₦airaland Forum

agitator:
Since Nigeria there is no such section why did he send letter for them to confirm?

Oga it is "an English teacher"

Secondly when someone is rejected it means automatic disqualification.

Do you reject an applicant for employment and still employ him/her because the he has not been disqualified?

ReubenE:
@bold. Why are you contradicting yourself? The example you gave above is not plausible therefore is null and void.

I want to ask, within the period the ambassadorial nominee was rejected and resubmitted for confirmation, did he or she perform the functions of the said office?

I understand your perspective. It's semantics.
Disqualification and rejection are not same in the constitution both it can still be argued based on context.

Disqualification does not qualify one to be resubmitted for confirmation, while rejection is not. I guess this is what you are trying to say.

Let me surprise you sir, Magu's case is even worse. The Senate disqualified him and equally rejected him. On top of this, the man and his band of law breakers has committed illegality too by discharging the functions of that office even after his rejection record three times.

If Nigeria were to be a sane country, Magu ought to have been arrested

ZaraGift:
Don't mind him, even prophet Muhammad the child rapist was not this bad

kutchs:
Nowhere in the constitution are such words as reject and disqualify used. The word used is confirmation, you may need to read the constitution thoroughly dear.
When the constitution says an appointment made by the president is subject to the confirmation of the season, it means that the Senate has the power to approve or reject such appointment. It means that the technically ( if you want to use the word) that the appointee has been disqualified from serving in that capacity if confirmation is withheld.

This and many others are measures mechanisms built into the constitution to check and balance among the three arms of govt. I'm surprised you are arguing this.

ReubenE:
I guess you are too fast. There is no harm in asking or trying to find out if I'm a legal practitioner myself.

Please, read the last part of my earlier comment again. I did not opine that there is disqualification in the said provision, rather the constitutional provision gives the Senate the power to endorse or decline by way of confirmation.

If the Senate rejects or declines confirmation, the appointment cannot take effect, according to the spirit and letters of the constitution. My point is, the Senate rejecting an appointment is as good as disqualifying an applicant in a recruitment process because such appointment cannot stand as far as the law is concerned.

Nigeria is a lawless country that is why most citizens don't even know basic legislations. Citizens are manipulated even with basic things. Imagine our professor VP once said the Senate is not needed to confirm Magu's appointment, and so many applauded him because it played into their cards.
But I asked the questions, was the professor VP sleeping when Magu's name was forwarded to the Senate for confirmation? Where did the professor VP and his erstwhile no nonsense boss draw the powers to appoint Magu as EFCC chair, if not the Act that established the EFCC?

My brother, a rejected appointee continuously holding office is an illegality and is enough to initiate impeachment proceedings. Nigeria, a lawless country indeed.

On your advise that I should get a lawyer to interprete disqualification, I don't think there is need for me to do that. Lawyers only interprete the provisions of the constitution in line with their case.

Thank you sir

kutchs:
It sure proves you don't know the provisions of the consttituion and their implications.
Now tell me this, when the constitution says like in Art 154(1) that the president may appoint the Chairmen and Members of certain Federal Executive Bodies and the appointment shall be subject to the confirmation of the Senate, what do you think the constitution demands?

How do you interpret that clause?

CROWNWEALTH019:
Watch it bro, soon your eyes go clear

ReubenE:
My brother, I think your comment is deliberate or selective amnesia.

The constitution gave them the power to confirm certain appointees of government...with that power, they can endorse or decline. Wherein they decline, it becomes the disqualification of the appointee(s), and it so stands.

My question now is, are you trying to feign ignorance of the provision that gave the Senate the power of confirmation, or you have a special love for the word Disqualification?

CROWNWEALTH019:
Apc can't survive this year, saraki is about to become our president

CROWNWEALTH019:
Sheriff way we go send to jail when we take over come 2019

CROWNWEALTH019:
See you

helpee:
I even thought I was discussing with an educated person.

CROWNWEALTH019:
Don't take yarimo serious, soon he would go to romance section to self-service out some sperms

ihatesycophant:
Mr. Man, state the portion of the constitution that say that. There is nothing against re-nominating and from your statement you said they were finally confirmed. You would not have known a lot of realignment that took place for the Assembly to have passed them.
Young man, we're not in Banana Republic. The constitution does not envisage authoritarian power on executive that's why we have three arms of government. The constitution would not have asked for Senate Confirmation for a reason. You guys making jest of our country, we're constitutional country and not under decree that they can do and undo.

Kathmandu:
I weak for your brain. What is the essence of sending nominee to the senate if they don't have the power to reject a nominee.


Sense fall on you

agitator:
Since the Senators are useless, why waste time sending names to them for confirmation?
Don't you know there is a reason why certain appointments are required by the constitution to be sent to the NA for confirmation.

helpee:
what is this one saying? The constitution gave them power to screen and confirm presidential nominee. Any nominee not approved by the Senate is automatically disqualified so since the Senate rejected the nomination of magu, he is automatically disqualified

chucks4sure:
So the President is ruling the country alone. Are we in military regime. No checks and balance. Pls bro read the Nigeria constitution.

obataokenwa:
Bro, their job is to checkmate the Executive. Even though they're not active doesn't mean don't have the right to caution the executive. They have all the sole aim to investigate whoever and order the president to act according to their findings...But Buhari is the greatest mistake since the creation of this country.