₦airaland Forum

She is here to see their loyal customer. Sense will not kii me

I was better too in 2014 but now? O ye Ọlọ́run.. (only God knows)

They will seal up the place again before tomorrow morning.

I have rejected Buhari too,
the gods have rejected him,
the world has rejected him and now,
his party has rejected him
His strength has rejected him,
His health has rejected him
His sanity has rejected him,
His wife has rejected him
He has also rejected himself when he said he wish he is younger.

na them them

Yinka! Yinka!! Yinka stop dining with these people. There is no difference between half full and half empty.

The kid of yesterday is ready to make kids. I don dey old o

profeazy:
Where can I buy your decoder pls?

I am not their agent but you can get it with any decoder especially strong decoder.
I have just scanned mine now, it is true

Dear Nigerians,

I sincerely appreciate all your concerns and prayers for our darling TSTV. From the date we announced TSTV, it has been fight all the way. I doubt if a week passed without us quenching one fire or the other. We didn’t anticipate that there would be war. We were also not trained to fight in the arena we were pushed into. The kinds of weapons our enemies would later contend us with, showed they had stocked their armoury waiting for a time like now. We may not have their kind of money, neither their kinds of weapons, ''connections'' and networks but one thing I sure know we had more than them was a determined spirit and a steadfast God. A God who doesn’t fail.

It has not been easy one bit. Our struggles drained us financially and pitched us against all good meaning Nigerians, subscribers and dealers that believed in us. We were wrestled even down to our satellite providers but our God is ever faithful.

Today 20th of August, 2018, I am happy to inform Nigerians that TSTV is back live and direct but this time under the watch of Abba Father. With our successful acquisition of FIVE units of 35.5MHz transponders last two weeks on Nigcomsat through our collaboration with Intertel, Federal Ministry of Communications and Nigcomsat, TSTV can now offer Nigerians the true meaning of video entertainment. Our TSTV has successfully migrated to Nigeria Communication Satellite. ALL CHANNELS in Full HD. No one does that. More channels are being added daily.

Guess what!!!, TSTV management in appreciation to EVERYONE have decided that 45 TSTV PREMIUM HD CHANNELS will be available for free for another one month as we don't intend to encrypt the channels now. You can use any dish at all, including the ones you are using for other operators to track Nigcomsat today and lets enjoy premium entertainment together.

We are now a True Nigerian Brand and we all should support ours. Kindly monitor our progress by tracking your dish to 42.5oE, Frequency 12589, Symbol Rate: 30,000. Polarization: Horizontal

TSTV + NIGCOMSAT + GOD = Connecting your world

Bright Echefu
MD/CEO TSTV Africa
cc
Seun

Can't they bring the dates closer to utilize this holiday dates to reduce at least more two days of stress?

Why is he scared now? No court can stop the senate from carrying out its constitutional duties. The ruling is ultra vire ab initio. More so, we already have a precedent from Kaduna.

Yyeske:
What we are saying is that you and other IPOBians should come and wave your flag as we watch the python dance on your heads. You have been warned so don't come later and start shouting ICC, UN, ECOWAS, AU, US, UK, Russia, China and even heaven when it starts.

Kí là ń sọ, kí ni eléyìí ń sọ? (what are we saying and what is this one saying?) Why are you guys programmed this way? Anybody not sharing the same opinion with you is an automatic IPOB member. Even at time computer or phone's 'brain' hangs so that you may reset it for more efficiency. Bros, kindly do a reset.

They will demolish it in the night. These people have no conscience, they have sold it to the devil.

Noted at least if they can't beat all, they can beat some.

Since they can't face the herdsmen, they can at least continue to do shankara for the defenseless and harmless IPOB.

War na war even if you fight mosquitoes in your room.

Who else have noticed that none of this government's appointees is bold to openly and publicly condemn or speak against the herdsmen?

Police na police no matter the name you call them.

It is now very obvious even to the blind that PMB is the reason Nigeria is not progressing. I support the call for him to remain in London. I am no more angry.

That meeting may help restore a backsliding soul.

That singular N20 call put Nigeria in the terrible misfortunes we are now. How I wish it was not Buhari.

Unfortunately, many are yet to see it especially those blinded by religion and ethnicity.

I feel like commenting but I am afraid his disciples here will counter my comments with another obvious lies. Lie is part of their manifesto

Seriously what has he done to deserve a second term?
If na me, shame go dey catch me to re-contest since I failed to fulfil all my first term promises. But my guy already has his usual line of excuses "PDP" and now the latest excuse is "Saraki's NASS frustrated him from performing"

"A failure blames all except himself"

By hamzat -August 13, 20180156

Much ink has been spilled and much needless rancus generated by the argument that a mere 24 Senators can lawfully remove Saraki as Senate President. Nothing can be further from the truth.

Expectedly, this skewed view emanates mostly from pro-government lawyers and commentators, baying for the blood of Saraki,who had defected from the ruling APC to the opposition PDP, inspite of sustained, spirited and overt pressures by the President, presidency and the APC leadership not to do so. This interpretation however stands both reasoning and logic on their heads. It is full of puff and emotion,more of lachrymal effusion,than of solid law or constitutionality. I shall show this anon. In statutory interpretation, one can not import into a law that which is not so specifically stated.

This is explained by the Latin maxim, ”expressio unius est exclusio alterius”(the explicit mention of one thing is the exclusion of another).See the cases of Ogbuniya v Okudo (1976) 6-9 SC 32;AG of the Federation & 2 v Alhaji Atiku Abubakar (2007) NGSC 118(decided April,2007);Osahon v FRN (2003) 16 NWLR (oh 845) 89; Commissioner for Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs v Onakade (2016) LPELR 41133 (CA,decided on 5th May,2016).Now,sections 143 and 188 of the 1999 Constitution,as altered(“Constitution”),dealing with removal of the President,Vice president,governor and Deputy Governor respectively,specifically deal with those situations only and nothing more.

They are totally different from section 50(2)(c) which specifically deals with the removal or impeachment of the President or Deputy President of the Senate,or the Speaker or Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives.Section 50(2)(c) clearly discounts the word “all”.If it wanted to import “all” as done in sections 143 and 188,it would have said so clearly.But,it did not.It simply says,”if he is removed from office by a resolution of the Senate or of the HOUSE of Representatives,as the case may be by the votes of not less than two-thirds majority of the members of that House”.Now,what is “that House”? For the Senate,it is the “House” that comprises of 109 Senators,three from each of the 36 states of the federation and the Federal Capital Territory Abuja(see section 48).For the “House” in the case of the House of Representatives,it comprises of 360 members(see section 49).See also section 47 for the composition of both Houses.

Surely, section 50(2)(c) also did not talk about “quorum” of any of the “Houses” as stated in section 54(1),which simply deals with the quorum of members before any of the Houses can sit at all.

That is why in the case of sitting,section 54(1) provides for “one-third of ALL the members of the legislative House concerned”.This “quorum” issue cannot therefore be imported into the clear and unambiguous provisions of section 50(2)(c),which specifically deals with the business of impeaching those officers of the two Houses mentioned therein.Section 50(2)(c) did not also talk of “members present and voting”.

It simply states,”not less than two-thirds majority of the members of that House”.Two-thirds of the 109 members Senate is 73,while two-thirds of the 360 members House of Representatives is 240.
In any event,because proceedings for impeachment of any of these principal officers of the bicameral legislature is a very sensitive legal and constitutional matter,courts in Nigeria,including the apex court,have severally interpreted what is meant by the phrase “two-thirds majority vote” of a House.In the causa celebre of The National Assembly v The President,FRN(2003) 41 WRN 94,the Court of Appeal in a lead judgement delivered by cerebral Justice Oguntade,JCA(as he then was;later JSC,and currently the Nigerian High Commissioner to the UK),interpreted “two-thirds” to mean two-thirds of the entire two Houses,ie,Senate and House of Representatives.The court held that to override the president’s veto of a bill,each House must garner 73(Senate) and 240(House of Representatives) members votes respectively,as representing two-thirds.Said the court:
“Its ordinary meaning,two-thirds majority of each House can only mean two-thirds of the membership of each House of the Senate and the House of Representatives.It cannot mean anything else.The section has no relationship with the ordinary quorum of each House.It does not employ a language referable to a proportion of the membership of each House.It is two-thirds of each of the whole of the Senate and House of Representatives.In order to override the president’s veto,there must be at least 73 members in the Senate and at least 240 members in the House of Representatives.But as I observed earlier,when the Senate made a motion of veto override on the Bill on 25/9/2002,there were only 55 Senators present.In the House of Representatives on 26/9/2002,when a motion of veto override was made,there 204 members.Clearly therefore,the appellant was not properly constituted when the Bill was “passed” into law on 25/9/2002 and 26/9/2002…..The lower court was therefore in error to have taken the position that what was needed to pass the Bill was the ordinary working quorum of the appellant and that the “motion of veto override” was in order”.The apex court indeed relied on the well known rule of statutory interpretation termed “generalis specialibus non derogant”,which means that where there are provisions in a special Act and in a general Act on the same subject which are inconsistent,if the special Act gives a complete rule on the subject,the expression of the rule acts as an exception to the subject matter of the rule from the general Act.See AG,Ondo State v AG,Federation (2002) 9 NWLR(part 772) 222;Akindorile v Akindorile (2977) 1 FCAR 148;Panormous Bay v Olam Nig Ltd (2004) 5 NWLR (part 865) 1; Ibori v Ogboru (2004) 15 NWLR (part 895) 154.Thus,Oduyemi,JCA,in his brilliant concurring judgement emphasised,with uncommon lucidity,that,
“The normal rule of interpretation of the Constitution or of any statute for that matter is that general provisions must give way to special provisions-see AG,Abia State v AG,Federation(supra).

By virtue of that argument,I am convinced that the special provision of 2/3 majority of each House or of s joint sitting of both Houses take supremacy over the general provisions of the statute with regard to quorum and a simple majority contained in sections 54 and 56 of the Constitution .In the event,I am of the view that what is required in a proper application of section 58(5) of the Constitution is for the Bill to be supported by at least 73 members of the Senate and be supported by at least 240 members of the House of Representatives at a repeat third reading of the Bill”.In the same 2003,the Court of Appeal had,in Asogwa v Chukwu (2003) 17 WRN 71,had cause to interprete section 92(2) of the Constitution which deals with the equivalent provisions for the removal or impeachment of the Speaker of a House of Assembly of a says.The Court of Appeal was emphatic that the 2/3 majority envisaged by section 92(2) of the Constitution is two-thirds majority of ALL THE MEMBERS of the House of Assembly of the state that could remove the Speaker.I respectfully submit therefore,that,mutatis mutandi,and afortiori,section 58(5) which deals with the all important matter of overriding Mr president’s veto of a bill is a special provision akin to section 50(2)(c) which deals with the sensitive issue of impeachment of the leadership of the NASS.These therefore override the general provisions of sections 54 and 56 which deal with the simple quorum required for the ordinary legislative business of both Houses on the matters stated therein.This argument is afforded further constitutional imprimatur by section 61 of the Constitution which provides to the effect that “the Senate or the House of Representatives may act notwithstanding any vacancy in its membership,and the presence or participation of any person not en titled to be present at or to participate in the proceedings of the House shall not invalidate those proceedings”.

Were the perverse and ludicrous argument that 24 Senators can legally impeach Saraki to hold sway,it would have meant that even 17 Senators can easily remove the entire leadership of the Houses voted in by all the members of the Houses under section 50(1),even if only 50 Senators were alive,simply because that represents 2/3 of 50 Senators.Such a situation would not only be absurd,but would tantamount to doing violence to the Constitution itself.In statutory interpretation,it is elementary that the law should be interpreted in such a way as to avoid absurdity or infer meanings different from the clear intention of the legislature.See Bronik Motors v Wema Bank Ltd (1983) LSCLR 296.Remember the conundrum faced by the Supreme Court as to what constituted 2/3 of 19 states in Awolowo v Shagari (1979) LPELR SC 62,decided on 26th September,1979).
Those deceiving the government with warped “legal opinions” on sensitive national matters that could snowball into serious cataclysmic miasma capable of consuming all of us,just to keep their cheap jobs and serve the insatiable bacchannalian appetites of their gods at the ephemeral corridors of power,must remember the immortal words of the Supreme Court in Military Governor of Lagos State v Odumegwu Ojukwu (2001) FWLR (part 50) 1779,1802,coran erudite Obaseki,JSC:

“The Nigerian Constitution is founded on the rule of law,the primary meaning of which is that everything must be done according to law.Nigeria,being one of the countries in the world which professes loudly to follow the rule of law,gives no room for the rule of self-help by force to operate”.I therefore earnestly caution paid “advisers” of the present government and the government itself,especially the Executive,from using any strong hand,jackboot,gunboat,or vile unconstitutional means to forcefully remove or torpedo the leadership of the Senate with a mere 24 members,instead of the constitutionally mandatory 73 members.That would reduce us to international odium, obloqhy, ridicule and opprobrium. It will show us more as a nation given to might rather than right,crass impunity,rule of the thumb,rather than rule of law and executive lawlessness. Let those who have ears,hear and those who have eyes, see.

God save Nigeria.

Butterflyle0:
A quorum is not what is required to elect or impeach.

2/3 majority of members present is what is required for impeachment or election. But therein is the ambiguity and that was what saraki took advantage of and got in through that loophole with 57 senators out of which 37 were PDP and the majority party only had 20 votes.

Even his action was illegal because the President had to first address a new senate prior to any elections and he went against this legal norm

Just a quick correction of one of the phrases you have been repeating since on the president's proclamation of the 8th senate.

Buhari sent his proclamation through a letter and it was read on the floor of the senate that day.
Kindly update your knowledge on this.

When you are chanced, open the attached link for further upgrade

https://www.nairaland.com/4675124/opinion-73-senators-not-24

Now I believe this guy/girl no well

Why Buhari? They should have named him after people known for successes like Dangote. See as they just limit this poor boy's destiny.

I knew he withdrew his earlier case in court against the song because his people promised him to do a quick job on the song than the court. The reason you can now wear hijab to call to bar.

kenonze:
Saraki is afraid

Why won't he when he knows some people are extremely lawless?

Sincerely, I can pick any sense in this write up. If you do, raise up your hands.

Sincerely, I cant pick any sense in this write up. If you do, raise up your hands.

Writing a Will is critically important for all adults regardless of wealth, marital status, or age. A Will allows you to:

1. Ensure that your possessions will be distributed as you wish.
If you die without a Will, the law decides how your estate will be distributed. Although some property will automatically be passed to a spouse or children, exact distribution depends on the value of the property and the terms of title deeds. A Will is the only way to ensure that your wishes will be carried out.

2. Appoint and outline powers of an Executor and/or Trustee.
Writing a Will allows you to decide who will oversee and manage distribution of your estate. Designating a trustworthy and impartial Executor provides peace of mind that the terms of your Will will be honored.
Appoint a guardian for minor children.

3. Your Will serves as the legal guiding document for care of minor children in the event of the death of both parents.

4. Specify funeral wishes.
Specifying your funeral wishes in your Will reduces stress for loved ones and ensures your body will treated in the way you desire (e.g. burial vs. cremation).

5. Expedite the legal process.
It is generally faster and less costly to settle an estate with a valid Will. Reducing legal fees protects the value of your property and savings to be passed to beneficiaries.

6. Reduce stress and heartache for loved ones.
A Will that clearly outlines your wishes for funeral arrangements and property distribution will reduce confusion and family disagreements during a stressful and emotionally difficult time.

7. You’re able to make changes to your will at any time you are well.
Have you changed your mind about an inheritance? Do you want to leave assets to another beneficiary? Have your assets changed? If so, you may need to make changes to your will. A will is able to be updated at any time you are alive and well!

8. You will have a greater peace of mind.
Knowing that you have a proper plan in place will allow you and your family to feel more at ease. Without a will, you may have fears about how future affairs will be handled.

8. Your wife and children will be protected from scavengers who may want to deny your survivals the benefits of your sweat.

9. No one can cheat your survivals in the name of one custom and tradition.

10. Your will allows you to still speak from the grave.

The courts are now becoming bold...

Saraki is one step ahead again