₦airaland Forum

[quote author=Dicoomoba post=134391968][/quote]Am waiting, .....
Abi the thing no gree you write?

Some argue that she lacks the wherewithal to fight the battle. To me that's a very cheap talk.

If she lacks the wherewithal to fight the fight, then why did she throw herself into the ring in the first place?

1.) she's a coward
2.) she's a sellout
3.) she can no longer be trusted
4.) that is a typical attitude of an average Yellowbas

CaptainGo:
Chairman, you are shifting goalposts with this your long essay!


Below is your original statement. I only corrected you that it has happened before. If it can happen again is a different argument altogether.

And am telling you that, it was then, that it can't happen

Gandrova:
If you have regards for your mum, you won't insult others own.
Big head with no single brain in it
You were busy arguing that such never existed before.
Only idiot like you would argue what you don't have idea about.
You are still a kid case closed.

You don't have shame small head, do you have a father?
Imbecilic bastard

Alsenora:
Lols. This trash is all you could come up with.

Am too busy to give you attention

7upnigeria:
Declare war, foooooools WHOSE FATHERS did not amount to anything in life are advising Fubara. No wonder the guy keeps going down.

There are 3 ARMS OF GOVERNMENT in a state, Fubara is only the head of ONE OF THE THREE arms of government.

WIKE has not even started dealing with him. Its the LAW and LAWMAKERS that are currently dealing with him.

Fubara is not bigger than the two arms of government. He does anyhow, he's be impeachment and if he talks violence, THE ARMY will come in, arrest him and CHARGE HIM TO COURT FOR INCITING VIOLENCE.

Oga such thing can't happen again, then we were close to the military era and Obasanjo was also a military blood.
Now such can not happen, fubara can go to court and file an injunction or stay or order.
You guys think this is military era.

The actions taken by the federal government in Plateau (2004) and Ekiti (2006) were controversial in terms of their legality under the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria. Here’s why:

1. What the Constitution Says About a State of Emergency

Under Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution, the President can declare a state of emergency in a state, but only under specific conditions, such as:

- War, insurrection, or civil unrest that endangers public safety.
- The breakdown of law and order beyond the control of local authorities.
- A natural disaster or other emergencies that require federal intervention.

However, after declaring a state of emergency, the Constitution does not explicitly give the President the power to remove an elected governor. Instead, the governor remains in office, though his powers may be suspended.

2. Controversy Over the Removal of Governors

- In both Plateau and Ekiti, the federal government not only declared a state of emergency but also suspended the governors (Joshua Dariye and Ayo Fayose).
- Legality Issue: There is no clear constitutional provision that allows the President to remove a governor via a state of emergency. The only constitutional ways to remove a governor are:
1. Impeachment by the State House of Assembly (Section 188).
2. Resignation or death of the governor.
3. A court ruling nullifying an election.
- The federal government’s decision to suspend these governors and appoint sole administrators was therefore seen as extra-constitutional (outside the clear provisions of the law).

3. Was It Officially Justified?

- The federal government justified its actions by arguing that the crisis in those states made governance impossible and that decisive intervention was needed.
- However, many legal experts and politicians criticized these moves as political overreach and an abuse of executive power.
- The fact that this practice has not been repeated in later states of emergency (e.g., Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa during the Boko Haram crisis in 2013) suggests that it was not a legally sustainable precedent.

Conclusion

While the federal government carried out these actions and made them "official," they were not clearly legal under the 1999 Constitution. The removal of elected governors through a state of emergency remains a grey area and is widely viewed as unconstitutional.


Mumu idiat, that can't do a common research no be your fault, naa Glo and AI fault
Idiat. Who's the child now, bastard

I don't blame you, but those guys that raped your prostitutional mother who gave birth to you. Mugu

MadPolitician:
The most cowardly thing to be the president of this country. Couldn't put up a fight to save his life..
I mean Ironsi was just daft and situationally unaware, (i even heard he was a drunkard) but you see Jonathan? Dude was a very big coward.

You have said it all, boss

EXOUSIAng:
Who is this cursed bastard?

Your raped mother who was raped by 10 hooligans is the cursed bastard

Judolisco:
all dis one na chatgpt response na....Read the conclusion chatgpt gave to you.... The governor will still be governor, but what's a governor without monthly allocations?

Monthly allocation wasn't your initial argument, so do not 🚭 change the goal post in-between the game. You said that Tinubu will declare a military officer over the state. Now you are now changing to allocation issues. Who even told you Rivers is poor and depends solely on Federal allocation

fuckJones:
and the federal government government will declare state of emergency in river state, Sim will be replaced with a brigadier general

Oga relax, you people and this your state of emergency, who is afraid of it


Oga such thing can't happen again, then we were close to the military era and Obasanjo was also a military blood.
Now such can not happen, fubara can go to court and file an injunction or stay or order.
You guys think this is military era.

The actions taken by the federal government in Plateau (2004) and Ekiti (2006) were controversial in terms of their legality under the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria. Here’s why:

1. What the Constitution Says About a State of Emergency

Under Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution, the President can declare a state of emergency in a state, but only under specific conditions, such as:

- War, insurrection, or civil unrest that endangers public safety.
- The breakdown of law and order beyond the control of local authorities.
- A natural disaster or other emergencies that require federal intervention.

However, after declaring a state of emergency, the Constitution does not explicitly give the President the power to remove an elected governor. Instead, the governor remains in office, though his powers may be suspended.

2. Controversy Over the Removal of Governors

- In both Plateau and Ekiti, the federal government not only declared a state of emergency but also suspended the governors (Joshua Dariye and Ayo Fayose).
- Legality Issue: There is no clear constitutional provision that allows the President to remove a governor via a state of emergency. The only constitutional ways to remove a governor are:
1. Impeachment by the State House of Assembly (Section 188).
2. Resignation or death of the governor.
3. A court ruling nullifying an election.
- The federal government’s decision to suspend these governors and appoint sole administrators was therefore seen as extra-constitutional (outside the clear provisions of the law).

3. Was It Officially Justified?

- The federal government justified its actions by arguing that the crisis in those states made governance impossible and that decisive intervention was needed.
- However, many legal experts and politicians criticized these moves as political overreach and an abuse of executive power.
- The fact that this practice has not been repeated in later states of emergency (e.g., Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa during the Boko Haram crisis in 2013) suggests that it was not a legally sustainable precedent.

Conclusion

While the federal government carried out these actions and made them "official," they were not clearly legal under the 1999 Constitution. The removal of elected governors through a state of emergency remains a grey area and is widely viewed as unconstitutional.


Mugu

Xisnin:
How old are you?
It happened in Plateau and it happened in Ekiti.

You and all there your stupid likers are the jokers that has an incomplete researchers.


Oga such thing can't happen again, then we were close to the military era and Obasanjo was also a military blood.
Now such can not happen, fubara can go to court and file an injunction or stay or order.
You guys think this is military era.

The actions taken by the federal government in Plateau (2004) and Ekiti (2006) were controversial in terms of their legality under the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria. Here’s why:

1. What the Constitution Says About a State of Emergency

Under Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution, the President can declare a state of emergency in a state, but only under specific conditions, such as:

- War, insurrection, or civil unrest that endangers public safety.
- The breakdown of law and order beyond the control of local authorities.
- A natural disaster or other emergencies that require federal intervention.

However, after declaring a state of emergency, the Constitution does not explicitly give the President the power to remove an elected governor. Instead, the governor remains in office, though his powers may be suspended.

2. Controversy Over the Removal of Governors

- In both Plateau and Ekiti, the federal government not only declared a state of emergency but also suspended the governors (Joshua Dariye and Ayo Fayose).
- Legality Issue: There is no clear constitutional provision that allows the President to remove a governor via a state of emergency. The only constitutional ways to remove a governor are:
1. Impeachment by the State House of Assembly (Section 188).
2. Resignation or death of the governor.
3. A court ruling nullifying an election.
- The federal government’s decision to suspend these governors and appoint sole administrators was therefore seen as extra-constitutional (outside the clear provisions of the law).

3. Was It Officially Justified?

- The federal government justified its actions by arguing that the crisis in those states made governance impossible and that decisive intervention was needed.
- However, many legal experts and politicians criticized these moves as political overreach and an abuse of executive power.
- The fact that this practice has not been repeated in later states of emergency (e.g., Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa during the Boko Haram crisis in 2013) suggests that it was not a legally sustainable precedent.

Conclusion

While the federal government carried out these actions and made them "official," they were not clearly legal under the 1999 Constitution. The removal of elected governors through a state of emergency remains a grey area and is widely viewed as unconstitutional.


Mumu idiat, that can't do a common research no be your fault, naa Glo and AI fault
Idiat. Who's the child now, bastard

I don't blame you, but those guys that raped your prostitutional mother who gave birth to you. Mugu

datola:
Joker!

Mugu

yemre:
I doubt if you know the meaning of state of emergency!

Keep underestimating the federal power.

After the state of emergency, what next. Guy relax. Who emergency help or dishelp

Mugu

Okpetruth:
No need to declare war because he has no power to do so. The right thing to do is to resign honorably.. If he start anything that breach peace he is in for it

Empty threat, Governors wade powerful power that can change the unchangeable.

Relax fubara is gaining time, for the last judgement on the defection of the 27 lawmakers

Alsenora:
Lols....oga how will the good people of the state benefit from a war without federal alocation for 6 months?

I don't have time to lecture you, call me on phone, mugu

CaptainGo:

small pikin talk

Big pikin talk, mugu

EXOUSIAng:
You must be born yesterday.
Many of you don't even understand government, you just talk anyhow.
Kids

Oga such thing can't happen again, then we were close to the military era and Obasanjo was also a military blood.
Now such can not happen, fubara can go to court and file an injunction or stay or order.
You guys think this is military era.

The actions taken by the federal government in Plateau (2004) and Ekiti (2006) were controversial in terms of their legality under the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria. Here’s why:

1. What the Constitution Says About a State of Emergency

Under Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution, the President can declare a state of emergency in a state, but only under specific conditions, such as:

- War, insurrection, or civil unrest that endangers public safety.
- The breakdown of law and order beyond the control of local authorities.
- A natural disaster or other emergencies that require federal intervention.

However, after declaring a state of emergency, the Constitution does not explicitly give the President the power to remove an elected governor. Instead, the governor remains in office, though his powers may be suspended.

2. Controversy Over the Removal of Governors

- In both Plateau and Ekiti, the federal government not only declared a state of emergency but also suspended the governors (Joshua Dariye and Ayo Fayose).
- Legality Issue: There is no clear constitutional provision that allows the President to remove a governor via a state of emergency. The only constitutional ways to remove a governor are:
1. Impeachment by the State House of Assembly (Section 188).
2. Resignation or death of the governor.
3. A court ruling nullifying an election.
- The federal government’s decision to suspend these governors and appoint sole administrators was therefore seen as extra-constitutional (outside the clear provisions of the law).

3. Was It Officially Justified?

- The federal government justified its actions by arguing that the crisis in those states made governance impossible and that decisive intervention was needed.
- However, many legal experts and politicians criticized these moves as political overreach and an abuse of executive power.
- The fact that this practice has not been repeated in later states of emergency (e.g., Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa during the Boko Haram crisis in 2013) suggests that it was not a legally sustainable precedent.

Conclusion

While the federal government carried out these actions and made them "official," they were not clearly legal under the 1999 Constitution. The removal of elected governors through a state of emergency remains a grey area and is widely viewed as unconstitutional.


Mumu idiat, that can't do a common research no be your fault, naa Glo and AI fault
Idiat. Who's the child now, bastard

I don't blame you, but those guys that raped your prostitutional mother who gave birth to you. Mugu

CaptainGo:

Nairaland kids.

"On May 18, 2004, two weeks after the Yelwa massacre, President Obasanjo declared a state of emergency in Plateau State. He suspended the state governor, Joshua Dariye, the deputy governor, and the state house of assembly, and appointed an interim Administrator, retired Major General Chris Alli, to run the state for a six-month period."

https://www.hrw.org/reports/2005/nigeria0505/5.htm

Oga such thing can't happen again, then we were close to the military era and Obasanjo was also a military blood.
Now such can not happen, fubara can go to court and file an injunction or stay or order.
You guys think this is military era.

The actions taken by the federal government in Plateau (2004) and Ekiti (2006) were controversial in terms of their legality under the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria. Here’s why:

1. What the Constitution Says About a State of Emergency

Under Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution, the President can declare a state of emergency in a state, but only under specific conditions, such as:

- War, insurrection, or civil unrest that endangers public safety.
- The breakdown of law and order beyond the control of local authorities.
- A natural disaster or other emergencies that require federal intervention.

However, after declaring a state of emergency, the Constitution does not explicitly give the President the power to remove an elected governor. Instead, the governor remains in office, though his powers may be suspended.

2. Controversy Over the Removal of Governors

- In both Plateau and Ekiti, the federal government not only declared a state of emergency but also suspended the governors (Joshua Dariye and Ayo Fayose).
- Legality Issue: There is no clear constitutional provision that allows the President to remove a governor via a state of emergency. The only constitutional ways to remove a governor are:
1. Impeachment by the State House of Assembly (Section 188).
2. Resignation or death of the governor.
3. A court ruling nullifying an election.
- The federal government’s decision to suspend these governors and appoint sole administrators was therefore seen as extra-constitutional (outside the clear provisions of the law).

3. Was It Officially Justified?

- The federal government justified its actions by arguing that the crisis in those states made governance impossible and that decisive intervention was needed.
- However, many legal experts and politicians criticized these moves as political overreach and an abuse of executive power.
- The fact that this practice has not been repeated in later states of emergency (e.g., Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa during the Boko Haram crisis in 2013) suggests that it was not a legally sustainable precedent.

Conclusion

While the federal government carried out these actions and made them "official," they were not clearly legal under the 1999 Constitution. The removal of elected governors through a state of emergency remains a grey area and is widely viewed as unconstitutional.

phemray:
Can governor declared war? Then federal will declare state of emergency

Yes, it's better so that fubara will gain time to wait for the federal Highcourt judgement, on the defection of the 27 other lawmakers

fabolouz1:
You are just been mischievous and ignorant .
The supreme Court judgement supercedes judgement of other courts.

Oga such thing can't happen again, then we were close to the military era and Obasanjo was also a military blood.
Now such can not happen, fubara can go to court and file an injunction or stay or order.
You guys think this is military era.

The actions taken by the federal government in Plateau (2004) and Ekiti (2006) were controversial in terms of their legality under the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria. Here’s why:

1. What the Constitution Says About a State of Emergency

Under Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution, the President can declare a state of emergency in a state, but only under specific conditions, such as:

- War, insurrection, or civil unrest that endangers public safety.
- The breakdown of law and order beyond the control of local authorities.
- A natural disaster or other emergencies that require federal intervention.

However, after declaring a state of emergency, the Constitution does not explicitly give the President the power to remove an elected governor. Instead, the governor remains in office, though his powers may be suspended.

2. Controversy Over the Removal of Governors

- In both Plateau and Ekiti, the federal government not only declared a state of emergency but also suspended the governors (Joshua Dariye and Ayo Fayose).
- Legality Issue: There is no clear constitutional provision that allows the President to remove a governor via a state of emergency. The only constitutional ways to remove a governor are:
1. Impeachment by the State House of Assembly (Section 188).
2. Resignation or death of the governor.
3. A court ruling nullifying an election.
- The federal government’s decision to suspend these governors and appoint sole administrators was therefore seen as extra-constitutional (outside the clear provisions of the law).

3. Was It Officially Justified?

- The federal government justified its actions by arguing that the crisis in those states made governance impossible and that decisive intervention was needed.
- However, many legal experts and politicians criticized these moves as political overreach and an abuse of executive power.
- The fact that this practice has not been repeated in later states of emergency (e.g., Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa during the Boko Haram crisis in 2013) suggests that it was not a legally sustainable precedent.

Conclusion

While the federal government carried out these actions and made them "official," they were not clearly legal under the 1999 Constitution. The removal of elected governors through a state of emergency remains a grey area and is widely viewed as unconstitutional.


Mumu idiat, that can't do a common research no be your fault, naa Glo and AI fault
Idiat. Who's the child now, bastard

I don't blame you, but those guys that raped your prostitutional mother who gave birth to you. Mugu

Gandrova:
Small piking thinking

Mugu

The actions taken by the federal government in Plateau (2004) and Ekiti (2006) were controversial in terms of their legality under the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria. Here’s why:

1. What the Constitution Says About a State of Emergency

Under Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution, the President can declare a state of emergency in a state, but only under specific conditions, such as:

- War, insurrection, or civil unrest that endangers public safety.
- The breakdown of law and order beyond the control of local authorities.
- A natural disaster or other emergencies that require federal intervention.

However, after declaring a state of emergency, the Constitution does not explicitly give the President the power to remove an elected governor. Instead, the governor remains in office, though his powers may be suspended.

2. Controversy Over the Removal of Governors

- In both Plateau and Ekiti, the federal government not only declared a state of emergency but also suspended the governors (Joshua Dariye and Ayo Fayose).
- Legality Issue: There is no clear constitutional provision that allows the President to remove a governor via a state of emergency. The only constitutional ways to remove a governor are:
1. Impeachment by the State House of Assembly (Section 188).
2. Resignation or death of the governor.
3. A court ruling nullifying an election.
- The federal government’s decision to suspend these governors and appoint sole administrators was therefore seen as extra-constitutional (outside the clear provisions of the law).

3. Was It Officially Justified?

- The federal government justified its actions by arguing that the crisis in those states made governance impossible and that decisive intervention was needed.
- However, many legal experts and politicians criticized these moves as political overreach and an abuse of executive power.
- The fact that this practice has not been repeated in later states of emergency (e.g., Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa during the Boko Haram crisis in 2013) suggests that it was not a legally sustainable precedent.

Conclusion

While the federal government carried out these actions and made them "official," they were not clearly legal under the 1999 Constitution. The removal of elected governors through a state of emergency remains a grey area and is widely viewed as unconstitutional.


Mumu idiat, that can't do a common research no be your fault, naa Glo and AI fault
Idiat. Who's the child now, bastard

I don't blame you, but those guys that raped your prostitutional mother who gave birth to you. Mugu

Incrediblekutty:
Look at this fool!

The actions taken by the federal government in Plateau (2004) and Ekiti (2006) were controversial in terms of their legality under the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria. Here’s why:

1. What the Constitution Says About a State of Emergency

Under Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution, the President can declare a state of emergency in a state, but only under specific conditions, such as:

- War, insurrection, or civil unrest that endangers public safety.
- The breakdown of law and order beyond the control of local authorities.
- A natural disaster or other emergencies that require federal intervention.

However, after declaring a state of emergency, the Constitution does not explicitly give the President the power to remove an elected governor. Instead, the governor remains in office, though his powers may be suspended.

2. Controversy Over the Removal of Governors

- In both Plateau and Ekiti, the federal government not only declared a state of emergency but also suspended the governors (Joshua Dariye and Ayo Fayose).
- Legality Issue: There is no clear constitutional provision that allows the President to remove a governor via a state of emergency. The only constitutional ways to remove a governor are:
1. Impeachment by the State House of Assembly (Section 188).
2. Resignation or death of the governor.
3. A court ruling nullifying an election.
- The federal government’s decision to suspend these governors and appoint sole administrators was therefore seen as extra-constitutional (outside the clear provisions of the law).

3. Was It Officially Justified?

- The federal government justified its actions by arguing that the crisis in those states made governance impossible and that decisive intervention was needed.
- However, many legal experts and politicians criticized these moves as political overreach and an abuse of executive power.
- The fact that this practice has not been repeated in later states of emergency (e.g., Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa during the Boko Haram crisis in 2013) suggests that it was not a legally sustainable precedent.

Conclusion

While the federal government carried out these actions and made them "official," they were not clearly legal under the 1999 Constitution. The removal of elected governors through a state of emergency remains a grey area and is widely viewed as unconstitutional.


Mumu idiat, that can't do a common research no be your fault, naa Glo and AI fault
Idiat. Who's the child now, bastard

I don't blame you, but those guys that raped your prostitutional mother who gave birth to you. Mugu

Gandrova:
Wawa it was done during Obj's regime little kid

The actions taken by the federal government in Plateau (2004) and Ekiti (2006) were controversial in terms of their legality under the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria. Here’s why:

1. What the Constitution Says About a State of Emergency

Under Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution, the President can declare a state of emergency in a state, but only under specific conditions, such as:

- War, insurrection, or civil unrest that endangers public safety.
- The breakdown of law and order beyond the control of local authorities.
- A natural disaster or other emergencies that require federal intervention.

However, after declaring a state of emergency, the Constitution does not explicitly give the President the power to remove an elected governor. Instead, the governor remains in office, though his powers may be suspended.

2. Controversy Over the Removal of Governors

- In both Plateau and Ekiti, the federal government not only declared a state of emergency but also suspended the governors (Joshua Dariye and Ayo Fayose).
- Legality Issue: There is no clear constitutional provision that allows the President to remove a governor via a state of emergency. The only constitutional ways to remove a governor are:
1. Impeachment by the State House of Assembly (Section 188).
2. Resignation or death of the governor.
3. A court ruling nullifying an election.
- The federal government’s decision to suspend these governors and appoint sole administrators was therefore seen as extra-constitutional (outside the clear provisions of the law).

3. Was It Officially Justified?

- The federal government justified its actions by arguing that the crisis in those states made governance impossible and that decisive intervention was needed.
- However, many legal experts and politicians criticized these moves as political overreach and an abuse of executive power.
- The fact that this practice has not been repeated in later states of emergency (e.g., Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa during the Boko Haram crisis in 2013) suggests that it was not a legally sustainable precedent.

Conclusion

While the federal government carried out these actions and made them "official," they were not clearly legal under the 1999 Constitution. The removal of elected governors through a state of emergency remains a grey area and is widely viewed as unconstitutional.


Mumu idiat, that can't do a common research no be your fault, naa Glo and AI fault
Idiat. Who's the child now, bastard

I don't blame you, but those guys that raped your prostitutional mother who gave birth to you. Mugu

Judolisco:
it happened in Ekiti under obasanjo.... Ekiti state house of assembly impeached fayose and his deputy, the state speaker wanted to take over the state, Obasanjo declared a state of emergency, suspended d house for 6 months and appointed a fmr military officer Tunji Olurin as state administrator for a year, dem flood ekiti with police and soldiers..... So it is very possible

The actions taken by the federal government in Plateau (2004) and Ekiti (2006) were controversial in terms of their legality under the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria. Here’s why:

1. What the Constitution Says About a State of Emergency

Under Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution, the President can declare a state of emergency in a state, but only under specific conditions, such as:

- War, insurrection, or civil unrest that endangers public safety.
- The breakdown of law and order beyond the control of local authorities.
- A natural disaster or other emergencies that require federal intervention.

However, after declaring a state of emergency, the Constitution does not explicitly give the President the power to remove an elected governor. Instead, the governor remains in office, though his powers may be suspended.

2. Controversy Over the Removal of Governors

- In both Plateau and Ekiti, the federal government not only declared a state of emergency but also suspended the governors (Joshua Dariye and Ayo Fayose).
- Legality Issue: There is no clear constitutional provision that allows the President to remove a governor via a state of emergency. The only constitutional ways to remove a governor are:
1. Impeachment by the State House of Assembly (Section 188).
2. Resignation or death of the governor.
3. A court ruling nullifying an election.
- The federal government’s decision to suspend these governors and appoint sole administrators was therefore seen as extra-constitutional (outside the clear provisions of the law).

3. Was It Officially Justified?

- The federal government justified its actions by arguing that the crisis in those states made governance impossible and that decisive intervention was needed.
- However, many legal experts and politicians criticized these moves as political overreach and an abuse of executive power.
- The fact that this practice has not been repeated in later states of emergency (e.g., Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa during the Boko Haram crisis in 2013) suggests that it was not a legally sustainable precedent.

Conclusion

While the federal government carried out these actions and made them "official," they were not clearly legal under the 1999 Constitution. The removal of elected governors through a state of emergency remains a grey area and is widely viewed as unconstitutional.