One of William Shakespeare’s plays is revered for the saying: “Some are born great, some achieve greatness, some have greatness thrust upon them!” If William Shakespeare were asked to comment on the Nigerian political scene, no doubt, he would probably have identified a pattern of Nigerian leaders, who seem to be having greatness thrust upon them and those who achieve greatness by the butt of the gun. Thank goodness though that the apex of political leadership of the country at large is now getting used to leaders, who have greatness thrust upon them. From a prison inmate-turn-President to a low-keyed provincial governor who had no Presidential ambitions, the center is slowly building up a discernible pattern.

Whether or not the identical characters of this pattern will end at the point of personnel selection will surely be a matter of subtle appraisal in a period of four years. At the moment however, the current President of Nigeria vividly stands out for trying to make the best of a delicate balancing act. An act that is slowly but steadily beginning to betray the emergence of a peculiar and personal tendency.

But first, to the background. In the run-up to May 29^th, 2007 and perhaps today still, President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua was (or is) largely regarded as an undisputed proxy of his predecessor Olusegun Obasanjo. Sharp-tongued derogators even took to the length of seeing in him, an appointee to do the bidding of his foster father.

Therefore, the very minute that followed the proclamation of the inaugural words “…so help me God” in the swearing-in ceremony definitely marked the birth of a huge challenge for Umaru Musa Yar’Adua. The compelling burden of having to establish beyond reasonable doubt, that he is out to run a government of his own and not one that is remote-controlled by his predecessor, and the high moral pinch on human conscience of maintaining the hallmarks of gratitude to the man who made him great, clearly defines the depth of the abyss that he overlooks from the thin long rope, on which he balances his acts.

The necessity of defining priorities however, has now seen the President within his first few days in office, giving priority to consolidating his position, identity and authority over allegiance and gratitude to his immediate predecessor. This is precisely the point that is marking the course on which President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua will steer the ship of the nation in the next few years.

That this course is one that is bound to stir up trouble sooner or later has been highlighted in a recent statement attributed to Yoruba leaders flaying the President’s choice of appointees that seem to smell of tribal leanings as opposed to the more pronounced federal character reflected in the appointments made by his strongly hated predecessor. The President is obviously bowing to the agitations of disgruntled northern stalwarts like former military President Ibrahim Babangida, who are making a big deal of the return of the Presidency to a northerner. A dangerous direction indeed.

A deliberate act of adding more insults to the injuries of a collectively disgruntled southern region by ignoring the federal character in political appointments will definitely spell plenty of trouble for the President as his tenure progresses. On the other hand, it may be pertinent to ask what usefulness a precedence of this sort will constitute, when any eventual Southern successor to Yar’Adua (as theoretically agreed in the zoning policy) would start another process of reversing northern domination all over again. Could this be the vision of forward movement and national progress desired for the political future of Nigeria? Umaru Musa Yar’Adua may sooner or later, come to understand that a dose of Obasanjo’s stubbornness (which he at the moment, cannot yet afford) will be required by him in confronting his northern power base on the long run.

This is simply one in a chain of potential seeds of trouble that are presently (knowingly or mistakenly) being sown by the President in these early days of a four-year term.

Another crucial problem is the fight against corruption. One newspaper reported very recently that the President has halted the aggressive momentum in this groundbreaking fight against graft and other forms of corruption. It was reported that by doing so, he was merely fulfilling the terms of a secret deal between himself and several foreign governments, which provided him the legitimacy of early recognition, while detractors at home were still singing from the hymns of fraud. If this is proven to be true, the consequence will be grim indeed.

Massively corrupt leaders like Lucky Igbinedion and many other previous governors are still roaming free to enjoy the fruits of corruption while many common Nigerians remain locked in the perpetual incarceration of structural oppression. To mark a clear departure from the unmistakable signs of selective prosecution (as was allegedly agreed with the said foreign governments), the President is said to have now decreed that he will be henceforth directly involved in any future decision on EFCC’s arrests. Even though there was no innocent Nigerian that has so far, been selectively prosecuted or arrested by the EFCC, the President has now succeeded in giving a new lease of life to fear-ridden notorious agents of corruption, while at the same time robbing the EFCC further of its (badly needed) institutional independence frantically agitated by many. This is indeed, a highly flawed approach. In the event of dissatisfaction with the EFCC’s modus operandi, the President has a choice of either reconstituting the commission completely or letting it operate with the usual aggressive momentum. Everything else will be tantamount to making a mockery of the fight against corruption.

Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has thus, found sufficient reasons to be thankful to the President for temporarily saving him from the claws of Nuhu Ribadu. While sources are contending that the American government stands at the forefront of impacting the President to trim Ribadu’s wings, the President is obviously not seeing the double standards in America’s concern for corruption in Nigeria. Agreed though that there is very little the President can do even if he saw the double standards in the American conduct, he is (as of today) yet to devise an effective substitute for the deterrent element in Ribadu’s aggressive drive.

In the wake of the Jefferson scandal in the USA, the double-edged sword the indictment of Congressman Jefferson meant to the Americans, was all too transparent to see. For whatever reason though, there is obviously a vested interest high up in the American leadership cadre to avoid the incarceration of Abubakar Atiku. Else, it is difficult to comprehend the reference to the initials “A” in describing someone who is obviously Atiku as well as his crimes of corruption in the indictment of Jefferson. Whenever, the issue in the bill of indictment, came to the Nigerian named “A”, who is said to be high up in the Executive of the Nigerian government, the offence was presented in a wishy-washy manner. The indictment of Congressman Jefferson was so carefully framed to avoid any explicit reference to Abubakar Atiku in any offensive form. Obviously the Americans would have had no further excuse for not arresting Atiku if all the cards were laid bare and open. At the same time though, the Americans are obviously happy that Atiku Abubakar is not President of Nigeria given the hasty recognition they accorded the election of Yar’Adua despite all the credible reports of massive fraud. I am therefore, beginning to wonder aloud, if indeed, there is any truth to a long-standing rumor that many leading Nigerian politicians are agents of one American interest or the other, given the strange level of protection they seem to receive. But come to think of it though, what would that have meant to us as Nigerians today, if Atiku Abubakar had won the Presidential election and we were ruled by a President today, who would now, have been standing in the shadow of involvement in the corruption indictment of an American Congressman?

Be that as it may, in his traditionally obstinate fashion, Abubakar Atiku is steadfastly slapping down the hand of fellowship extended to him by President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua. He is hell bent on pursuing his petition before the electoral tribunal right up to the Supreme Court. All these coming at a time, in which Buhari’s ANPP and very many elements of the AC are willing to join the President in bringing Nigeria forward. One is indeed, tempted to ask what the basis of Atiku’s obstinacy is. Many observers are indeed wondering on what assurance or chances of juristic success, Atiku is basing this obstinate optimism.

Against the backdrop of the present quality of the Nigerian judiciary though, Atiku may be banking on the absence of objective and material cohesion as exemplified by the Supreme Court of Nigeria in recent judgments.

In many other matured and exemplary democracies all over the world, constitutional courts utilize the weapon of precedence to fill loopholes in constitutions and save the process the option of a weary and long-drawn political debate. Alternatively, constitutional courts order the legislature to draw complex and detailed legislation on specific issues to cover an existing juristic loophole. In today’s Nigeria however, we have a judiciary that simply plays to the gallery as if it lacked the substance of jurisprudence. Nigeria’s judiciary does nothing substantial these days other than aggravate if not add to the existing constitutional crises of the country.

One clear example is the removal of an elected governor Uba for the fortunate and at the same time, unfortunate Peter Obi in Anambra State. This delicate issue is one that is fraught with a multifaceted manifestation of historical dimension.

While I personally congratulate Governor Peter Obi as a true child of destiny, who God obviously doesn’t wish to abandon, I cannot disguise my pleasure at seeing the back of Andy Uba who won the office of Governor with a thick cloud of money laundering on a Presidential jet hanging over his head. While I do not wish to see the influence of suspected criminals prevailing in crucial political positions, I will agree that the much-acclaimed law of karmic justice was probably co-authored by Peter Obi for him to be seeing so much of the sunny side of destiny.

Now jokes aside. While the moral instance in the sufferings meted on Peter Obi through his political career, underscores how much he deserves to serve as a politician in this important position of governor, law and jurisprudence is however, neither about wishes, morals nor is it about karma. The law is simply put, an ass!

Now, every serious student of political science should have learnt at one point in time or the other that democracy is a system that functions on a collection of constants and variables. While democratic institutions, temporal frameworks and the quantity of participants amongst others, are usually identified as constants, participants themselves are the most notable examples of variables. Therefore, while legislators may change from period to period, the number of legislators in a parliament is a constant factor. Even in a country like the United Kingdom with an unwritten constitution, the time frame of political activities is an accepted constant. In other words, the fact of a democratic tenure lasting for four years is a traditionally accepted reality. While the number of years constituting a tenure may differ from one society to another, the tradition of a temporal framework is widely accepted in every democracy.

Even though a written constitution may be short on explicitness or the proper punctuation at the right place on the validity of a fixed time frame, the divinity and untouchable character thereof is a traditionally accepted fact of political scientific relevance. The inevitability thereof is clearly informed by the need for constancy and stability for the proper function of a democratic process.

By willfully declaring the removal of Andy Uba as governor and the tenure continuity of Peter Obi, the judges of our supreme court have virtually and unceremoniously turned a constant in the democratic process into a variable. With utter disregard for the consequences such a systemic upset may cause to the entire democratic experiment in the country, the judges of the Nigerian Supreme Court seem to be leaving every objective observer astounded as to the level of their knowledge of the underlying principles of democracy. The ensuing chaos of now being unable to define the start and end of a political term with absolute certainty has only ended up playing in to the applause of many Nigerians, who rightfully rejoice at undoing the perceived evil of Andy Uba by way of natural but not jurisprudent justice. Telling a tale of this or that in the constitution that was drafted by authors that would never in their dream, have expected difficulties of this nature does not compensate for the obvious political illiteracy of our learned judges. The political responsibility of closing constitutional loopholes with court judgments is simply one fact that is sadly unknown to our highly placed judges. This is precisely where constitutional law differs explicitly from criminal law and every other aspect of jurisprudence. Indeed, Nigeria obviously, does not have jurists with explicit training in handling constitutional matters. This is obviously a very new terrain for our judges, which they will never admit openly. This is further underscored by the fact of Nigeria not having a separate constitutional court that is explicitly manned by experts in constitutional law (as in several matured democracies). In its place, the Supreme Court – the highest instance of judicature on all legal issues from criminal law to matrimonial law – is being improvised as a constitutional judicial instance and the judges are simply pretending to be experts in constitutional law.

Indeed, seeing the amount of applause generated amongst intellectual Nigerians and the speed of the emergence of such applause at an extremely outlandish judgment of this sort, I begin to wonder aloud, if the level of education that has steadily deteriorated over the past years is now beginning to take its toll on the general quality of intellectual reasoning in Nigeria. No doubt, this will earn me some serious verbal lynching amongst our folks, I’d be sounding untruthful though if I claimed not to be used to such personal attacks.

People may then want to ask what solution jurisprudence should have had in resolving the dispute in Anambra State if not the one propounded by the Supreme Court. To avoid upsetting the political process, the law indeed holds several options handy. First, it is so incomprehensible that INEC is held responsible for the malaise because it conducted elections when the time was due. If it was as simple as that to frustrate INEC from performing its duties when election times are near, any citizen could merely proceed to the court of law to file a case against the electoral instance and every election should be kept on hold. This can definitely not have been intended by the learned judges of the Supreme Court.

The truth of the matter however, is that former governor Ngige and his henchmen are the culprits responsible for the entire trouble. Having publicly confessed to stealing an electoral mandate and not facing prosecution of any kind, it may be safe to assume that Ngige and co. probably, did not break any law of the country by stealing a mandate that did not belong to them. Upon ascertaining however, that governor Peter Obi is vindicated in his legal action, the law court of a functioning democracy – rather than upsetting a system and awarding the continuation of tenure (which is juristically extremely laughable) – would have granted the unfortunate governor Peter Obi the right to sue for damages against the parties that were responsible for the political deprivation, since the existing tenure cannot be overturned as a political constant. Even if INEC were (in my views, wrongly) determined as the culpable party to the confusion by conducting elections when it should not have done so, INEC as a proxy of the federal government should have been subjected to paying damages to Peter Obi.

In this way, Mr. Ngige and his associates or INEC would have been made to realize the costly implication of stealing mandates or conducting elections at the wrong time. At the present moment however, those who openly confessed to the circumvention of the political and democratic process are sitting in prominence and comfort while the system is now being sacrificed to the utter detriment of the overall experiment. Should it however occur that the culpable parties that should have been made to pay through their nose to feel the pain and sensitivity of their crime, fail to comply with the payment of compensation, the prison would have been the tenable alternative. In no country in the world would the divinity of democratic timeframe have been sacrificed for a cause like this in a manner reminiscent of systemic illiteracy.

In all of these equations, Andy Uba would have gone scot-free and that would have marked the dark side of the judicial equation, with which the law is always qualified as being an ass and that would have been our one and only sacrifice.

A whole lot is simply going wrong. These developments on the judicial front clearly underscore the urgency of amending the constitution in crucial areas to leave our judges no more room for outlandish pronouncements.

As for President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, the tenure is still young and a lot will change in his attitude and actions. My disappointment in the President at the moment though, borders more prominently on my impatience to see the large-scale launching of massive infrastructural projects to reach out to the poor masses as quickly as possible. Only by achievements in this area will he be ultimately judged and only thus will the shortage of the federal character in presidential appointments be ultimately ignored!

Robot  Villager

# 1 Upon ascertaining however, that governor Peter Obi is vindicated in his legal action, the law cou...Read the full article. Posted by Robot| 18.06.2007 10:55

DoubleWahala  Villager

# 2 A rather long one from my good friend, Frisky. I choose to dwell only on your observations regarding the supreme court judgement. Your rather profuse and flowery prose aside, I'm of the opinion that you are yet to fully appreciate the subtleties involved in this landmark judgement of the supreme court. And this is understandable because, as you self-confessed on another thread, you are not steeped in, nor well-versed with the law. An earlier thread was started, regarding the supreme court judgement, wherein shades of opinion were explored, almost ad nauseum. It serves no useful purpose for me to rehash the main thrust of that thread, which by the way, I'm in complete agreement with. Be that as it may, you are of course entitled to your opinion, regardless of how off-the-mark I think it is. After all, our esteemed Gani is also critical of the judgement. At least he gave seemingly cogent, if purely technical reasons, why he is not in support of the landmark judgement. I cannot say the same for your 'legal analysis'. DW Posted by DoubleWahala| 18.06.2007 21:20

Metternich  Villager

# 3 I believe that writer should get over the fact that OBJ is gone. There is no need to attempt to refute his argument on Peter Obi, he already said that he is not well versed in law. Posted by Metternich| 18.06.2007 22:00

Kabikala  Villager

# 4 Be that as it may, in his traditionally obstinate fashion, Abubakar Atiku is steadfastly slapping down the hand of fellowship extended to him by President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua. He is hell bent on pursuing his petition before the electoral tribunal right up to the Supreme Court. All these coming at a time, in which Buhari’s ANPP and very many elements of the AC are willing to join the President in bringing Nigeria forward. One is indeed, tempted to ask what the basis of Atiku’s obstinacy is. Many observers are indeed wondering on what assurance or chances of juristic success, Atiku is basing this obstinate optimism. Hi Mr. Frisky Larrimore, Your above reference to Atiku is an unkind cut. It is not wrong to utilise the legitimate processes designed by civilised societies to address the grievances of aggrieved persons. That is not obstinacy, it is democracy and rule of law, the type this country needs. I bet many people had criticised Peter Obi for not "allowing Anambra State to move forward" until he secured victory at the Supreme Court which is now being celebrated by everyone. Atiku's victory at the Supreme Court which declared that INEC had no powers to disqualify any candidate had enriched Nigeria's jurisprudence and many Nigerians will benefit in future from that landmark judgement. All the international observers agreed that the April 2007 elections were anything but democratic and that was not based on Atiku's prompting. What then is wrong in allowing justice to run its full course and allow an opportunity to tender evidence on what really occurred during the April 2007 elections? It is these kind of half-hearted approach to solving our own problems and the need to "move forward" that has brought us to this point. During the time of Babangida after the annulment, we were told to allow the country move forward. When Shonekan took over, we also heard such cries. Abacha came and they also told us to move forward. Abdusalami came and it was the same. Obasanjo came and told us we needed to move forward. If moving forward means glossing over issues that occurred in our past which are likely to repeat itself in the future if evil perpetrators are allowed to enjoy their filthy lucre and not made to pay, it is difficult to say we are really moving forward. Meanwhile, Buhari has also declared that he will have nothing to do with Yar'Adua's peace moves. (http://www.dailytrust.com/news1a.htm) Posted by Kabikala| 19.06.2007 04:27

Frisky Larr  Villager

# 5 Kabikala Sir, Thank you very much for your detailed appraisal. My position (if you have followed many of my articles) is based on the presupposition that Nigerians are not ready for a revolution. In the absence of a revolution, we should have a correct garsp of the real thing. Those landmark judgments that you referred to are simply outlandisch (in my views) because they will never be passed anywhere else in the world. If an electoral commission is denied the right to disqualify candidates, who should for God's sake? That is the basic understanding of democracy and jurisprudence that I am complaining about. If I got it right, I guess Buhari is making cooperation with Yar'Adua conditional upon the dismissal of Iwu. But in any case, I appreciate your position, which I candidly disagree with Sir! Double Wahala Sir, Kindly permit me to be unkind to you for once. If I allowed your views to decide right and wrong/cogent or senseless for me, I would have been lost by now. Remember the vehemence with which you attempted to floor me on the MEND issue with the cloak of all-knowing omnipotence? Today, we know the truth and each man should stick to his belief Sir. I did not do a legal appraisal, my analysis was much more focused on the political scientific ramifications of a legal decision. Precisely political science is a characteristic cornerstone in the education of experts in constitutional law. God bless Sir! Only God knows what Metternich is talking about. If a statement fails to address the issue at stake, it is difficult to find any response. Posted by Frisky Larr| 19.06.2007 05:14

Kabikala  Villager

# 6 =Frisky Larr;184929>Kabikala Sir, Thank you very much for your detailed appraisal. My position (if you have followed many of my articles) is based on the presupposition that Nigerians are not ready for a revolution. In the absence of a revolution, we should have a correct garsp of the real thing. Those landmark judgments that you referred to are simply outlandisch (in my views) because they will never be passed anywhere else in the world. If an electoral commission is denied the right to disqualify candidates, who should for God's sake? That is the basic understanding of democracy and jurisprudence that I am complaining about. If I got it right, I guess Buhari is making cooperation with Yar'Adua conditional upon the dismissal of Iwu. But in any case, I appreciate your position, which I candidly disagree with Sir! Hello Frisky Larrimore, Thanks for your response. I also share your concern about who will disqualify the candidates if the electoral commision can not. The Supreme Court gave a leeway by insisting that only the courts has such powers. I am personally not comfortable with such position knowing fully well the lenght of time it may take to obtain judgement in case the electoral commission decides it has good grounds to disqualify any candidate. If INEC is ever able to secure victory at all, the disqualified candidate may also decide to appeal. Hence, the case may drag on even beyond the tenure of the person that probably should have been legally disqualified. Also, remember that there is also a provision (not sure whether it is the constitution or the electoral act) that you can not use an indictment against any one while the case is still being challenged in court. However, when viewed against the obvious situation where Iwu had become an instrument of witch-hunting Obasanjo's opponents, it is easy to understand the relief of many right-thinking people that whatever it takes to resist Obasanjo's tyranny may well be worth it. Just like many good constitutional amendment propositions were thrown away with the ignoble third term agenda, the Supreme Court judgement in respect of the right of INEC to disqualify candidates has saved us from a tyrant, but left us with a more complicated future. In the same way, the recent Supreme Court judgement on the Peter Obi matter, as happy as I am with the outcome, could well be another recipe for chaos. Imagine all the litigants in the various election petition tribunals succeeding with their petitions and commencing their tenures from the day they are sworn in, including the various national and state assembly members. INEC may end up conducting election every week in a few years' time as there is a relationship between the time an election is to be conducted and the date of swearing in. Another dimension of the judgement is the fact that the Supreme Court said INEC should not have conducted the April gubernatorial election in Anambra once they knew the case was still in court. My question is: what if Peter Obi had lost, who would have been sworn in as governor? Whatever blame may be put on INEC should not include the fact that they chose to go ahead and conduct that election. Mr. Frisky Larrimore, I also appreciate your civility in responding to my posting even when we disagree on some issues. Keep it up please. Posted by Kabikala| 19.06.2007 09:10

Frisky Larr  Villager

# 7 In the same way, the recent Supreme Court judgement on the Peter Obi matter, as happy as I am with the outcome, could well be another recipe for chaos. Imagine all the litigants in the various election petition tribunals succeeding with their petitions and commencing their tenures from the day they are sworn in, including the various national and state assembly members. INEC may end up conducting election every week in a few years time as there is a relationship between the time an election is to be conducted and the date of swearing in. Another dimension of the judgement is the fact that the Supreme Court said INEC should not have conducted the April gubernatorial election in Anambra of the election once they knew the case was still in court. My question is: what if Peter Obi had lost, who would have been sworn in as governor. Whatever blame may be put on INEC does not include the fact that they chose to go ahead and conduct that election. Kabikala Sir, Many thanks for those views based on fundamental logic. This is basically my problem with the current trend of intellectual reasoning in Nigeria. With you, I have hope that there are still a few people out there able to see beyond their nose. Many of our intellectuals are simply blinded by their OBJ-driven emotions of hate and simply adopt a policy of "anything goes". It is most shocking that even Judges of the highest court do not seem to be keeping off this dangerous game. Obasanjo will be judged by time and posterity. We cannot simply sacrifice the foundation of the rule of law for the perceived evils of one leader. If the judiciary has proven that it can decide without the influence of the Executive, it is ending up being indirectly dictated to by the whims and caprices of the same Executive, when it subscribes to hate-driven outlandish judgment. A VP is free to be VP and be a member of another party, a tenure can end at any time depending on when the holder is sworn in, an electoral commission shall have no right to disqualify candidates independently etc. Where in this world has democracy ever functioned on this basis? These are my frustrations my brother and its damn pathetic that Nigerians are largely cheering and not taking time at all, to consider the consequences of what they are applauding! Posted by Frisky Larr| 19.06.2007 10:52

Odinaka  Villager

# 8 =Frisky Larr;185020> Many thanks for those views based on fundamental logic. This is basically my problem with the current trend of intellectual reasoning in Nigeria. With you, I have hope that there are still a few people out there able to see beyond their nose. Many of our intellectuals are simply blinded by their OBJ-driven emotions of hate and simply adopt a policy of "anything goes". It is most shocking that even Judges of the highest court do not seem to be keeping off this dangerous game. Obasanjo will be judged by time and posterity. We cannot simply sacrifice the foundation of the rule of law for the perceived evils of one leader. If the judiciary has proven that it can decide without the influence of the Executive, it is ending up being indirectly dictated to by the whims and caprices of the same Executive, when it subscribes to hate-driven outlandish judgment. A VP is free to be VP and be a member of another party, a tenure can end at any time depending on when the holder is sworn in, an electoral commission shall have no right to disqualify candidates independently etc. Where in this world has democracy ever functioned on this basis? These are my frustrations my brother and its damn pathetic that Nigerians are largely cheering and not taking time at all, to consider the consequences of what they are applauding! Hello Mr Frisky Larr , you appear extremely patronising, unstable, dubious, and even irritating with some of your comments and writings, especially the one above. I had wanted to avoid making comments in response to your not here, not there type of writing, but you appear to be continuosly stretching your sense of worth beyond what a kindergarten can deduce: With you, I have hope that there are still a few people out there able to see beyond their nose You can as well give up on your self appointed task of waking up Nigerians from their intellectual slumber, having failed so far to arouse them from their state of oblivion. Perhaps you may consider building an utopian country of your dream where intellectually bankrupt fellows will have no say. Many of our intellectuals are simply blinded by their OBJ-driven emotions of hate and simply adopt a policy of "anything goes". It is most shocking that even Judges of the highest court do not seem to be keeping off this dangerous game.We cannot simply sacrifice the foundation of the rule of law for the perceived evils of one leader. when it (the judiciary) subscribes to hate-driven outlandish judgment And here comes the righteous one who will deliver us from self induced torture occassioned by our hate-driven emotions. I think you are over-valuing yourself and that my friend is sequel to dictatorship and nepotism, which are diametrically opposed to the rule of law which you think should be upheld. I still don't undertand the bases of your argument, since you have conceded that you are not well versed in the law. To accuse the supreme court judges of delivering judgements based on their Obj-driven emotions appears to me like a childish rant. Tell me, why didn't they grant Ladoja of Oyo the 11-month extension he was seeking? After all, they know about what Obj's Adedibu has done and is still doing there. So they should have allowed Obj to simply substitute the name of someone already submitted to INEC by PDP without following the due process or allow him terminate the tenure of his VP because he crossed over to another party, or declare the seat of the VP vacant because Atiku left PDP, or uphold Obasanjo's right to withhold monies meant for Lagos LGs (Obj never obeyed that ruling anyway, tomorrow if he gets prosecuted for contempt of court over that issue and some other ones, attention seeking fellows like you will call it an act motivated by hatred), or simply ask Obi to forget about his mandate so that it wouldn't appear like they are on the path of witch-hunting? I don't know if the supreme court judges don't have the power to take you to task for this allegation, perhaps the lawyers on this forum will help me out. an electoral commission shall have no right to disqualify candidates independently It does look like you need some tutorials on the contexts of those judgements you are making a mockery of. The constitution, if followed by INEC, gives ample time for someone who is not qualified to be removed. Over 120 days is enough time, if INEC doesn't play hanky-panky. INEC is not empowered by the constitution to unilaterally disqualify candidates. The truth is that no serious minded political party will field any candidate with a grave creditibility problem if INEC does what it is meant to do. Posted by Odinaka| 19.06.2007 12:02

Frisky Larr  Villager

# 9 Odinaka Sir, Where you belong and what you are made of are quite obvious in your senseless vituperations! They dont require further comments Sir! Cheers! Posted by Frisky Larr| 19.06.2007 13:25

DoubleWahala  Villager

# 10 Frisky Larr, "Sir", your feeble and disjointed attempts at sounding intellectual are laughable, for the most part. You have no business engaging in legal analysis of any sort, whether from the "political science" perspective, or whatever angle you may dream up tommorrow. You would make a better impact, writing fictionalized short-stories. :) DW Posted by DoubleWahala| 19.06.2007 13:47

---

The conversation continues in our forum. Click here to read all comments

---