₦airaland Forum

Surprised there was no mention of this in Buhari's UN speech... this is an opportunity for ECOWAS to step up again after a successful intervention in The Gambia, although the dynamics are very different.

Cyynthia:
Lai Mohammed is the One that is getting desperate on this issue.
He has single handedly internationalized the struggle,and I am very sure that his plan to Stop Ipobs will give Ipob more recognition,and at the end, Nig will be at the loosing end, because white men don't reason like some iddiots here in Nigeria.

On the issue of Lai Mohammed and his fellow maggots desperately calling Ipob terrorist, I think they are very foolish because Ipobs are 99℅ Christians and Christians don't breed terrorist. We all know the religion that embraced terrorism as their way of life.

If your hope is on "white men" you are on a long thing. No western state will ever support secession. And if you read your history, Biafra was totally ignored by the powerful Europeans back in the first agitation.

Ion think they care about you lot at all!

malware:
Erdogan doesn't joke with the word coup, regardless of the way it comes

If you read you would have seen that her tweet was pro-Erdogan

Sucker way

This guy must be high on poo!

First of all, you have no right to shoot someone simply because he is a cultist. Punishment is reserved for the courts!

Nonsense

I think in the next 10 years Covenant Uni will rank alongside the South African and Egyptian Universities, at the pace they are going.

Lol!

She contradicted herself at the end, by saying if you play around you are risking your life.

So why would anyone want to take that chance again?

dunno why anyone but her husband and children is supposed to care what this woman has to say on the matter

attackgat:
When the President is calling on the Army "to aid himself" it is as it personal gets.

in the pursuit of national goals...dont refuse to understand.

attackgat:
"suppressing insurrection and acting in aid of civil authorities to restore order when called upon to do so by the President, but subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly; "

I stead of you defining civil authority, read the above section of the constitution. It is the president that has to call on the military to aid civil authorities

Are you trying to say that they meant that the president can call upon the military to aid himself?

If that were true then it means that whoever is president of Nigeria can use the Nigerian Military as his personal property

That quotation means the presido can call upon the army to aid any civil authority whatsoever (including himself), in the interest of peace and order.

obviously, matters of personal interest to the president do not have anything to do with the work of civil authorities (including himself).

truthtosinknaij:
So essentially troops were deployed to cause mayhem and in the process trigger the barbaric killing of ordinary folks. See how you have indicted your dearly leader

Rubbish. The deployment of troops is no reason for mayhem unless the troops are deployed an unruly and rebellious set of people

attackgat:
How? In subsection(b), IPOB has not yet declared a separate state of Biafra so the territorial intergrity of Nigeria is still intact

[s]In subsection(c) there was no insurrection. Insurrection means "violent armed uprising" by a group. Before the Army came to Abia state, was no insurrection. IPOB may have stoned the soldiers during their clash but stonning is not insurrection and neither were the Army acting in aid of any civil authority[/s]

Noun 1. civil authority - a person who exercises authority over civilian affairs
civil officer
authority - (usually plural) persons who exercise (administrative) control over others; "the authorities have issued a curfew"
city manager, mayor - the head of a city government

Who or what, by the above definition, is the President of Nigeria?

Is he not a civil authority?

Besides that section of the constitution is simply interpreted to mean that the army may take on roles typically assigned to civil authorities. It does not mean that they require the involvement of those authorities.

freeze001:
No one says he cannot face other charges. The question is: is it the duty of the army to effect such arrest? Was the police overwhelmed? Do u mean the army was called upon to arrest Nnamdi? Are u saying the target of the Python dance was just about NK ans IPOB not all the lies about an operation show of force to check kidnapping and armed robbery in the East. Are u calling the Army authorities liars then? Was Nnamdi Kanu or IPOB involved in any of those?

My contribution is solely on the legality of the army's position. Their actions are entirely legal since the Constitution provides that the Army may assist Civil Authorities in carrying out their duties. You then have to note that there is no requirement that the police must be overwhelmed. The only requirement is that the deployment of the army should be done at the discretion of the president or his lawful delegates.

Furthermore, the Armed Forces Act of Nigeria states that the president shall determine the operational use of the army, that is he shall determine for what purpose they are deployed within Nigeria.

So have they got the right to be on the streets of the South-east, abundantly yes! Have they got the right to pick up Nnammdi Kanu? Abundantly yes (to the same extent as police do), and note that a warrant is not always required for an arrest.

So the narrative goes that,

1. Troops were deployed
2. Troops were attacked
3. The person behind these attacks is to be arrested

There are no grounds upon which to fault the army here.

truthtosinknaij:
It is an impeachable offense because the military were hunting down and killing people. They were not protecting lives and properties

Stop confusing yourself.

1. The behavior or misbehavior of the military while deployed have no bearing on the President except it can be proven that such occurred on the orders of the president.

2. An impeachable offence is defined by the Constitution. Without making reference to that, you are not relevant.

3. Whether or not there was any such "hunting and killing" is yet to be established in the first place.

truthtosinknaij:
Because the people in the know have analyzed the American constitution. Nigeria is operating an American style democracy on paper.

Stlye, maybe. But so what? It is the content of our Constitution that is relevant here.

You asked if Buhari committed an impeachable offence by deploying military troops domestically, and answer is no. In fact, he has committed no offence at all, according too the Nigerian Constitution, and the Armed Forces Act of Nigeria.

freeze001:
Is it the duty of the army to arrest a civilian? More so one who was under the authority of the jurisdiction of the court and enjoying bail? What is the procedure for arresting a person who seemingly flouts bail conditions? Is it to reapply to same court that granted bail or sic the military on an individual?

Their job was to pick up Nnamdi Kanu? I thought y'all claimed it was a routine python operation where the Military shows off its force and firepower to civilians and to curb kidnapping? Was NK or IPOB accused of kidnapping? Was there any unrest that had overwhelmed the police and other civilian authority hence the invitation of the Army to arrest him and 'restore' law and order?

When called upon to do so yes.

Moroever, being released n bail does not mean you cannot immune from arrest on other charges!

truthtosinknaij:
This is what the US constitution say



The Constitution of the United States, laws, regulations, policies, and other legal issues limit the use of federal military personnel in domestic support operations. Any Army involvement in civil disturbance operations involves many legal issues requiring comprehensive legal reviews. However, federal forces are authorized for use in civil disturbance operations under certain circumstances.

What circumstances? For the answer we turn to section, 2-8, whose provisions may soon become applicable to Ferguson and/or other municipal regions, should the rioting in the St. Louis suburb escalate further. To wit:

The Constitution of the United States provides two exceptions for which the Posse Comitatus Act does not apply. These exceptions are based upon the inherent right of the U.S. government to ensure the preservation of public order and to carrying out governmental operations within its territorial limits by force, if necessary. These two exceptions are—

Emergency authority. A sudden and unexpected civil disturbance, disaster, or calamity may seriously endanger life and property and disrupt normal governmental functions to such an extent that local authorities cannot control the situation. At such times, the federal government may use military force to prevent the loss of life or wanton destruction of property and to restore government functions and public order. In these circumstances, federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances (see DODD 3025.18).
Protection of federal property and functions. When the need for the protection of federal property or federal functions exists, and duly constituted local authorities are unable to, or decline to provide adequate protection, federal action, including the use of military forces, is authorized.
.

You don't want to read the Nigerian Constitution but you are quoting the American Constitution on a Nigerian matter...why are you confusing yourself?

LeoFish92:
In assemblies of God, pastors are not allowed to have any side businesses, u DARE not try it, I don't know about other denominations sha

We are talking of levites and pastors in general, so you cannot use the specific practices of Assemblies of God church as a reference point.

To show that pastors are the modern day levites you have to first prove three conditions:

1. That the church organization is the new temple. This is a belief that is widely accepted but why? Look through scriptures carefully, and tell me, is there any point at which we are told the Church is the new temple and we should therefore continue the practices that were instructed as part of worship in the temple?

2. There were Priests and Levites who both served in the Temple. Priests were not entitle to tithe. If you can satisfy condition one, then you have to explain why you draw the parallel between Levites and Pastors instead of Pastors and Priests.

3. Pastors are instructed by God not to have any personal property. This was the reason God said Levites should take part of the tithe. So is there a similar such instruction for pastors?

kolnel:
Nice initiative
I keep wondering why other continents are making headways and Africa keeps going backward

I guess the answer is religion

Is Africa the only continent with religion? Did religion begin from Africa?

This is getting ridiculous...GIVE THE IGBOs THEIR REFERENDUM!!

lonikit:
Levite's are equivalent to full time pastors in this generation. there are pastors who do not do anytin aside the work of God.

Can you support this with any evidence at all?

maklelemakukula:
this girl just learnt "cliche" today and decided to appear smart using her the "new" word while also seeking attention. Take her serious at your own peril

She's making sense though...no need to hate

solid3:
He must be having his cester by this time, cos the guy nor dey joke with him afternoon sleep.

Siesta not cester.

clarocuzioo:
Obviously you are defending him by countering Falana, now you don't know even with you being cognisant with the Armed Forces Act, and why are you countering him when you don't know?? What kind of a person are you countering what you don't know?? Please let's us be truthful in this nation as nothing separates us like lies.

Nope.

I was only offering a counter-legal opinion to the specific legal issue raised by Femi Falana.

nepapole:
Lies....the girl poured engine oil on that part herself. Stupid girl.

yea it doesn't add up...thats the wrong location for a shit stain and the color too is a bit off for a shit stain


could be sweat stains but that part is way too concentrated compared to the other areas which look relatively normal for used white undwerwear

clarocuzioo:
Section 8(1) and (3) basically provides, without any qualification whatsoever, the power to deploy the Armed Forces to maintain public safety and order is entirely at the discretion of the President,
Good, thanks for that, the question now is
1. was public safety being threatened??

2. Was there a breakdown of law and order in Umuahia that warranted the military invasion??
3. The present security situation was it beyond the control of the police and DSS?? it is worthy to note that recent survey showed the south east to be the most peaceful region, if that is the case what is the motive behind the military invasion??
These questions are begging for answer.

I have no idea why there was a need for a military invasion. You have to ask Buhari that, and i am not here to defend Buhari.

goaldynboy:
So you are blind to see where he stated that the army can only come in where the police have first been deployed and the police failed?!

What is wrong with you?

I am pointing out that the man is wrong in his submission since no law of Nigeria stipulates that the army can only intervene after the police are stretched. In fact, the law says the army can be used at any point in time provided the president or his lawful delegate so instructs.

plaetton:
I beg to differ sir.

In Nigeria, what exactly makes a speech dangerous to the democratic process ?
because, we can go back to campaign speeches from all political parties and actors, particularly Buhari himself, which were clearly dangerous to peace, stability, unity and the democratic process,. and definitely seditious .
I mean, from where, when and from whom do we start the witch hunt ?

As per security outfit, again, let me ask you, what constitutes an illegal security outfit ?
We have all manners of vigilante groups in very corner of Nigeria. Are they also illegally constituted ?

Can you see the double standard on issues , any issues relating to Kanu, and Igbos in general ?

I notice in your submissions thus far, you have deliberately or accidentally omitted the Constitution and its umbrella guarantees to citizens of Nigeria.

How can we, for example, hail the late Nelson Mandela as a bona fide African Hero, despite him formally being labelled a criminal and terrorist, and then try everything in twisted logic to delegitimize the agitations of Kanu and IPOB who bear no arms ?

You are drawing me into the politics of things which i am not so keen on. But look there is the big picture and the small picture. In the small picture, the mighty federal government is picking on "innocent" Mazi Kanu. But in the big picture, Kanu has a goal that is utterly inimical to the goals of the federal government. So you have these two players playing a game here.

You can't say, oh look the government did this and that to Kanu but not to this or that person, when in fact those people are not players in this game. You follow?

so:

1. Ipob under the leadership of Nnamdi Kanu have resisted elections in Anambra. This is a threat to the election process and it is a danger to the democratic way of life which is underpinned by the institution of periodic elections, and the free exercise of universal suffrage.

2. Now the declaration of a country called Biafria is itself seditious, as it is a call to people to stop recognizing the authority of the Nigerian state. The establishment of a security outfit in the name of a seditious state is a further act of sedition. If the govt. comes for Kanu he has no excuse... the charges will be clear and undeniable since documentary evidence exists.

So as for other vigilante groups, this is not unlawful. What is unlawful about the Biafra Security Services is the fact that it represents a seditious entity, with an implied intention to violently enforce the goals of that entity. Is there any other vigilante or even militia group in Nigeria with goals that threaten the unity of the country? The only similar group i can think of is boko haram... and it is clear how the government is handling those ones.

This is not a case of marginalization per se, it is simply a case of playing a dirty game with legal moves. Make no mistake about it, Mandela is a hero but he was in fact a terrorist by every definition of that word. He actually killed people and deserved to go to jail. So also Kanu might be a hero to you but that does not change the fact that he may in one way or another break the law, and when the lawman comes knocking, the cry of "we are being marginalized" will fall on deaf ears.

3. My submissions have all been based on the constitution and other laws of Nigeria. Is there a specific portion of the Constitution you feel is applicable in this discussion? Quote it, and we'll take it from there.

plaetton:
But can you say that Kanu, in his Biafra actualization activism over the last few years, has compromised and or endangered public safety ?
If yes, where ? In Umuahia ?

I cant say for a fact that Nnamdi Kanu is a dangerous person, but he does continue to break the law in grave ways.

From the federal perspective he has threatened actions that threaten to undermine the democratic process in Nigeria, he has promoted actions to undermine the peace and stability upon his arrest, he also perpetually threatens the unity of Nigeria, and recently inaugurated an illegal security outfit with unknown intentions (which is a seditious offence under Nigeria's criminal code).

So really, when it comes to legality, Kanu is very much exposed by his utterances and behavior.