₦airaland Forum

zendy:
You have it twisted. The constitutional conference was just an agreement on the rules that guide us when the British left in 1960. It was never an agreement where the ethnic groups gave up their sovreignty. There is a big diference between 'living together' and 'being married'. We have have been living together but never married. There is nothing binding us together

Before and during the constitutional conference, every side (region) had the option to opt out of Nigeria and stay on their own. The Igbos never at any time raise the question of separation from Nigeria. It was after the failed January coup and the successful counter coup that the issue of secession came up.

The ethnic groups gave up their sovereignty the day they signed treaties of protection with the British government. That signed document gave the British power over t5o govern their lands as they deem it fit.

Below is the protection treaty my people signed with the British, this is similar to treaties that other tribes signed with the British government and was the document the British relied on in laying claims to the geographical area called Nigeria during the 1884 Berli. conference

zendy:
In this case, there was never even any wedding to even talk about divorce. The only people who are entitled to divorce are those who at some time signed a document pledging unity to each other. In the case of Nigeria, we were all forced together by the British, we never agreed to any binding agreement to the union of Nigeria.

In 1707, the kindom of Scotland, Wales and England came together and signed "The Act Of Union" that produced the United Kindom, our colonial masters. They agreed and signed to be together.

On the 4th of July 1776, the leaders of the 13 colonies that made up America came together and signed a document called "The American Declaration Of Independence" in which the 13 colonies decided to unite and this created 'The United States Of America'. They agreed to be together

Now when and where did the Hausa/Yoruba/Igbo man come together and agree to 'one Nigeria'?

What this means is that if none of us ever agreed to be together, anyone is free to go their way.

To hold someone against their will when there is no binding agreement of unity simply means "imprisonment"

The 1957 constitutional conference agreed to one Nigeria. Ironically it was the Igbos that pushed for one Nigeria, the hausa-fulanis were not interested. Strangely still, it was the Igbos that change the confederational structure that was agreed at the 1957 conference to a UNITARY system after the January 1966 coup.

When the Igbos obtain power or feel they at an advantage, they promote UNITY, but immediately they lose out in the power game, they scream secession.

zendy:
What is the point of reading it when there is document anywhere in the world where the various ethnic groups signed agreeing to come together to create Nigeria? No point reading it.

The 1957 constitution that was agreed upon by the 3 regional leaders. You can Google the document if you are interested.

kettle84:
IPOB wants Biafra and not rubbish amnesty or dialogue.

And you think it is Buhari (the executive) that has the powers to give you Biafra? IPOB youths need to go back to school.

DeepSight:
I have to disagree with you here, Old Friend.

Nigeria is a most abnormal country suffering horrendously disagreeable psychosis.

Dear sir, you are one of the highly cerebral people I respect so much on Nairaland, that does not stop us from having our disagreements.

I disagree that Nigeria is a most abnormal country suffering from horrendously disagreeable psychosis. I am not a pessimist who always look at negative sides of things and freign helplessness at every challenge, I try to to see the positive sides of things and how to solves problems. I know you are a very spiritual person so you should understand the destructive effect of negative thoughts and energy.

Nigeria is just passing through the teething pains of nation building. Most nations in history passed through this same phase of evolution, from ancient Greece to modern USA. The greatest problem we have is that we started of our nation building on a wrong and rigged footing. Slowly, painfully but gradually we will get there if we do not give up.

For only in such a country can a person who committed treasonable felony by being involved in the military overthrow of a constitutional democracy - which plunged Nigeria into 16 years of egregrious military dictatorship ever be considered, much less permitted to contest a presidential election. The plain truth is that such a person should be in jail: should long have been convicted of treasonable felony and should never even contemplate the presidency of Nigeria.

But because we are such a sick people with a dim sense of history, we permit such sacrilege and even celebrate it as positive change.

My brother you are letting you emotions get the better of you usually sound judgement. I think you are a lawyer, so you should understand what it means to accuse someone of committing treasonable felony. Buhari had never been accused of treasonable felony not to talk of being convicted. In fact, Buhari is not the only "coup plotter" that has ever graced the political landscape. Obasanjo, our first president in thus new dispensation was a "coup plotter", I did not hear your complain in all of his 8 years. Lots of former military men who participated or benefitted from coup have held governorship and legislative positions without you raising eyebrows, why single out Buhari?

Can't respond fully to your other submissions now, but will try and continue later.

WOCKHARDI:
I still respect Dr Goodluck Ebele Jonathan for his on the marble statement " My political ambition is not worth the blood of any Nigerian ". What a Statesman!
My advice to Adama Barrow : Please don't force yourself on Gambians. It can only lead to bloodshed. INSIST that the incumbent president conducts another election as soon as possible under the STRICT supervision of the ECOWAS, AU and the UNO ( making it impossible for anyone to rig ). I assure you, if Gambians really want you as their president, there is nothing the incumbent can do about it.
By this you would have proved that you sincerely want to serve Gambia and not Gambia to serve you.

Somebody won an election and you are talking about w him forcing himself on Gambians. You seem not to understand that countries are governed by laws. Barrow or even Jammeh cannot order fresh elections, it is only the courts that can do that. Also ECOWAS or the UN cannot conduct elections, the law gives their electorial body that responsibility.
So what happens to the country after the expiration of Jammeh's tenure while waiting for fresh elections to be conducted? Will he remain in office illegally?

obayaya:
The gbagbo treatment led to a civil war that claimed more than 3000 civilian lives

It was not the Gbagbo treatment that led to the civil war, it was Gbagbo's refusal to step down that lead to the civil war in the first place. If Jammeh is not removed as quickly as possible, it will eventually lead to another civil war in West Africa, which Buhari, ECOWAS and the international community must avoid. Jammeh has already started persecuting Barrow's supporters in the army ( his tribes men of course), and before you know it jammeh's tribes men and Barrow's tribesmen would start killing each other. ISIS and it's affiliates will now find another safe haven in Africa.

Etogist:
This long epistle was just to defend an incompetent president that committed treason by overthrowing a democratically elected government. What a shame.

Let me even agree with you that it was Buhari that overthrew the Shagari government, was that the only successful coup in the history of Nigeria, or even in the world? Who started coup plotting in Nigeria? How come you have not shown so much hatred for the people that introduced coups to Nigeria? How come you have never for once accused Ironsi or even Obasanjo of treason.

The hypocrisy you are exhibiting that the Jammeh you love so much also got to power through a coup.

Kiakia:
You have, without realising it, turned the Constitution of Gambia on it's head. Gambia is not at war. Declaration of a state of emergency by the President of Gambia at this time is illegal and unconstitutional. He declared the emergency in anticipation of war. This is at variance with their constitution. Therefore, Jammeh cannot unilaterally extend his tenure. Your arguement in this regard is full of holes, Op.

Dont mind wailers and their warped reasoning, even the Nigerian Constitution states that the president is not at liberty to hold elections and can extend his tenure if the country is at war

(3) If the Federation is at war in which the territory of Nigeria is physically involved and the President considers that it is not practicable to hold elections, the National Assembly may be resolution extend the period of four years mentioned in subsection (2) of this section from time to time, but no such extension shall exceed a period of six months at any one time.

So all Buhari has to do to extend his tenure beyond 4 yrs is to anticipate a war and declare a state of emergency. (this is according to wailers reasoning.

koladebrainiac:
I dont understand them at all they are somehow in support of Jammeh.

You should understand wailers by now, they support anybody that is either an enemy or antagonist of Buhari and hate anybody that Buhari support. Can't you understand that they hate Barrow- an election victor, because he has the support of Buhari.

I stopped taken you serious after reading the following statement;

After about 30 minutes of going through what looked like a duplicate if the Nigerian constitution I realised that Buhari who himself have never conceded an election to his opponent no matter how transparent the elections were Senegal who have been showing off its obsolete Military hardware in display of Force to its tiny neighbor and the ECOWAS have all blindly fallen into a legal trap set by Jammeh.

It betrays the writer as a chronic wailer and hater of Buhari. You are condemning Buhari for exercising his fundamental rights of going to court to contest election results, how else do you want him to show his dissatisfaction with the elections. In the History of Nigeria's democracy, which president (except Jonathan) or governor or even legislative member had ever accepted an election result without going to court? and you are here singling out Buhari for your hatred.

Which election had ever been transparent in the history of Nigeria, including the ones in the OP's home state? Even the winner of the 2007 presidential elections (Yaradua) agreed that it was grossly flawed. The 2007 elections was held without serial numbers on the ballot papers. And the OP is talking about transparent elections in Nigeria.

It pains me that some people love to promote and support evil, and then add Gods name to justify their evil minds.
The State of Emergency declared by Jammeh and ratification by the national assembly is an exercise in futility. An election had already been conducted and a winner had been declared. The constitution itself recognize that the elected president shall assume office after 60 days following the day of his election, no state of Emergency or even court order can prevent that. It is only a court judgement that can annul the results of the elections, call for a new election or reverse the result of the previous election and declare Jammeh winner. This can be done before or after the new president had been sworn in, as had been seen numerous times in the Nigerian political landscape in governorship elections.

Jammeh becomes an illegal president and a rebel immediately after his tenure expires on the 19th.


Is the OP advising Buhari that if he feels that the 2019 presidential elections is not transparent, all he has to do to avoid handing over to the winner is simply declare a state of emergency 24 hrs before the handover date and then get the national assembly to ratify it within 2 days or 10 days as the case may be, and voila, Buhari's tenure will be extended by 6 months.

Jokerman:
Of course you are right... buh Fashola did the same jibiti with website and borehole ,and no bleeps were given....

What concerns Fashola with the subject at hand?

I do not understand why the defense of an allegation of corruption from PDP and its supporters is " somebody else was accused of corruption and the person has not been jailed". They should have even gone further back and say that Abiola was alleged to have stolen the money meant to provide communication infrastructure to Nigeria in 1976, and no bleeps was given

KingEbukasBlog:
Here is Stephen Hawking on the Beginning of Time :

These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.

Here he would admitted that an 'external agency' caused the universe to exist or brought about the 'dynamical laws' that govern the universe but he thought that since the universe - according to his own book of Genesis - is 4,000 years old therefore such can't happen .

You are obsessed with quoting Steven Hawking's writings as your proof for theism, meanwhile, Stephen Hawkins is actually saying the opposite of what you interpret from his writings.
Steven Hawkins is an atheist, almost a militant atheist as you guys like to say, so it is ironic that you are using his views as the main thrust for you argument for theism.

Now, you completely mis interpret the Steven Hawkins quote above - either deliberately or mistaking.
The first and last sentence your Steven Hawkins quote are exact opposite.
What the bolded quote was simply saying is that the universe would only require God if it was created on 4004 BC as speculated by interpretation of Genesis ( not 4000 years as erroneously interpreted by you). He further explained that by contrast the big bang is a beginning that is required by dynamic laws ( laws of motion), he already explained that the motions of the solar system can be extrapolated back to the big bang).
He concluded that these dynamic laws are intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.

Notice professor Hawkings was taking about the big bang and the observable universe, he was not talking of everything that exists or that can exist.

midastouch:
Jammeh will be a FOOL to accept any story of asylum in Nigeria. He should ask Charles Taylor how far!

Jammeh and Charles Taylor are different. Charles Taylor was a fugitive, accused of war crimes and was wanted at the Hague, while Jammeh has not been accused of anything yet. If a crisis should break out as a result of his refusal to step down, then Hague will look into his case.

E still dey pain me say Jammeh is searching for a way out. Shebi, him supporters for Niga dey beat chest say, him no go commot and notin Buhari or ECOWAS fit do. Dem for know say Khaki no be leader. Na him Buhari go take shine like Klitschko take samuel peter shine.

Anyway, make house give am asylum (no be yaba left o!). At least to save his life (and maybe his soul - T.B Josua take note) and those of thousands of Gambian citizens.

LordIsaac:
It' true. CNN was highly biased while reporting the election. I was disappointed!

ALL news media are bias. even Nairaland mods are bias. Are you suggesting a president should censor news agencies that shows bias against himself or his government? Are you suggesting press Freedom laws should be abrogated?

E go pain me if he back down o. I want to shame those people who say that jammeh would not step down and nothing will happen.
Anyway, I hope it is true and jammeh has come to his senses, lots of Gambian soldiers and civilians lives will be saved, including his own

SirJeffry:
Doomed as in how? Because Trump said the obvious truth? Better keep praying for our sinking country Nigeria than praying for an about-to-be unchained country USA.

Which truth? A public official that cannot stand scrutiny by the press - truth, lies or gabbage, should not even run for office in the first place. It is you guys that almost crucified president elect Buhari for refusing AIT from covering his activities, but you are applauding Trump for victimizing CNN. I wonder what you suggest Buhari should do to Sahara reporters.

Trump is too emotional, narcissist and unstable to be president, I hope he does not drag the US into unnecessary conflicts.

Codes151:
lol!! It's actually funny to me how he wants to go ask another to step down lol!! Same person that disobeyed Ecowas order! Sha ecowas na joke!

Ecowas court has no jurisdiction over Nigerian courts. Even the world court does not have jurisdiction over Nigeria courts.
The Jammeh impasse is no a legal issue, it is a political issue. Jammeh is carrying out a coup against the Gambian constitution and ECOWAS and AU can intervene to thwart the coup.

onatisi:
Bros forget any war in Gambia. It seems you don't understand Gambia politics . Who will fight jammeh in Gambia? How will buhari convince the senate and Nigerians about the reasons he is sending troops to go and die in Gambia ?who will support him?
The simple questions pppl will ask is "what economic importance has Gambia to Nigeria enough to warrant the death of our soldiers?

Well January 19th is just a few days away, lets wait and see.

What is there to understand about Gambia's politics besides the fact that people voted Jammeh out. Adama Barrow and his supporters will fight Jammeh. A Barrow has to do is leave the country and form a government in exile. His government will be recognized by ECOWAS, AU and UN, that's all that is needed for foreign troops to come in and remove Jammeh.

About senate approvals, the president can send troops to a foreign country without senate approvals, he only need to seek their approval within 7 days, and the senate thereafter has 14 days to approve or deny;

Chapter 1 part 2 Section 5
(5) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (4) of this section, the President, in consultation with the National Defence Council, may deploy members of the armed forces of the Federation on a limited combat duty outside Nigeria if he is satisfied that the national security is under imminent threat or danger:

Provided that the President shall, within seven days of actual combat engagement, seek the consent of the Senate and the Senate shall thereafter give or refuse the said consent within 14 days.

Besides, APC has majority in the senate.

As i said earlier Nigeria and ECOWAS cannot afford to allow Gambia to be unstable. We already suffered greatly from instability in Libya, Mali and ivory coast.

GrandMufti:
2017 budget has already been prepared. So there is no room for such spending. Besides, we don't have money to even feed our own army fighting boko haram here.

There is something called supplementary budget, besides nobody budgets for war. The cost of a military intervention will not be borne solely by Nigeria. Ecowas as a whole, the US and the EU including Britain would contribute money and equipment.

onatisi:
Nobody will send any troop to Gambia. Why will any president send his troops to go and die just to remove jammeh? What economic advantage is there?none. You cant compare cote de vioir with Gambia,
The most that ecowas can do is to finance pro democracy groups in Gambia and impose sanctions on Gambia

Take it from me. Ecowas lead by Nigeria will send troops to Gambia if Jammeh refuses to step down voluntarily. After the 19th of January, Jammeh will be running an illegal government and hardly any foreign government will recognize his government. Ecowas cannot afford another civil war on its door step.

SirJeffry:
Shame is one thing buhari needs to borrow since it's obvious he doent have one.

Stick your ass at home and fix your house godammit.

Since you have shame in excess left over from Jonathan's loss, why not borrow him some.

You think you have more shame than ECOWAS leaders that are trying to prevent a civil breakdown in Gambia. You think if a civil war breaks out in Gambia, it will not affect Nigeria and other west African countries? It is like say i will not help prevent a fire in my neigbours house, because it cannot affect me.

JackBizzle:
Great idea, babe. I was actually thinking of something similar. A quick discussion of current affairs, then drink and chill. Exchange contacts and socialize.

What about tithes and offerings? How will the activities of the church/temple be funded? What about the GO, how will he buy designer shoes and expensive cars?

Kaycee7:
A bride is supposed to be pure until her wedding night. The husband is deprived of a chaste and honorable woman that he believes he's marrying.
Most husbands don't even see the bride naked before the wedding night. So they can't know they they're not virgins until the marriage is consumated. Then it's up to the husband to decide whether to make a report to the elders. Proper investigation will then be carried out to determine if the girl really did lose her virginity before marriage. Upon which she will be sentenced. So if convincing proof is not discovered, the girl will be acquitted.

Meeting your husband as a non-virgin and drug trafficking are both considered heinous crimes by the respective societies that levied the death penalty on them

I am shocked beyond belief that I am reading this from a supposedly educated person in the 21st century. Religion really destroys ones humanity, no wonder some people see honour killings as a religious obligation.

A bride is supposed to be pure before her wedding night, but a groom is not. So it is virginity that make women honourable but not men? So what makes men honourable?
The mere fact that a girl lost her virginity is enough to justify capital punishment? So what happens if a girls loses her virginity in other ways other than sex? Women were usually raped as war booty in the event that of the city or town falling to enemies, and that happened a lot in the Bible. So what happens to all the raped girls after the enemies leave, they should be mass stoned?

Most men marry more than 1 wife in the Bible unmarried virgins must be scarce. No wonder men were marrying girls that barely reach puberty.

It is a surprise that Christians are critical of sharia law, but at the same time support the essence of the laws.

This passage of the Bible deals with how to deal with captured men and women as war booties;

Numbers 31: 17-18.
17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that has known man by lying with him.
18But all the young girls, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

So what happens to the virgins thereafter.

Women were even discriminated and demeaned in terms of their value on the slave market;

Leviticus 27:1-7
27 The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, If anyone makes a special vow to the Lord involving the valuation of persons,
3 then the valuation of a male from twenty years old up to sixty years old shall be fifty shekels[a] of silver, according to the shekel of the sanctuary.
4 If the person is a female, the valuation shall be thirty shekels.
5 If the person is from five years old up to twenty years old, the valuation shall be for a male twenty shekels, and for a female ten shekels.
6 If the person is from a month old up to five years old, the valuation shall be for a male five shekels of silver, and for a female the valuation shall be three shekels of silver.
7 And if the person is sixty years old or over, then the valuation for a male shall be fifteen shekels, and for a female ten shekels.

Kingebuka, How do you justify this Biblical law against women;

Exodus 21:2-4:
"If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing....If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."

Exodus 21:7:
"And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."

In effect, if you buy a male servant, he is to serve 6 years and then be allowed to go free. During the time of his slavery, his master can give him a wife, with or without the consent of the woman (probably a fellow slave), but when he leaves, his wife and children remain the property of his master.

Meanwhile, a female slave remain the property of her master forever.

Please tell me how this law protects women.

Kaycee7:
I don't really understand the bolded. Could you shed more light, please?

The statement is self explanatory.
It simply agree with your argument that because there were few prophetesses and Judges in the bible, the bible could not have in anyway demean women in general. The same way Hitler saved some Jews, so he could not be accused of mass murdering Jews in general.

KingEbukasBlog:
We are reading totally different bibles though :

Leviticus 20:10
10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife , even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife , the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

21 And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's unclothedness; they shall be childless.

And the law for rape protects the woman not demean her - this has been discussed ad nauseum .

You still do not get it, this law seeks to protect the man (neighbour or "another another man" rather than the victim of the rape. This is to protect a man, the humiliation of his neighbour sleeping with his wife.



The law says a man that commits adultery with a neighbour's wife should be put to death with the adulteress, but a man that commits adultery with his brother's wife shall remain childless, meanwhile, a man that commits adultery with an unmarried woman must marry her and not put to death.
This law is even in tandem with the 10th commandment;

Exodus 20:17:
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."

How does the law prevent a serial rapist from raping several single women?

KingEbukasBlog:
You don't get the gist : he presupposed that women were demeaned when there is no evidence for that . Kaycee7 explains perfectly why those laws concerning women existed . Those laws didn't demean them , they protected them because of how totally different ancient societies saw women .

There was no demeaning in the first place .

The reason i try to get directly involve in debates concerning "atrocities committed by Abrahamic Gods and their adherents" is because i am utterly appalled by their arguments trying to justify Murder, rape and even genocide (including infanticide). I have still not gotten over Olaadegu's and a few other christian's argument that alleged genocide in the bible is justified because the lives taken does not belong to them but to their God, so it is justify for God to terminate the lives he created.
Stoning of women to death for adultery or being a non virgin while leaving or even rewarding her rapist or her co-adulterer is nothing more than demeaning and discrimination. The co-adulterer might even be among those stoning her to death. I do not see how stoning adulterous or non virgin women to death protects them. I just do not understand the context.

KingEbukasBlog:
If you claim that women were demeaned and marginalized , then why were there powerful queens , prophetesses , a female judge , deliverers and celebrated women ?

Please answer this question

Maybe you should understand the context before you scream cherrypicking because by your reasoning I can accuse him of cherrypicking too

Use sense !

Don't mind them (atheists), they will also claim Saudi Arabia and Iran Demeans and marginalize women when women have been elected into chancellorship and legislative positions positions in those countries recently.

They might even say that Hitler hated and murdered jews when he saved the lives of many Jews including Eduard Bloch (his personal doctor) and Ernst Hess (a commander)

honey001:
Please, I will like to know which one is better out of the two jobs, he presently works in one of the federal govt agency and another door opens at one of the newly established private university as non teaching staff. both jobs has same schedule. Salary of the fresh job not known yet, but was told that it operates on Federal scale too.... a

A bird in hand is worth ................. (complete the rest)