₦airaland Forum

bilulu:
What was the court ruling? didn't the governors championed by messenger of daura asked the FG to share the money

The governors championed by messenger of daura cannot ask to share FG's money. The money the governors championed by messenger of daura asked for was the governors share of the oil revenues. The governors championed by messenger of daura did not trust Jonathan to hold their money, as they already accused Jonathan of taking money from their joint account without their consent. The governors share of the federation is only 26%, the FG takes over 52%. Why was Jonathan so obsessed with the governor 26%? Why not save the whopping 52% allocated to him.

Leo81:
The dead wood in Aso Rock brought in a high rate of inflation..

You mean before the dead wood got into office Nigeria had low inflation rate?

Why not use Google to search the historical inflation rate of Nigeria before making bogus claims.

ityP:
Wow. We have started importing rice, I didn't even know . Una don swear say una no go get sense. GEJ no invest for agriculture but rice na 8k. Buhari invest for agriculture, but rice don pass 35k . Omo. The economics Buharists study eh, e be like na Adamu Adamu dey teach una

And the price of rice is evidence of a robust economy?
Arguing with you guys is an irrational exercise.

Thinktwicemybro:
Shut up, time of plenty kill you there. For 7 years buhari destroyed a robust economy he met and you are there blaming Jonathan. Abeg go use coconut water wash your head, you need sense.

Robust gini? Nigeria economy that was still only oil based and was virtually on the verge of collapse. You Jonathan's worshippers just like Trump worshippers live in an alternate universe.

bilulu:
who took the govt to court so they can share the money between governors?

Did the person ask the court to share the FG's money between the governors? Did the court give a ruling about the case?
Did the FG save money that accrued to it?

DeepSight:
But the borrowing of this gwament no get part 2 oh. Future gwaments go suffer am.
And secondly it was the APC and Buhari who cried and wept the most over subsidy. What has become of subsidy under them?

Gbam.

I was making reference to the person that lied that Jonathan increased our foreign reserves I was not making a comparison of which government borrowed more. Obviously in that competition Buhari wins hands down.

As long as the importation and sales of petrol remain in government hands, there will be always subsidy. But then we have to chose between subsidy with all its attendant corruption and wastes of the country's revenue or accept very high and unstable prices.

yusufu16:
Crude oil is over $100 per barrel now almost same as Jonathan regime, what has Buhari achieved.

Crude oil is over $100 per barrel for how long? A week. Why not compare to how long Crude oil was over $100 per barrel during Jonathan's reign.

SmartPolician:
Jonathan was a veryyyyyyyy wasteful leader. Yar'Adua was the leader who massively increased the foreign reserves. Please Jonathan didn't increase the foreign reserves. Instead, he was spending from it and still spending from the excess crude account.

Jonathan made Okonjo-Iweala look so horrible because while the woman was trying to convince governors to save for the country, Jonathan was giving instructions that the money be squandered.

That's why Amaechi and others insisted that the money be shared when Okonjo-Iweala was asking that we save the money.

Just like Buhari, Jonathan, a broke man from riverine Nigeria, saw billions of dollars in foreign reserves and forgot diversification he used to sing like a song.

However, I have to be fair to Jonathan because he was able to revive the railways - something that collapsed before he came in. At least I travelled from Enugu to Port Harcourt in one of the trains in 2014. He also built new universities and almajiri schools, and upgraded the airports.

Just before you think that I am an APC minion (because you people have senselessly divided the entire country into APC and PDP), Buhari is even worse because it appears he doesn't have a brain let alone being able to think.

Gbam. Jonathan was wasteful, Buhari is directionless.

I was shocked shocked when he lied that Jonathan increased the foreign reserves. I asked which foreign reserves? Maybe their personal foreign reserves, but Jonathan depleted the foreign reserves left by Yaradua and was borrowing to pay salaries.

Buhari is a ghost president. Nigeria is being ruled by the presidency.

frozen70:
Have you asked her the above questions
It's her pregnancy met her deal with it
Any girl that can carry a man should be able to carry pregnancy and the baby

So a 23 year old orphan that got pregnant should be forced to deal with it as a punishment for her sins. Have you given a thought to the unfortunate baby? Does the baby also have to deal with it?

See many examples that are also forced to deal with their parent's indiscretions in Kano

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhJgVt8EIcA

frozen70:
We guys are callous or she was callous and took in carelessly

So because she took in carelessly you want to use a baby as punishment. Are you not tired of seeing abandoned suffering children's on the streets of Nigeria being portrayed on BBC everyday?

frozen70:
Let her kepp her pregnancy, it's another way of learning

Next time she will think well

Another way of learning for who? The baby or the girl?

You guys are so callous. And to think that you are female.

Karnice600:
Look at the way the US handled the Cuban missile crisis. They encircled Cuba, creating a naval blockade to prevent Russia from bringing in military supplies and urged Khrushchev to deactivate and destroy the whole setup and sites.
They engaged Russia directly. That was very risky, but that solved the issue. They didn't invade little Cuba to correct a Russian action. Even though Castro was as good as a foe, he ruled over a harmless masses, in a sovereign state. The US respected that fact.
They faced the cause, and dialogue ensued afterwards.
That's the difference between the two Scenarios; the handling.

We are now on the same page. I have always said that Putin's concerns are legitimate, but the way he is going about it is completely wrong. He should not have fired the first shot. He should have threatened and imposed economic and military blockade on Ukraine but never war, unless of course he was fired upon either by Ukraine itself or its western backers. He absolutely has no justification to pull Russia into a war without the support or approval of the Russian people.

If he has done that he would have gotten the attention of the world leaders and the issue would have been negotiated without anyone losing face. Now the die is cast and everyone has dug in. Even countries like Germany and China that was a bit sympathetic to Russia has taken a hard stand against them. No one will back down now. An escalation of the war is inevitable.

Karnice600:
Do you think Russia's invasion of Ukraine is justified over NATO'S spread of influence?

Are you aware that sometimes in the 90s apartheid South Africa wanted to build a military base in Equatorial Guinea (next door to Nigeria). What did Nigeria do? Nigeria threatened to invade Equatorial Guinea and that forced South Africa to abandon the idea of the military base. No one will be comfortable with an enemy next door. I think it was under IBB or Abacha, I am not sure.

See the way Ukraine is treating African students trying to escape to other countries.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/CafWL7qJkg0/?utm_medium=share_sheet

mybiz234:
And that also excuses leaving even American citizens behind? Who is dumb now if not you?!

So, in your own idea of emergency situation, you first remove soldiers before removing your citizens?

You guys know nothing, yet you'll be arguing.

You are dumber than dumb.
You want the commander in chief of the armed forces to leave or abandon his soldiers, so that you guys can start cumming in ecstacy at the sight of Taliban beheading US soldiers.

It was an emergency situation. The US administration did not fathom that Taliban would take over Afghanistan in a week without a fight. So the administration had to hurriedly evacuate first the remaining soldiers (remember Trump had reduced the numbers of troops to 2500 before leaving office), diplomatic staff, US citizens and Afghan interpreters in that order. Evacuating Military equipments was not even considered or practical.

mybiz234:
You don't need a full brain to know what Biden did in Afghanistan us stupid.

How will you leave weapon and civilians behind to evacuate soldiers first?

If that sounds normal to you, then you are cursed with dumbness

Very dumb statement

You don't seem to have an idea of logistics. An emergency situation comes up in Afghanistan and you want Biden to leave US citizens and desperate Afghan citizens, and evacuate weapons instead. Do you know the logistics nightmare of transporting thousands of tonnes of military hardware from the interior of Afghanistan to the ports and then to the US? Do you know how long that would take? You think evacuating tanks, helicopters and heavy military equipment is as easy as driving it into the airport and into a cargo plane bound for the US? Even when evacuating civilians, the cargo planes evacuate the people to nearby Qatar before putting them on commercial planes.

Gee64:
Trump talks from the two sides of his mouth.

That has always been his style, he talks from both sides of his mouth, his supporters hold on to the side that fits their narrative, his opponents choose the other. It triggers heated arguments and keeps him in the news.

mapet:
Arrant Nonsense! The 2015 Act upon which many Judicial references and decision have been made in the court of law including Supreme Court is what cannot pass judicial scrutiny to you. You just conjure nonsense in your head...

Humor me, what section of the constitution has Section 149 of the Act contravened?

You are just arguing off point. Section 149 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) never implied that the police of any of it's agencies can search your house without a warrant. The section was talking about employing reasonable force to enforce a search warrant.

There is a concept called supremacy in Law.

mapet:
An Act cannot pass judicial scrutiny? Do you know the meaning of an Act?

Try reading the Nigerian constitution to get an understanding of how a constitutional democracy works.

Now read and comprehend section 1.1 and section 1.3 of the Nigerian constitution;

1. 1. This Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on the authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

3. If any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail, and that other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.

And then tell me if some acts of the National Assembly and edicts of state assembly cannot be rendered null and void by the judiciary if it is conflict with the constitution.

SportsHD:
Lol.
What about black people who are citizens there? The fact remains, once you're black, it doesn't matter if you're a citizen or not. You're going to "the back of the bus".

I'm not supporting Ukraine nor Russia. They're also the same when it comes to treatment of dark skinned folks.

Ukrainians are ultra racist. They are even more racist than Russians.i had a neighbour who got a student visa to study in Ukraine not so long after independence from Soviet Union. On getting to the airport he was detained for 3 days, beaten and sent back to Nigeria after having a valid student visa and paid the school fees. On getting home he had to be hospitalised. Since then I have had a negative impression of Ukrainians. They are one of the most racist people on earth.

Unshackled:
nope, upu didn't interpret that section or understand it well.

Without REASON, POLICE, NDLEA NEED WARRANT.

However in circumstances when they have reason to believe a crime is about being committed, they don't need warrant.

Yes in active cases where a crime is in progress, of course it would unreasonable to expect a warrant before a crime is bursted. But the "without reason" clause can be interpreted and abused wrongly. The law needs to clarify that distinction.

Unshackled:
the section you quoted said when there's reason to believe.

Now you're leading people to believe this is a blanket power or absolute authority.

But I'm not surprised, you even write like one with interrupted education.

Why can't the reason be presented before a judge?

Most times Police fish for reason after breaking into your property or after arrest.
Police have entered my shop before and attempted to drop a small pack of marijuana. Luckily someone saw him and raised an alarm. I am my workers raked so loud that people gathered. The police left in shame. This happened about 7 years ago.

01mcfadden:
US DEA

US DEA does not have powers to search your property without your permission or a court warrant.

xstyle:
The Law, is the Law, how can Ndlea officers get warrant on drug cases, knowing fully well that before the finished applying for warrant the drugs would have been moved. This search warrant thing no fit work for Ndlea except we don't want them to do there Job. Drugs is already doing enough damage to the society, but alot of youth won't admit it because they are users too. We need Ndlea to continue doing there Jobs, however let's not tolerate the bad elements among them who deliberately try to implicate innocent citizens

The law itself is against the fundamental human rights of rights to dignity. Getting a warrants from a judge is very easy and straight forward. Just present your evidence and arguments before a judge and a warrant would be granted within a matter of minutes.

Giving any human the powers to arrest arbitrarily without check is dangerous and would lead to serious abuse. Nigerian Police and other security forces break into people's houses, lock up suspects for months and search through people's phones, and commit all sorts of atrocities against innocent citizens and you are supporting this obnoxious law.

If this act actually exists, it should be challenged at the courts as it is blatantly against the constitution. The act cannot pass judicial scrutiny.

kazyhm:
Please to wasting your time explaining a simple logic to that Monika......it exactly what American did with Afghanistan, Iraq etc ....yo avoid terrorist attacks....they politically planted their soldiers for monitoring and intelligent gathering.

Abeg helep me ask them (Ukraine is a sovereign country people) watin Britain dey do for Falkland Islands. Falklands no even share border with Britain. Argentina claimed the Falklands in 1982 (as they have always insisted), but Thatcher and Reagan fought a war to reclaim it. Till today Falkland Islands is a British territory.

Vasically:
Wahala everywhere, wait how the lecturer go take know say she no wear bra � hope say them no go dey press Bobby up and down?

Na the pant own dey confuse me. How him to know girl wey no wear pants? Him go dey tell the girls to pull their skirts and open their legs?

Babinski:
At no point did I state or insinuate that the removal of the Pro-Russian President was the reason for Ukraine wanting to join NATO.

The Russian problem in Ukraine of sponsoring and arming separatists in Ukraine in the wake of the Crimean War made joining NATO more attractive to Ukraine even more than mere aspirations dating back to 2008. When your neighbour is more powerful than you and becoming aggressive, it is common sense to look for succour and protection elsewhere.

But NATO and the US had been doing same many times in the past. US and NATO armed and sponsored separatists in Benghazi to overthrow Gaddafi in Tripoli. The US armed and sponsored the kurdish rebels against Am-Bashir in Syria until the running came on the side of the Syrian president.

Babinski:
Is it the same news article you read? How is NATO or Ukraine the agressor playing victim?

Ukrainians decided to remove a Pro-Russian President in 2014 which angered Putin because his puppet had been removed. Putin then found excuse to annex Crimea, starting the Crimean War and thereafter sponsoring and arming separatists in Eastern Ukraine, leaving thousands of Ukrainians dead from his actions.

The Russian problem apparently makes joining NATO and the EU attractive to Ukraine and Putin's response is to invade Ukraine and you now say NATO are the aggressors?

When your neighbour is strategic to your safety what you do is treat him nice and be good to him. Not that you want to manipulate and threaten him to the point of fighting him. You think that would in the long run help your situation? Putin really made a big mistake that would unfold in times to come.

The 2014 removal of pro Russian President was not the reason Ukraine wanted to join NATO. Ukraine and Georgia had been aspiring to join NATO since NATO invited then at the 2008 Bucharest summit.
NATO read out a communique inviting Georgia and Ukraine;

Bucharest Summit Declaration
Issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Bucharest on 3 April 2008

23. NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. Both nations have made valuable contributions to Alliance operations. We welcome the democratic reforms in Ukraine and Georgia and look forward to free and fair parliamentary elections in Georgia in May. MAP is the next step for Ukraine and Georgia on their direct way to membership. Today we make clear that we support these countries’ applications for MAP. Therefore we will now begin a period of intensive engagement with both at a high political level to address the questions still outstanding pertaining to their MAP applications. We have asked Foreign Ministers to make a first assessment of progress at their December 2008 meeting. Foreign Ministers have the authority to decide on the MAP applications of Ukraine and Georgia.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443.htm

gambojimeta:
But Estonia and Latvia are NATO

Putin would never have allowed Estonia and Latvia to join NATO.

FERNANDEZISBACK:
NATO is a military alliance created explicitly to resist the German and Soviet aggression. A lot has changed since 1949. Germany is actually now an ally and one of key NATO members. Russia however is still a threat particularly to its immediate neighbors who don’t have massive oil reserves to fund military budgets. So NATO is still a very relevant peacekeeping force in Europe...

How can NATO be created to resist German aggression in 1949 when Germany was already defeated in 1945?
Why not use Google to cure your ignorance on NATO and it's formation.

So to answer your question, the reason why NATO has expanded and is expanding is because the applicant countries see it as a security guarantee against Russia, and to some degree, each other. Denying them membership simply based on their geographical location would defeat the very founding principle of NATO itself...
Think with your head instead of bringing your cluelessness here.

What is the founding principle of NATO?

Which Russian aggression made Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic join NATO in 1999 less that 10 years after the Soviet Union and Therefore Warsaw pact broke up?

Which security situation made Eastern European countries like Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia join NATO in 2004?

These small country offer nothing new to NATO capabilities except providing a base close to Russia.

Russia feels being chocked by the U.S. and that's why it's started to react more and more aggressively.

Imagine someone who said NATO was formed created to resist aggression against Germany accusing someone of cluelessness, is that ironic?

FERNANDEZISBACK:
How is NATO a threat to him?
NATO is a defensive organisation that guarantees the integrity of member nations against attack through the medium of mutual support...

How is NATO not a threat to Russia?
NATO was formed because of Soviet Union. Does the Soviet Union still exist? So why is NATO expanding and surrounding Russia? Being surrounded by NATO is a threat to Russia.

NATO means North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Is Latvia, Estonia, and all countries bordering Russia in the North Atlantic? Is Ukraine and Georgia in the North Atlantic. NATO needs to change its name to Russian Enemies Treaty Organization (RETO)