, to hear and determine appeals from the Court of Appeal.
(2) An appeal shall lie from the decisions of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court as of right in the following cases–
…
(b) decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings on questions as to the interpretation or application of this Constitution;
(c) decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings on questions as to whether any of the provisions of Chapter IV4 of this Constitution has been, is being or is likely to be, contravened in relation to any person;
… (Sec. 233)

(1) An appeal shall lie from decisions of the Federal High Court or a High Court to the Court of Appeal as of right in the following cases –
…
(c) decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings on questions as to the interpretation or application of this Constitution;
(d) decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings on questions as to whether any of the provisions of Chapter IV of this Constitution has been, is being or is likely to be, contravened in relation to any person;
… (Sec. 241)

(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the Federal High Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters –
…
(q) subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the operation and interpretation of this Constitution in so far as it affects the Federal Government or any of its agencies;
… (Sec. 251)

It is the Federal High Court that has original jurisdiction on "the operation and interpretation of the constitution as far as the matter affects the Federal Government or any of its agencies. So any entity suing the federal government because of the operations of its agencies should approach the Federal High Court as the first port of call.


Again, I never said the case is a criminal case. I only used that as an example to drive home my point, I don't understand why you keep quoting that in my comment

lexy2014:


this why when you asked a simple question, dont answer with plenty grammr. you just ended up contradicting yourself as highlighted above.

is the case before the supreme court a criminal matter?

How does the supreme court not have jurisdiction over monetary policies?

Does that exempt it from adjudicating on a case relating to monetary policies?

Monetary policy is not a constitutional matter so I don't understand what you mean by; I contradicted myself.

I'm not very sure where you mean I contradicted myself but I will respond to your last three paragraphs as highlighted. But if you still feel I contradicted myself, you can point my attention in that direction in a more clearer way.

The case before the supreme court is not a criminal matter, and I made that abundantly clear in my earlier submission. I only used that as a parallel that same way the supreme court does not have original jurisdiction over criminal matters, it does not have original jurisdiction over monetary policies of the CBN. It is a matter meant for lower courts.
Monetary policy of the CBN does not erode the powers of the state governments as conferred on them by the constitution.

I am not very sure if the use of "original jurisdiction" that's causing the misunderstanding. What it means the SC cannot hear it or can only do so on appeal from the Appeal Court as it is a matter that ought to be filed in a lower court.
For example, election result petition in a presidential election is primarily heard by the Supreme Court and not by any lower court. Same way a plaintiff cannot file a governorship election petition in the SC not until it gets there on appeal. Likewise, a plaintiff cannot file even on appeal a petition over local government election in the SC just because it is supreme.

Though not very related but it is worth saying. Not even all appeals can get to the Supreme Court. The Appeal Court has final jurisdiction over certain matters, same way as the FHC on certain matters.
The Supreme Court has a clearly defined role to play by the constitution on where it can exercise original jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court is not designed to concern itself with everything in a country simply because it is "Supreme"

lexy2014:


How does the supreme court not have jurisdiction over monetary policies?

Does that exempt it from adjudicating on a case relating to monetary policies?

Are there any matters that the supreme court can't adjudicate on?

The Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction on criminal matters for example, and this very case brought before it by the States, but adjudicate on all appellate cases from the Court of Appeal.
It has original jurisprudence on all appellate cases. Then it has original jurisdiction on disputes between the FG and States, or States vs States that require constitutional interpretation.

The plaintiff that took the Federal Government to the Supreme Court know what they are doing that's why they willfully avoided adding CBN to the suit, which in this case they claim to have issues with its policy. They know the Order of the Supreme Court is binding and it gives room for no ambiguity in its authority that's why they took the case there instead of the High Court. They did it to buy time because if it is taken to the High Court which it originally should, the FG might file another case in another Court of equal jurisdiction which may not serve the interest of the Govs. They are not even interested in whatever judgement that may come forth because the primary reason is to buy time and that is the very reason why new States are joining the suit, they will continue to do so and the case would be adjourned till when their original intent is met.

El Rufai already gave a snippet of what they are trying to do with his broadcast, which is to allow the use of the old notes till election, then after that, it is no longer their business and Nigerians can continue their suffering from there.

The Supreme Court only has original jurisdiction to hear this case on appeal but allowed itself to be used by politicians thereby bringing the current ignominy upon itself where its authority is at the verge of been ridiculed.

html14java:


This excerpt clearly states that El Rufai is only [b]interested in the money because of election[/b]. He intends to use the old money to buy votes and the people can change it after election.

I don't understand why some people are pretending not to see that. Imagine declaring he will help them change it after election.

dustmalik:

Illiterate, you can't declare state of emergency in a state without the majority vote in the National assembly. As it is today, Buhari has lost the popular support. He can never get the required number.

That's not what the law explicitly stated. Your use of the term "can't" is wrong in this context.

The president can declare a state of emergency in any part thereof in the federal republic of Nigeria if the country is at war, if there is a breakdown or threat of a breakdown of law and order. The FG would publish this in the official gazette and transmit same to the national assembly for concurrence. The National Assembly when in session is to convene and ratify within two(2) days, or do so within ten(10) days when not in session. Now, within this period, emergency rule has been declared and in force so your use of the term "can't declare" without the national assembly's approval is out of context.

Interestingly, with almost the unchallenged power enjoyed by the President in Nigeria, he may even devise a means like using the powers of the senate president as chairman of the Assembly to close the National Assembly citing national security and with support from few political friends in the Assembly, they may not even be able to do anything about it because a president in Nigeria is almost not impeachable.
This is Nigeria, you need to come to terms with our style of democracy. The morality of the president of Nigeria is different from anyone else and sadly, nobody can do anything about it for now.

El Rufai is playing with fire. The FG reserves the exclusive right to determine what is legal tender and how long it can remain so.

It is very funny a section of people even take this G5 comedians seriously.

How do you seek to destroy the cake but still want to take a piece of it for your keep. It is very clear that we no longer have courageous leaders with integrity and self respect.

And our courts, they are now more like political rooms

EdiskyHarry post=120924145:
How come no one is talking about fuel scarcity?
How come no politician is talking about the hike in prices of everything in Nigeria for years now.
But only naira swap

Whether for good or bad reason, it is disheartening to note some people are willfully led to believe the governors are fighting in the interest of the people. Fuel scarcity has been on for months, yet none of the governors consider that as a good fight to engage in the interest of the people.

DepressedLoser:
If you want to know the root cause of Nigerias problems, come to nairaland and read some of the topics that make front page and the subsequent comments that follow. Nairaland is a true description of what is wrong with this country I regret being born into....

God bless you.

It is very sad. A young generation living very close to nature in their reasoning and judgment.

AtikuOkowa:


No the "court attention at all cost" defeated Trump,Wike,Zelenski and Tinubu next

at all cost,even if it does not worth?

"never" outshine the master,US outshine UK

Never outshine the master does not mean you should perpetually serve the master. It is about you not out shinning the master when you still have everything to lose. It is about waiting for the perfect time, it is about taking the advantage only when it will not cost you everything to lose.

There is a reason why the laws are 48. You don't apply them in a blanket manner. You can even apply one or two in same situation as long as it is useful and would give you the needed advantage.

Each law is strategic as long as it is useful per time.

gimakon:


Mere seeing how you sound, na your type be Mr. Simpson Oluwagiveaway, you just talk to cover tracks and make it look like you be hard man.
See let me tell you something, you would give, but do not give to impress. That is what you should say. No talk say you never give woman even recharge card before.

Where did you see in my comment that I said I don't give a woman money?
The discourse is; don't send transport fare to a woman to come and visit you.

Why would you send transport to anybody to come and visit you. The person probably does not have any business at all visiting you.
Again, don't send transportation fare to a girl to visit you. That is not too much to ask of a reasonable man....

It is simps that do that, they mostly think with their third leg

They can block the smooth flow of common sense and logic to impress a woman

Mynd44:
You will be shocked that the mother is the one who made the video

The mother is the one filming. You can hear her chuckles in the background

Well deserved

bonechamberlain:
France fought well and gallantly, but they should have an alternate keeper for penalties, Lloris is a failure in that area.

Congrats to Mbappe the next world's best player. 8 goals in a world cup, first and only world cup final hat-trick. Your Idol Ronaldo would be proud.

Hat-trick has previously been scored in 1966 world cup final

nairalee:
Blame Wike all u want, I see Atiku as the foolish one in this story. He has more to lose in this fight than Wike. I wonder why he's willing to sacrifice alot just to accommodate Ayu. If he works to remove Ayu will heaven fall?

The boulder in the room is not "Ayu". I expect you to know that by now especially from the recent narrative of the so called G-5. The call for Ayu's removal is just a baseline for Wike and others to lash on, and a precursor to a bigger plan.

"The real grudge is seeing Atiku, another Fulani making attempts to succeed Buhari." Whether Ayu was removed or is removed now wouldn't change a thing. The only thing that could have poured water on this G-5 lava, was to make Wike vice presidential candidate. Wike widely consider himself to be the one that saved the PDP from implosion, and ignoring him for Okowa, a man that was rarely known during the PDP crisis is just too much for Wike to handle. The crux of the fight is about Wike and his ambition.
Wike is only deceiving himself and few of his supporters with this southern freedom rhetoric because there is no sincerity in what he is saying.

For Ortom, he has big problems with Fulani people in general and very little to do with whether Ayu is national chairman or not. Ayu's removal is just the rallying point for their diverse interests within the PDP.
The G-5 Governor's are just singing Ayu must go with Wike's voice.

Needless to say; Atiku, Wike, Ayu, Makinde, and especially Ortom and Ikpeazu (worst performing governors in recent times)...they all have nothing to offer Nigerians

Horokrox:
Those are the facts from the National USA Treasury which an inbred troglodyte like yourself is unaware of as you STUPIDLY made reference to something you are totally ignorant of

The man you're having the banter with said, the US supplied Russia military hardware during the second world War. What you pulled from the National USA Treasury in your words seem to corroborate what he said. Then in same breath, you're trying to dispute what he said with a barrage of insults

Do you expect the US to supply Russia more than what Russia produce locally?
Even if the lease is just one AR-15, it doesn't expunge the fact that the US supplied Russia arms. Don't you think so?

TempUser:
Trump's daughter is now marrying from a person trained in a"shit hole county"

What an irony...

Being "in the shit hole" and "on the shit hole" are not the same

Abrahamweb:

How about the terrorist attack at Paris few years ago,or many others such attack, why them no issue this type of warning?
They are just trying to cause confusion .

It is their prerogative to pick which is of interest to them whether for good or bad. I believe every State and Non-State actors understand this.
It is almost traditional that the US and partners only deploy this town-crier model of sharing intelligence when the "subject" is a third world country in their description...if the "subject" is a superpower, they most often share intelligence discreetly.
Paradoxically, there is no much to blame them for because some African leaders are notorious for treating issues of national emergency with kid gloves. Embarrassing them just like a blow to the nose with public announcements, sometimes make them own up.

Like I opined in my closing remark in my opening comment, sometimes these things are done to influence foreign policy, and/or for propaganda.
The US deciding to blow the vuvuzela on this one has so many connotations.

Imagine a scenario where South Africa/USA is able to prove with credible evidence that a threat truly existed and it was nipped in the bud as a result of the early warning by the US. That will influence public opinion in South Africa in some way, especially now that Ramaphosa's government is a bit hostile towards the US.

pargelenis:
The USA is able to monitor terrorists in the USA as it generally involves multiple people … mainly following that ‘peaceful’ religion. Mass shooters would be challenging though as they are typically individuals operating independently. The US does have intel about other countries … no need to be bitter or pained about it.

I'm actually surprised it is difficult for some people to understand this.

US through the NSA has been spying on virtually everything and anybody of interest for years. Edward Snowden through wikileaks revealed this.
There is a REUTERS report during Obama's Admin about NSA spying on German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other top officials for over ten years, listening to her telephone conversations, even her fax machine. The US can monitor electronic conversations anywhere in the world at any time so whenever they issue warnings, such should be taken seriously.

Like you rightly said, it is much more difficult to monitor loners (like mass shooters) when they don't have prior or are not of specific interest. This is basic intelligence that should not be difficult for even an average mind to understand.
Mr A, develops mood swing or under influence, picks up his AR-15 and kills people...no prior communication with anyone of what he intends to do.
How difficult can it get for anybody to intercept that? I would say very very difficult


However, it is my individual opinion that sometimes they do it for the purpose of disruption, propaganda and/or influence foreign policy.