Solution to Nigeria's problems: Sue the government on the legitimacy of the 1999 Constitution

[Ajibs]

Have we tried this yet? Simple solution. SNG group is suing / or planning to sue the FG on fuel subsidy... Why stop there?

Is there anything preventing ANY Nigerian person or group from taking the WHOLE FG and the National Assembly to court to challenge the legitimacy of the current 1999 Constitution?

Can you prove in court that military men could not be responsible for a constitution of a civilian democratic state?

Can you prove in court that the current constitution is detrimental to the existence of the people within the geographic entity called Nigeria?

Can you prove that the 1999 democratic elections et al were unconstitutional as I recall the election was conducted BEFORE the constitution was published ratified was that legal?

Can you legally prove that the Abdulsalami Abubakar government was a illegal government and hence did not have the locus standi to promulgate a constitution for the geographic entity called Nigeria?

Can we sue the FG and accuse them of enslaving Nigerians into a forced union?

Can we sue the FG and PROVE that the first words of the constitution: We the people of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is null and void as we the people had no idea what was in that document before it was forced on us and we the people did not have a say in what it contains???

What do you say, should we sue? Is it possible?

[Lalakokofefe]

I am torn between

"YES!! But go and sue we dey watch wey dey ya back and and we go follow you lata..."

and

"Oga you are not serious jare you don tey for oyibo land for too long!!!"


Hmmmm.....

LKF

[Lalakokofefe]

N.A.R.,

What is the objective? After we sue, then what? What do we hope to achieve?

LKF

[Yum]

On what basis would the court get its jurisdiction to entertain a cause challenging the grund norm knowing that its jurisdiction flows from that self same constitution? The constitution created the courts. It is the source of all powers for every government in Nigeria. It cannot be changed nor amended through a judicial pronouncement. That power belongs to the people either by themselves or through legislative fiat.The court can only interpret the constitution and through that avenue affix whatever meaning it will to the constitution so long as such interpretative endeavour is not abrogative in nature

[emj]

Look hia Oga NAR stop disturbing my piss......nonsense and spices.

If u must sue, sue the Nigerian masses for being complacent and playing dead instead of revolting, sue NLC for always collecting egunje and not doing the needful....opari finito

As far as am concerned, u dont have a govt nor do we have anyone representing us. Those crooks that call themselves legislators are there for themself and are a very daft bunch....mtshew to power 1000,000,000,000,000

E be laik say u don tey for that cowboy country, u no sabi say this aint even about the legitimacy of any constitution.....btw, who told u it was Abubakar that started the shalala.....

[Ajibs]

N.A.R.,

What is the objective? After we sue, then what? What do we hope to achieve?

LKF

LKF,

I know I don tarry for oyinbo land for too long.

But on a serious note. How about some out of the box thinking for a change in Nigeria? How about attacking this issue from all fronts? I think this is a simple idea that may very well be able to produce some very serious and far reaching implications for Nigeria and its future.

Now, consider that Nigerians have rioted en masse against fuel increase, it still happened just at a lower increase and we ALL KNOW that the balance of the increase is coming soon.

So let me take your questions one by one.

What is the objective?

The eventual goal will be to force a fundamental restructuring of Nigeria and one that would have legal backing. Seeing that we are going nowhere fast on the clamor for a SNC, why not see how the same results can be achieved via other peaceful and more importantly legal means?

We have finally gotten to a point where our judicial system though not yet perfect is working. Also, with the various lawsuits we are seeing being filled all around town, Nigerians it seems are finally embracing the use and process of the rule of law and judicial means to settle issues rather than the Boko Haram way or using remote control and Babalawo. Remember Who sued Okocha N100 million for a lost phone? The lawyer suing Bishop Oyedepo and of course more serious issues like Justice Salami suing the NJC.

What do we hope to achieve?

First, legal backing for the result that could have far reaching implications on how Nigeria continues to exist and operate. How would this be achieved? For example, should the suit challenge the authority of a military dictatorship who did NOT have the backing of "We the people" to establish a constitution for the country, that might immediately call into question the legality and validity of the constitution we have now and trigger a possible return to the 1979 constitution or even beyond that.

Now don't forget, let us go back to the origins of Nigeria. We did not invite the British, but they came and colonized us. Suddenly, we now had to "negotiate" to get our own country back. BUT at that time, The "people" came up with representatives from all over Nigeria whom went to represent their various people and interests and negotiated for our independence. Fast forward to the first coup, how were "We the people consulted"? BUT!!! Don't forget that the successive military dictatorship did NOT claim to rule by the rules and regulations of "We the people" they decided by having the power of the gun, decided what "We the people" needed in Nigeria. But that changed in 1999.

From 1999, the military decided to go back to their barracks and allow "We the people" to govern ourselves via democratically elected persons. Great! BUT as we know, they HANDED us a document now called the 1999 Constitution that "We the people" never signed up for. SO we can SUE THEM (Abdulsalami's adminstrataion) for usurping a power that was NEVER theirs to begin with) return the power and governance of the country back to "We the people" STARTS by "We the people" having a say in our constitution.

Secondly: Forced reaction: You would force the hand of the National Assembly and the FG. If it seems there is a slight possibility that they might be declared null and void and ordered to vacate their various offices, they might finally address the issue seriously AND see if a political solution can be found before the far reaching legal conclusion. Keep in mind, this is a lawsuit that will take a number of years to resolve and conclude.

I will be back with aftre we sue, what next?

[Ajibs]

Lala,

Lastly:

After we sue, then what?

How about I say we have our SNC finally? Eh? Good? Now recall the lawsuit will challenge the authority that military men had to act on behalf of "We the people". the goal will be to at the end of the day get a judgement from probably the supreme court that the current government is an illegitimate government that does NOT represent we the people and should be declared as such

Now of course the question will come up in court, if we grant this request it means the current government in Nigeria will be rendered illegitimate and will need to vacate office immediately. Yes, not not quite. The Plaintiffs will request that should the court find in their favor and the constitution is deemed not to represent the will of "We the people" The the judgement shall seek to tell the illegitimate government in power at the time a process by which a constitution for the country representing the will of "We the People" will be established, and this will be requested to be done vial a conference of Nigerian nationalities who will have a specific time table to be constituted, deliberate, decide and enact working and in hand with not the government in power, BUT the courts who must see the judgement be fulfilled.

The plaintiffs will have to submit to the courts their detailed plans for how the CONN will be constituted and selected / elected for the task. The defendants (the FG and National Assembly) will have the freedom to negotiate under the supervision of the courts how the body is set up. This will be a form of a negotiated settlement.

Now one of the advantages of taking this legal approach is to also use it to challenge and ban former military dictators and military participants like IBB, Buhari and co from making a comeback. HOW? Well the case will go as far back as I noted to independence right? The goal will be to them seek to nullify ALL the military coups that took place from 1966 to date AND by so doing also nullify the main actors in those coups so for example ALL members of IBB's AFRC would be banned form seeking further elective Democratic office in Nigeria as their punishment for illegally usurping the powers of "We the people". What is past is past, but we can still safe guard our future. And it will not be thy they cannot participate in government of Nigerian politics, but they would be banned from holding any elected OR appointed position within the government of Nigeria.

So basically, the lawsuit will eventually indeed lead to what majority here have been clamoring for, a re-structuring or break up of Nigeria.

And I might add this might very well be the best way to go about breaking up Nigeria peacefully and with legal backing should it come to that.

[Ajibs]

BTW,
now somebody might say to me, NAR you no dey serious, how can you ask to nullify the government and not nullify the courts that the government appointed?

In theory I believe it can happen for one major reason. Pretty simple actually. The Judicial system (Supreme Court specifically where of course this case will be argued) as in institution that was created democratically when the country attained independence:

In 1963, the Federal Republic of Nigeria was proclaimed and Nnamdi Azikiwe became its first President. Appeals from the Federal Supreme Court to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council were abolished at that point, and the Supreme Court became the highest court in Nigeria. In 1976, the Court of Appeal (originally known as the Federal Court of Appeal) was established as a national court to entertain appeals from the High Courts of each of Nigeria's 36 states, which are the trial courts of general jurisdiction. The Supreme Court in its current form was shaped by the Supreme Court Act of 1990 and by Chapter VII of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria.

Under the 1999 constitution, the Supreme Court has both original and appellate jurisdictions, has the sole authority and jurisdiction to entertain appeals from Court of Appeal, having appellate jurisdiction over all lower federal courts and highest state courts. Decisions rendered by the court are binding on all courts in Nigeria except the Supreme Court itself.

So despite the tinkering by the various successive governments the Supreme Court actually does stand out as in institution (not the persons within it) that is competent to hear the case.

[anonimi]

If u must sue, sue the Nigerian masses for being complacent and playing dead instead of revolting, sue NLC for always collecting egunje and not doing the needful....opari finito

Most of us think leadership is about the president only. The LG councillor, chairman, state and federal legislators are meanwhile feeding fat on our non-chalance without doing anything and blaming "leadership" for Nigeria's problem.
We need to learn how to address our issues first to these nearest elected REPRESENTATIVES.

Just the other day, a whole "Ashiwaju of the Yorubas" said our problem is the absence of good leaders

[Ewuro]

Just the other day, a whole "Ashiwaju of the Yorubas" said our problem is the absence of good leaders

Anonimi,
At least 'Ashiwaju' recognises that he is not a good leader by that statement.

[Yum]

BTW,
now somebody might say to me, NAR you no dey serious, how can you ask to nullify the government and not nullify the courts that the government appointed?

In theory I believe it can happen for one major reason. Pretty simple actually. The Judicial system (Supreme Court specifically where of course this case will be argued) as in institution that was created democratically when the country attained independence:



So despite the tinkering by the various successive governments the Supreme Court actually does stand out as in institution (not the persons within it) that is competent to hear the case.

Why do you say the Supreme Court is competent to hear a case that calls into question the legitimacy of the Constitution?

[Ajibs]

Why do you say the Supreme Court is competent to hear a case that calls into question the legitimacy of the Constitution?

Because IMHO as a sovereign nation, we need to solve our problems ourselves. We already made the mistake of carrying ourselves to London to "negotiate" our independence and look what happened. If we are to find a solution we need to find the solution internally.

The Supreme court is the highest court in the land. Who else would be competent?

[Yum]

NAR

If this was possible, Keyamo, Falana or Gani while he was yet alive would have done it. The Court cannot abrogate the constitution. The constitution is the creator of that court. Though the physical court has been existing for a long time, however, at law right now, it begins and rest on the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). It can only do what the Constitution says it can do and one of those things is not to question the legitimacy of the constitution or abrogate it.

Like I told you before. It is only the people by themselves or through their representatives who have the power to do this. I like your idea but it is just not tenable in our legal system.

[emj]

Have we tried this yet? Simple solution. SNG group is suing / or planning to sue the FG on fuel subsidy... Why stop there?

Is there anything preventing ANY Nigerian person or group from taking the WHOLE FG and the National Assembly to court to challenge the legitimacy of the current 1999 Constitution?

Can you prove in court that military men could not be responsible for a constitution of a civilian democratic state?

Can you prove in court that the current constitution is detrimental to the existence of the people within the geographic entity called Nigeria?

Can you prove that the 1999 democratic elections et al were unconstitutional as I recall the election was conducted BEFORE the constitution was published ratified was that legal?

Can you legally prove that the Abdulsalami Abubakar government was a illegal government and hence did not have the locus standi to promulgate a constitution for the geographic entity called Nigeria?

Can we sue the FG and accuse them of enslaving Nigerians into a forced union?

Can we sue the FG and PROVE that the first words of the constitution: We the people of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is null and void as we the people had no idea what was in that document before it was forced on us and we the people did not have a say in what it contains???

What do you say, should we sue? Is it possible?

Hehehehehe, Oga NAR abeg no vex, i just dey shine my eyes more to read all the qweshions u posed...eyo..lols


How many Nigerians have even bothered to read the said constitution including yours truly to know what it contains?
Is it not a readily available document?

Bia wats a constitution? Abeg educate a pepper seller like me whose main focus is how to dodge BRF's goons who are hell bent on arresting me for not paying ground rent and so called developmental dues?
The akara seller the other day bought some papers from one unemployed graduate to use to wrap her akara for her customers, Lo and behold it was the constitution of the federal republic of nigeria, dem talk say na the 1999 wan when i bin show wan ejikanishop who stopped by to buy pepper and tomatoes for his wife. This Ejikanishop sabi book but no work.....

Ahem, Oga NAR, na wetin dey inside dat document wey go make us sue anybody?

Abeg no let all this internet warriors derail this fine thread....

Na who wan sue who?

PS>>>I dey come, customer don come...ehen

[anonimi]

Like I told you before. It is only the people by themselves or through their representatives who have the power to do this. I like your idea but it is just not tenable in our legal system.

The people through their REPRESENTATIVES have amended the constitution at least once and are planning to do so again this year. We should be advocating areas of the constitution to be amended now.

I see that none of the political parties has an agenda or is organising anything to ensure that the principles(?) and/or ideology(?) they stand for are enshrined in the constitutional amendment. Not even the "progressives".
Rather they are mouthing populist, empty demagoguery of "true" fiscal federalism, state police, Sovereign National Conference etc. Meanwhile I have heard of 1st, 2nd etc Amendments to the Amercian constitution that was drafted by "We the People".
I also recall that Athiefku relied on it to legally challenge OBJ's attempt to impeach him as VP to be replaced by Muazu(?) for challenging his 3rd term bid among other accusations.

In short the document is a basis that can be worked with. The question we should ask ourselves is have we used it as best as we can?

[Ajibs]

NAR

If this was possible, Keyamo, Falana or Gani while he was yet alive would have done it. The Court cannot abrogate the constitution. The constitution is the creator of that court. Though the physical court has been existing for a long time, however, at law right now, it begins and rest on the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). It can only do what the Constitution says it can do and one of those things is not to question the legitimacy of the constitution or abrogate it.

Like I told you before. It is only the people by themselves or through their representatives who have the power to do this. I like your idea but it is just not tenable in our legal system.

Yum,
With the exception of Gani, those you mention are by and large still thinking WITHIN the box in Nigeria. I suspect but cannot say for a fact that civil activists like Femi Falana being a proclaimed socialist believes more in mass action but also uses legal action to support his actions or causes at times.

Now having said that let me come back to your statements, by asking a couple of questions, as you know I am not a lawyer so in might not have the "legalities" of the situation correct. Can you answer these few questions for me based on your legal knowledge?

1. Can any Nigerian citizen or entity sue the Federal Government of Nigeria if they feel aggrieved by the actions of the Federal government? Including the National Assembly?

2. Can any Nigerian sue the office or the president not the president personally as we know he has immunity.

Now we cannot sue the president, his deputy and the governors and their deputies, but we can sue the AG and members of the national assembly.

[Ajibs]

Yum,

Now looking at this from another perspective. When most of us go and work for a company in the United States. We are told to sign certain agreements that basically says we agree to abide by the regulations of that institutions. The same happens again when you buy something online for example, you are told to sign the "terms and conditions".

Now come back to Nigeria. Currently in this particular democratic dispensation, Nigerians are being ruled by a set of "terms and conditions" they never got a chance to sign! Some people got together before 1999 came up with a set of "terms and conditions" and simply came out and told "We the people" that we had automatically signed the terms and conditions AND we are now to abide by them. So mu suggestion is that should be and can be legally challenged.

[Ajibs]

The people through their REPRESENTATIVES have amended the constitution at least once and are planning to do so again this year. We should be advocating areas of the constitution to be amended now.

I see that none of the political parties has an agenda or is organising anything to ensure that the principles(?) and/or ideology(?) they stand for are enshrined in the constitutional amendment. Not even the "progressives".
Rather they are mouthing populist, empty demagoguery of "true" fiscal federalism, state police, Sovereign National Conference etc. Meanwhile I have heard of 1st, 2nd etc Amendments to the Amercian constitution that was drafted by "We the People".
I also recall that Athiefku relied on it to legally challenge OBJ's attempt to impeach him as VP to be replaced by Muazu(?) for challenging his 3rd term bid among other accusations.

In short the document is a basis that can be worked with. The question we should ask ourselves is have we used it as best as we can?

Anonimi,
One of the underlying issues here is how those in the National Assembly got elected and if the truly represent the people. And with the examples you gave with Atheifku is why precisely I advocate for such a battle like this to be fought through the courts. Obasanjo in his gragra through he could remove Atiku just like that, Atiku sly like a fox, checkmated him on that by using the judiciary system. I am advocating for similar.

The ultimate goal of this court case will not be to kick our GEJ and his administration and the National Assembly and undermine their authority and offices, but to mainly help force them into a corner to address the key issue we need to resolve in Nigeria sooner rather than later and that is how precisely we can peaceful co-exists as one nation OR split up into individual nations.

This is a suggestion to attack this problem from is roots, not just fixing the symptoms of the ailment.

[Ajibs]

Hehehehehe, Oga NAR abeg no vex, i just dey shine my eyes more to read all the qweshions u posed...eyo..lols


How many Nigerians have even bothered to read the said constitution including yours truly to know what it contains?
Is it not a readily available document?

Bia wats a constitution? Abeg educate a pepper seller like me whose main focus is how to dodge BRF's goons who are hell bent on arresting me for not paying ground rent and so called developmental dues?
The akara seller the other day bought some papers from one unemployed graduate to use to wrap her akara for her customers, Lo and behold it was the constitution of the federal republic of nigeria, dem talk say na the 1999 wan when i bin show wan ejikanishop who stopped by to buy pepper and tomatoes for his wife. This Ejikanishop sabi book but no work.....

Ahem, Oga NAR, na wetin dey inside dat document wey go make us sue anybody?

Abeg no let all this internet warriors derail this fine thread....

Na who wan sue who?

PS>>>I dey come, customer don come...ehen

Madam EMJ,
Nah all manner of ganbajantis, wayo wayo and boju boju mede mede dey inside...

For starters, the first line tok say:

We the people of the Federal Republic of Nigeria

Having firmly and solemnly resolve, to live in unity and harmony as one indivisible and indissoluble sovereign nation under God, dedicated to the promotion of inter-African solidarity, world peace, international co-operation and understanding

Okay nah which time dem ask YOU THE PEOPLE weda you gree wit wetin dey inside dat paper... Dem as ask you, no be lie dem dey lie say nah "we the people" tok wetin dey inside dat papa?

Okay then for example, section 308 talk say, if you be president, VP governor, Deputy, we not fit sue you for ANYTHING lai lai ati lai lai as lng as you dey for political office? Nah which We the people gree dat one?

If we go Ojuelegba now and we ask Danfo driver, Oga dem ask you when dem do constitution?

How about we go Unilagh sef and as professor, Excuse me sar, did the perederal gobimenti of Nigeriya kwansult with your opinion one za faticula zat is inside za fafa constitution?

Some people wey we no sabi, we no send dem, siddon inside one dey dey shak brukutu, kai kai, oguro and dey chop suya, come write one papa now dem dey lie say nah "We the people" tok...

We don tok? We neva tok!

[Yum]

Yum,
With the exception of Gani, those you mention are by and large still thinking WITHIN the box in Nigeria. I suspect but cannot say for a fact that civil activists like Femi Falana being a proclaimed socialist believes more in mass action but also uses legal action to support his actions or causes at times.

Now having said that let me come back to your statements, by asking a couple of questions, as you know I am not a lawyer so in might not have the "legalities" of the situation correct. Can you answer these few questions for me based on your legal knowledge?

1. Can any Nigerian citizen or entity sue the Federal Government of Nigeria if they feel aggrieved by the actions of the Federal government? Including the National Assembly?

2. Can any Nigerian sue the office or the president not the president personally as we know he has immunity.

Now we cannot sue the president, his deputy and the governors and their deputies, but we can sue the AG and members of the national assembly.

Answer to question No. 1 is yes. But then the Nigerian Citizen derives her right to sue the Federal Government of Nigeria or the National Assembly from the constitution. That document is the foundational basis for all rights in Nigeria. There is no concept of rights outside of the constitution under the Nigerian Legal system. Therefore any suit against the Federal Government is measured against the constitutionality of the act given rise to the action or against an enabling Law deriving its own authority from the Law making power given to the National Assembly by the Constitution. There is nothing like thinking within the box here; it is just the way it is. It is this encumbrance that is making everyone (myself included) to be asking for an SNC to be able to change the constitution.

Answer to question No. 2 is yes. Like I posited in my answer to question No. 1 you sue the president to measure his acts against the standard of the constitution or against the standard of extant laws. You cannot by action seek to fetter his discretion. The court does not have this jurisdiction. It is absolutely within his discretion whether to bring any measure to the National Assembly to amend the Constitution or not. The constitution does not give any Nigerian the right to force him through the court to do this neither do the various administrative laws (deriving their power from the constitution) makes it a ministerial duty for the president to embark on such an endeavour. It is only the force of public opinion (in mature democracies) that could have force his hands; his personal convictions or the National Assembly.

Yes you can sue the AG and National Assembly but within the ambit of the constitution.

[Yum]

Yum,

Now looking at this from another perspective. When most of us go and work for a company in the United States. We are told to sign certain agreements that basically says we agree to abide by the regulations of that institutions. The same happens again when you buy something online for example, you are told to sign the "terms and conditions".

Now come back to Nigeria. Currently in this particular democratic dispensation, Nigerians are being ruled by a set of "terms and conditions" they never got a chance to sign! Some people got together before 1999 came up with a set of "terms and conditions" and simply came out and told "We the people" that we had automatically signed the terms and conditions AND we are now to abide by them. So mu suggestion is that should be and can be legally challenged.

Law is never by analogy NAR. The problem with your premise here is that you are equating contract law with constitutional law. They are so radically different. You do not challenge a constitution in court. You amend it through the people or through the representatives of the people.

[Yum]

Anonimi,
One of the underlying issues here is how those in the National Assembly got elected and if the truly represent the people. And with the examples you gave with Atheifku is why precisely I advocate for such a battle like this to be fought through the courts. Obasanjo in his gragra through he could remove Atiku just like that, Atiku sly like a fox, checkmated him on that by using the judiciary system. I am advocating for similar.

The ultimate goal of this court case will not be to kick our GEJ and his administration and the National Assembly and undermine their authority and offices, but to mainly help force them into a corner to address the key issue we need to resolve in Nigeria sooner rather than later and that is how precisely we can peaceful co-exists as one nation OR split up into individual nations.

This is a suggestion to attack this problem from is roots, not just fixing the symptoms of the ailment.

Atiku attacked the position of OBJ then on the basis of the constitution, not outside it. What you are proposing is unknown to our laws. Any lawyer worth his salt that brings that kind of cause to the court would be laughed out of the profession. It is elementary.

[anonimi]

Anonimi,
One of the underlying issues here is how those in the National Assembly got elected and if the truly represent the people.

They CLAIM they represent the people. That is enough for the people to continuously TEST the representatives' claim through petitions to address issues of concern to them so they can amend the constitution accordingly. The petition may also be in the form of organised (preferably peaceful) protests with as many people as possible encompassing teh differenet sections of the society.

The people can also go to the courts to affirm that the actions of their government align with the document that binds us all at the moment. This is what Atiku did with OBJ

The civil rights gains achieved by Martin Luther King relied on these two approaches.

Societies have to first get RULERs to adopt changes in the "terms and conditions" for exercising authority over their people, which the RULER more often than not hopes/expects s/he will not be obliged to do these new things s/he has committed to.
The main thing to realise is that SOVEREIGNTY flows from the people at all times, irrespective of the governance model- autocracy or democracy.
No one can claim to rule over a completely UNINHABITED land. Otherwise she will be invaded and dethroned.

[Ajibs]

Atiku attacked the position of OBJ then on the basis of the constitution, not outside it. What you are proposing is unknown to our laws. Any lawyer worth his salt that brings that kind of cause to the court would be laughed out of the profession. It is elementary.

Yum,

Okay, so it is elementary. So essentially you are saying that Nigerians are then trapped. In a situation where the government is not representative of their views including the National Assembly that have not recourse via the judicial system to seek relief? As yoi noted and we are all know and agree, the constitution SHOULD be amended via the National Assembly, but as you can see, it is not being done and unlikely to be done.

Worse even IF something is done, it is again unlikely to be the will of "We the people". For example, you probably read that GEJ favors removing the immunity clause and the governors are staunchly against this. Now for the constitution to be amended, it must be ratified by 2/3rd of the state assemblies in all 36 states which of course most of the governors control. Hence something that "We the people" strongly favor, has a snowballs chance in hell in becoming the law of the land.

So this is why I say that from what you are saying, We the people are now going to be basically held hostage by our political lesgislooters and there is nothing the judicial system can do to help us with a radical change.

But finally I end with this. Is there not always a first time for something to be filed in court to then set a precedence?

[Ajibs]

Yes you can sue the AG and National Assembly but within the ambit of the constitution.

Now you noted the National Assembly and the AG can be sued. I assume Abdulsalami Abubakar can be sued. How about the case starts with those entities in court. Can you then sue within current law that Abdulslami mis-represented the people with the document he enacted into law. And since it is the National Assembly that starts the amendment of the constitution, you can sue them with a goal to push them into action.

Also, I would like to agree with you from a legal perspective that you need to sue within the constitution, but i am simply unable to agree that you cannot use legal means to test the validity of the constitution.

I know the law deals with FACTS and not hearsay or emotions and personal opinions. IMHO and I might be wrong, one can sue Abdulsalami and members of his government and the question they will need to successfully answer is court is" How did they come about with a document they claims represents "We the people"?

I do not recall a referendum in Abudulsami's times, I do not recall a constituent assembly. Reports tell us that the 1999 constitution is based on the 1979 with some changes. When did "We the people" ratify those changes? So i think it is entirely within the realm of Nigerian law to bring a lawsuit to get these questions answered. So the suit will not start with suing the FG. It will start with asking those that enacted the 1999 constitution via a decree signed on May 5th 1999 to explain to the courts how that documents reflected the opinions of we the people.

By the way, I did not even realize it, but it does appear that Wole Shoyinka and myself are thinking along the same lines AND he has gotten a lawyer not worth her salt to indeed take the case to court...

1999 Constitution: N'Assembly seeks dismissal of Soyinka's suit

MARCH 16, 2012 BY ADE ADESOMOJU

National Assembly has filed an objection to a suit by Nobel Laureate, Prof. Wole Soyinka, and Fred Agbeyegbe, seeking a Federal High Court, Lagos to declare that the amended 1999 Constitution is not an act of the people.

The Clerk of the National Assembly, in a written address dated March 15, 2012, filed by Mr. Friday Akoko, urges the presiding judge, Justice James Tsoho, to strike out the suit on the grounds of a lack of jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs had instituted the suit in 2009 seeking the production of a constitution that is "a true reflection of the peoples' opinion" emanating from "a proper referendum".

They maintain that the constitution is "patently and inherently defective" because it allegedly does not reflect the opinion of the people of Nigeria.

They are therefore asking the court to order that the draft constitution prepared by the Peoples' National Conference in August 2006 and the recommendations of the National Political Reform Conference of 2006 be subjected to "a proper referendum" of Nigerians within 18 months.

In the alternative, they asked the court to order that the 1999 Constitution be subjected to such referendum in order to seek the opinion of the people of Nigeria.

Among the five respondents in the suit, only the Clerk of the National Assembly was represented by a counsel at Thursday's proceedings, and had so far, filed an address challenging the court's jurisdiction to hear the suit.

Other defendants in the suit are the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria; the Attorney-General of the Federation; the President of the Senate; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Akoko maintained that the plaintiffs ought to have filed the suit in Abuja Judicial Division of the court, "where the 1999 Constitution was promulgated and all the defendants reside and carry on their business".

He contended that the plaintiffs had demonstrated a misconception "as to the proper forum" to commence the action by filing the suit at the Lagos Division of the court.

According to him, such development has robbed the court of its jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Counsel for Soyinka and Agbeyegbe, Mrs. Folashade Bankole, had also in her written address, insisted that the Federal High Court has only one jurisdiction.

She faulted the argument canvassed by Akoko, saying that could not be a basis for dismissing her suit.

Tsoho adjourned hearing in the issue of jurisdiction to June 6, 2012.

The name of the late Biafra warlord, Chief Chukwuemeka Odimegwu-Ojukwu, who was until his death a plaintiff in the suit, was at the last adjourned date on February 9, 2012 struck out from the suit.

If i read this correctly, the counsel to the NA is asking for the case to be moved to Abuja, NOT that the case is without merit...

[Ajibs]

More on the case... I recall reading about it a while back. In fact what we need to do now is all of us sign a petition to support this lawsuit, add a couple more and get some other lawyers not worth their salt to join in...

Wole Soyinka Urges Court To Void 1999 Constitution

Fri, 10/02/2012 - 5:18am | PAUL DADA News Politics

Nobel laureate, Professor Wole Soyinka, and elder statesman, Mr. Fred Agbeyegbe, have urged a Federal High Court in Lagos to nullify the 1999 Constitution of the the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Soyinka and Agbeyegbe, in their submissions, argued that the 1999 Constitution is a fraudulent document the military imposed on Nigerians, contending that the document lacked authenticity and could not be properly described as the people's constitution. NAR: Is this now precisely what I have said above before even seeing this?

They prayed the court for an order of mandamus compelling the Federal Government (the defendant) to replace the constitution with "a true constitution."

Both Soyinka and Agbeyegbe are the surviving plaintiffs in the suit which originally had the late nonagenarian, Prince Tanimose Bankole-Oki (SAN) as the first plaintiff. NAR: Another Nigerian lawyer not worth his salt I guess..., maybe he had become senile when he sued...

Bankole-Oki was however replaced by Agbeyegbe with the permission of the court after he died last year.

The other plaintiff in the matter, apart from Soyinka and Agbeyegbe, was the late Chief Odumegwu Ojukwu.

The presiding judge, Justice James Tsoho, struck out the name of Ojukwu from the case following an oral application made the plaintiffs' lawyer, Mr. Tony Nnadi.

Nnadi said he would find out from the surviving plaintiffs whether or not another person would be approved to replace Ojukwu. Nnadi's application was not objected to by lawyer to the Federal Government, Mr. Ituah Eigbe. The judge thereafter struck out Ojukwu's name and adjourned the matter

[Yum]

Yum,

Okay, so it is elementary. So essentially you are saying that Nigerians are then trapped. In a situation where the government is not representative of their views including the National Assembly that have not recourse via the judicial system to seek relief? As yoi noted and we are all know and agree, the constitution SHOULD be amended via the National Assembly, but as you can see, it is not being done and unlikely to be done.

Worse even IF something is done, it is again unlikely to be the will of "We the people". For example, you probably read that GEJ favors removing the immunity clause and the governors are staunchly against this. Now for the constitution to be amended, it must be ratified by 2/3rd of the state assemblies in all 36 states which of course most of the governors control. Hence something that "We the people" strongly favor, has a snowballs chance in hell in becoming the law of the land.

So this is why I say that from what you are saying, We the people are now going to be basically held hostage by our political lesgislooters and there is nothing the judicial system can do to help us with a radical change.

But finally I end with this. Is there not always a first time for something to be filed in court to then set a precedence?

NAR;
You are saying quite a different thing from what we discussed above. Now you have pivoted to the act of governance. In this case you don't need constitutional amendment to get rid of a government that is not performing. You simply vote them out. We will get there yet.

However, there was no where I pontificated that you cannot have recourse to the Judicial system if you feel that your right is breached, the constitution has been violated, or that a minister (or any public servant) failed to render his ministerial obligation to you where you have satisfied all of the conditions attached or you are qualified to receive the service or when you feel due process was not followed in reaching the decision. What I posited however, is that if you must seek relief, it must be done within the ambit of the constitution, not outside of it.

Always remember that the constitution is the constituent document of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. In other words, the concept of Nigeria as it exists today derives from nowhere else in our Laws but from the constitution. The courts can interpret the constitution and affix whatever meaning they deem fit to the term being interpreted which may be different from what the drafters intended but what they cannot do it to set out to abrogate it through a cause whose sole purpose is to challenge its legitimacy . Judicial precedents are set within the constitution and not outside of it.

I do not really know what you mean when you talk about the will of the people. The will of the people in a democracy are expressed in two inter related ways; public opinion and voting. When you dislike what the government is doing or where the government is going and you feel something needs to be changed, you express this in your opinion of the government in public opinion polls. You go further to form pressure groups to pressurize the government to go your way because you have the public on your side. And if it fails, It is voted out in the next electoral circle and people that are willing to make those changes are elected to form the new government. Once elected, remember they become the will of the people who voted them in. The National Assembly is the will of the people in this present dispensation. They are doing what you voted them in to do. TO LOOT.

That Jonathan wanted to remove immunity and he was prevented from doing so by the Governors is one of the beauties of democracy. That no one man through the exercise of his own will could ride roughshod over the others. If that is what the public wants, that is the removal of immunity from the constitution, it should vote out those governors against the removal and look for people that are ready to do that. We are failing because we do not take people that campaigns on issues very seriously. Rather we vote in those who bribe us with money during elections. We are the architect of our fate.

The insertion of the amendment procedures in S. 9 of the constitution is a safeguard against arbitrariness of the Federal Government. It is meant to make constitutional amendment inclusive of all components of Nigeria.
However, the people always reserve the right to go outside the constitution, even though not through judicial means, but by peaceful means through an SNC or Constitutional Conference, or by violent means through a revolution. It depends on us really.

[Yum]

More on the case... I recall reading about it a while back. In fact what we need to do now is all of us sign a petition to support this lawsuit, add a couple more and get some other lawyers not worth their salt to join in...

NAR,You and Soyinka, are not saying the same thing. You want the court to declare the constitution illegitimate. Whereas Soyinka's cause is rooted in the Constitution, yours will be rooted on the notion, that the military imposed the Abacha constitution albeit with some amendment on us( which by the way came out of the constitutional conference of 1994 I think).

Soyinka is challenging the draft constitution amendment of August 2006 to meet the standard set up in S 9 of the Constitution or in the alternative requesting the president to produce a constitution that would be representative of the will of the people.

The effect of this suit and the effect of what you stated in your first post is world apart. Whereas the result of declaring a constitution illegitimate is to make every thing that flows from it (including GEJ) illegitimate (in effect abrogatory), however, the effect of asking the president to produce a constitution, amounts to requesting the president to exercise his discretionary power to amend or replace that same constitution. There is a tacit recognition that it is the institutions appointed by the constitution that would be responsible for its amendment or replacement. That is the President and the Legislatures and not the courts.

Anyhow I just do not see how a court can fetter the president's discretion (when I say fetter his discretion, I mean forcing the president by an order of the court, to act in certain way against his wishes. If this is allowed, it means anyone could by court orders force the president to initiate the enactment of a particular law or to sign a contract to construct a particular road favourable to that person even if it is against the over all interest of Nigeria and thus elevating the court to the position the constitution never intended for it ) . I wish the esteemed Laureate good luck with that endeavour.

However, I still maintain my point that you cannot ask the court to declare a constitution illegitimate. So stop being snarky with your refrain about lawyers not worth their salt.

[Ajibs]

Yum

I will be back with a more detailed response. But my opinion is beyond this government. The constitution itself is faulty. For example with the clause of immunity.

And so far from 1999 to date. For 13 years the national assembly has been unwilling to amend the constitution to a document that accurately reflects the will of the people all people in Nigeria

[Yum]

Ok. I hear you.

[Ajibs]

Yum,

I am not entirely sure how you say Wole Shoyinka and I are not on the same page and saying the same thing. Before I came across the article on his suit, I had said:

Can you then sue within current law that Abdulslami mis-represented the people with the document he enacted into law. And since it is the National Assembly that starts the amendment of the constitution, you can sue them with a goal to push them into action.

Shoyinka's suit alleges that:

Soyinka and Agbeyegbe, in their submissions, argued that the 1999 Constitution is a fraudulent document the military imposed on Nigerians, contending that the document lacked authenticity and could not be properly described as the people's constitution.

Now,

NAR;
You are saying quite a different thing from what we discussed above. Now you have pivoted to the act of governance. In this case you don't need constitutional amendment to get rid of a government that is not performing. You simply vote them out. We will get there yet.

Always remember that the constitution is the constituent document of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. In other words, the concept of Nigeria as it exists today derives from nowhere else in our Laws but from the constitution. The courts can interpret the constitution and affix whatever meaning they deem fit to the term being interpreted which may be different from what the drafters intended but what they cannot do it to set out to abrogate it through a cause whose sole purpose is to challenge its legitimacy . Judicial precedents are set within the constitution and not outside of it.

I agree with you that the constitution must exists in order to recognize the sovereignty of the country called Nigeria. So essentially to sue to remove that constitution calls into question all its contents and that includes the courts. So on this, I say, I agree with you and this is why I then shifted the discussion.

Note as I pointed out to Anonimi, my goal is not to get rid of the GEJ administration. He can go tomorrow and another take over and we still will have flaws in governance. I am identifying the root cause of these problems as the document by which Federal Government operates and that means the constitution.

I do not really know what you mean when you talk about the will of the people. The will of the people in a democracy are expressed in two inter related ways; public opinion and voting. When you dislike what the government is doing or where the government is going and you feel something needs to be changed, you express this in your opinion of the government in public opinion polls. You go further to form pressure groups to pressurize the government to go your way because you have the public on your side. And if it fails, It is voted out in the next electoral circle and people that are willing to make those changes are elected to form the new government. Once elected, remember they become the will of the people who voted them in. The National Assembly is the will of the people in this present dispensation. They are doing what you voted them in to do. TO LOOT.

Let me start here, you said:

The will of the people in a democracy are expressed in two inter related ways; public opinion and voting.

Okay, I agree with you 100%. Now here is what I remain focused on. And you have given me another way to put it to you. The document that is being used to administer this "democracy" in Nigeria is currently NOT a document on which the people were given one of the two ways you mention to indicate their support. We neither had an opportunity to give our public opinion or vote for it. It was just given to us.

So another way to ask this question is now, IF the constitution we are now using to govern the country democratically was not voted upon by the people, how does that translate into a democratic government of the people, by the people and for the people?

So what we really have in Nigeria today is a democratic government of the military, by the military and for the chop and clean mouth Nigerian elite. NOT "We the people" agreed?

That Jonathan wanted to remove immunity and he was prevented from doing so by the Governors is one of the beauties of democracy. That no one man through the exercise of his own will could ride roughshod over the others. If that is what the public wants, that is the removal of immunity from the constitution, it should vote out those governors against the removal and look for people that are ready to do that. We are failing because we do not take people that campaigns on issues very seriously. Rather we vote in those who bribe us with money during elections. We are the architect of our fate.

The insertion of the amendment procedures in S. 9 of the constitution is a safeguard against arbitrariness of the Federal Government. It is meant to make constitutional amendment inclusive of all components of Nigeria.
However, the people always reserve the right to go outside the constitution, even though not through judicial means, but by peaceful means through an SNC or Constitutional Conference, or by violent means through a revolution. It depends on us really.

Now you made me go back and read section 9. So based on that I should amend and pivot my argument again. It appears that based on section 9, the two entities I advocate face a lawsuit would be (initially) The Abdulsalami Abukakar government AND the current National Assembly.

I maintain that Abdulsalami needs to come and explain to all Nigerians how he came about obtaining the will of the people that he used in his constitution. If he says it is based on 1995 or as far back as 1979, then we need to go back and examine THOSE drafts.

[Ajibs]

Yum,

Now going further into the constitution we now have I said earlier above:

The document that is being used to administer this "democracy" in Nigeria is currently NOT a document on which the people were given one of the two ways you mention to indicate their support. We neither had an opportunity to give our public opinion or vote for it. It was just given to us.

Now after doing some checking online, of course Wikipedia is a great resource where I found:

A constituent assembly was elected in 1977 to draft a new constitution, which was published on September 21, 1978, when the ban on political activity was lifted. In 1979, five political parties competed in a series of elections in which Alhaji Shehu Shagari of the National Party of Nigeria (NPN) was elected president.[38] All five parties won representation in the National Assembly.

Please note the key word up there: elected. Somehow at that time, Nigerians were elected to work on a document that would or was designed reflect the "We the people". I would have to do more reseach to find out how that constituent assembly was elected or beg our resident historian Maxsillion to point me where the information lies...anyway...

later I read:

Head of State, Babangida, promised to return the country to civilian rule by 1990 which was later extended until January 1993. In early 1989 a constituent assembly completed a constitution and in the spring of 1989 political activity was again permitted. In October 1989 the government established two parties, the National Republican Convention (NRC) and the Social Democratic Party (SDP) - other parties were not allowed to register.

So as we know IBB had a 567 person constituent Assembly in 1989 which his government appointed, and gave directions on the amendment of the 1979 constitution. He also dictated what would be and would not be discussed taht the constituent assembly.

So at this point "We the people" are dropped from the equation. So fast forward to 1999 and we read:

Pending the promulgation of the constitution written in 1995, the government observed some provisions of the 1979 and 1989 constitutions. Neither Abacha nor Abubakar lifted the decree suspending the 1979 constitution, and the 1989 constitution was not implemented. The judiciary system continued to be hampered by corruption and lack of resources after Abacha's death. In an attempt to alleviate such problems Abubakar's government implemented a civil service pay raise and other reforms...

... In August 1998 Abubakar appointed the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to conduct elections for local government councils, state legislatures and governors, the national assembly, and president. The NEC successfully held elections on December 5, 1998, January 9, 1999, February 20, and February 27, 1999, respectively. For local elections nine parties were granted provisional registration with three fulfilling the requirements to contest the following elections. These parties were the People's Democratic Party (PDP), the All People's Party (APP), and the predominantly Yoruba Alliance for Democracy (AD). Former military head of state Olusegun Obasanjo, freed from prison by Abubakar, ran as a civilian candidate and won the presidential election. The PRC promulgated a new constitution based largely on the suspended 1979 constitution, before the May 29, 1999 inauguration of the new civilian president. The constitution includes provisions for a bicameral legislature, the National Assembly consisting of a 360-member House of Representatives and a 109-member Senate.

So Abdulsalami performed three critical Professor Pella abracadabra majic in our haste to return to "democracy"

First, he took the provisions from the following constitutions / drafts: 1979, (Obasanjo Elected constituent assembly) 1989 (IBB appointed constitutional assembly) 1995 (Abacha did he even appoint anyone?) and created a 1999 constitution without "We the people"

Secondly, He conducted election BEFORE the constitution we now use even became law!!!! Even Obasanjo did not make that mistake.

Third, of course we do not even know what constitution is to be used to govern the country, but he enacts it into law on May 5th 1999 and swears in Obasanjo on May 29th 1999...

Majic complete. Will of the people dropped, replaced by will of the military and so has it been since 1999.

So that first line of that 1999 document should read:

We the military, awon oni iranu, egunge masters, wuru wuru specialists, opportunistic buffoons and others of the Federal Republic of Nigeria...

[anonimi]

Yum

And so far from 1999 to date. For 13 years the national assembly has been unwilling to amend the constitution to a document that accurately reflects the will of the people all people in Nigeria

I am not very sure of what you mean up there. Hope you can explain better as I know the NASS has amended the constitution at least once and is preparing to amend it again this year as you can see below:

North seeks three more geopolitical zones

The North is demanding three more geopolitical zones - if zoning will be in the latest amendment to the 1999 Constitution.

Also, some members of the National Assembly are pushing for new states from old provinces.

Some of the provinces are: Zaria , Kabba, Oyo, Ijebu, Bida, Old Annang, Warri, Kontagora, Muri and Ogoja.

But the Federal Government has ruled out voting by Nigerians in the Diaspora in the 2015 polls, it was learnt yesterday.

According to sources, Senators from the North have been meeting to push for more geopolitical zones and states in the region.

Top on their agenda is the need to create more geopolitical zones from the North, having uncovered plans by some political forces in the South to put zoning in the 1999 Constitution.

The North comprises three geopolitical zones and 19 states. There are 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).

The three zones are Northcentral, Northwest and Northeast.

The North is suspicious that some influential Southern politicians are lobbying for the inclusion of the zoning formula in the constitution as part of a game plan for the 2015 polls.

The North's counter-plot is the planned demand for three more geopolitical zones.

A highly-placed source from the North, who is also in the Constitution Review Committee, said: "We have gone far in the proposed amendments to the 1999 Constitution.

"One burning issue which the Northern Senators have been meeting on, is the zoning formula, which some forces are seeking to be included in the Constitution.

"The Northern Senators have resolved to push for the review of the present six-zonal structure, if zoning will be a clause in the Constitution.

"The North wants three more additional zones to bring its share of the structure to six. So, altogether, we will have nine geopolitical zones after the amendment, with six in the North and three in the South.

"That is the only condition that will make the North to accept the inclusion of zoning formula in the Constitution."

Responding to a question, the source added: "The North is bigger than other parts of the country in size or landmass and population. If power has to rotate among geopolitical zones, we believe the North will be cheated.

"Also, do not forget that the present six zones were created by the military to satisfy their whims and caprices and please a segment of the military establishment."

Besides zoning, some members of the National Assembly are lobbying for the elevation of some old provinces to states.

Another member of the Constitution Review Committee in one of the chambers said: "We are looking at giving priority to all former provinces that have not been made states. We think these old provinces have long been cheated in the scheme of things.

"We are talking of justice and how to bring government closer to the masses. Creation of new states will accelerate development."

As at press time, it was gathered that the Federal Government may have foreclosed voting in 2015 by Nigerians in the Diaspora.

A senior government official said: "The priority of the government now is how to put reliable and fraud-proof electoral process in place. With what we have now, we cannot add the burden of conducting elections in many countries where Nigerians are living.

"If we get our electoral process right and Nigerians have absolute confidence in the system, we can work towards it in 2019. I know that Egyptians in the Diaspora have the opportunity of voting, we will also get there soon."

The Nation

It seems the Receive, Share & Spend (RSS) Niger Delta oil money national economic model for Nigeria is not about to change any time soon.
Everyone is talking about revenue allocation no one talks about revenue contribution!!!
Yet we expect the country to progress with infrastructures, electricity, education & health with minimal corruption

[Yum]

Yum,

I am not entirely sure how you say Wole Shoyinka and I are not on the same page and saying the same thing. Before I came across the article on his suit, I had said:


Can you then sue within current law that Abdulslami mis-represented the people with the document he enacted into law. And since it is the National Assembly that starts the amendment of the constitution, you can sue them with a goal to push them into action.


Shoyinka's suit alleges that:


Soyinka and Agbeyegbe, in their submissions, argued that the 1999 Constitution is a fraudulent document the military imposed on Nigerians, contending that the document lacked authenticity and could not be properly described as the people's constitution.

I still say you are not asking for the same thing with Soyinka. Like I said before the consequences of the reliefs you would ask for and those Soyinka is asking for are diametrically different. You want the constitution declared illegitimate and he wants the President compelled in accordance with the constitution to replace the constitution.

That there were submissions made in the face of the court approximating your view do not bring this matter to your radical proposition. You make submissions on law and facts to advance your theory of the case. It is not the case itself. The relief asked for is what a case is about.

[Yum]

NAR

I agree with the fundamentals of your formulations that is the constitution needs to be changed. I am one of those that vehemently believe that our constitution is deeply flawed. That it is skewed in favour of perpetual domination. That it is a Constitution cleverly made to entrench indolence and corruption. That it is a constitution that inhibits competitiveness. It dwells largely on what can be got from the patchwork of Federation and not what could be contributed to it. And for whatever it is worth I also believe that the constitution is illegitimate having been foisted on us by an illegitimate government who acted without the will of the people.



However, I diverged from you on the basis on what is to be done to force an amendment or replacement of the constitution. I do not believe the court is the proper avenue to effect this change. The proper channel to do this would be with the executive and legislatures working together to legitimize the constitution incrementally or replacing it altogether OR in the alternative through the force of WE THE PEOPLE if possible for us to put aside our squabbling the trees and look at the beauty of the forest.


To my mind the pertinent question becomes how do we make the public so incensed as to let go of their primordial proclivities to want to force the government to either amend or replace the constitution OR remove the government when it continues to fumble and bumble along like it has successively been doing for 13 years? How do we form a pressure group;that would cut across all ethnicities; no political affiliation; with the sole aim of achieving the these goals? Anyone that could fashion out a way to do this is a genius in my own estimation lest Nigeria falls.

[Ajibs]

I am not very sure of what you mean up there. Hope you can explain better as I know the NASS has amended the constitution at least once and is preparing to amend it again this year as you can see below:



It seems the Receive, Share & Spend (RSS) Niger Delta oil money national economic model for Nigeria is not about to change any time soon.
Everyone is talking about revenue allocation no one talks about revenue contribution!!!
Yet we expect the country to progress with infrastructures, electricity, education & health with minimal corruption

This is why I say and Yum, I think you have agreed that what we have now is a constitution for legislooters Incorporated. It need to completely overhauled and not continuously amended.

[Ajibs]

NAR

I agree with the fundamentals of your formulations that is the constitution needs to be changed. I am one of those that vehemently believe that our constitution is deeply flawed. That it is skewed in favour of perpetual domination. That it is a Constitution cleverly made to entrench indolence and corruption. That it is a constitution that inhibits competitiveness. It dwells largely on what can be got from the patchwork of Federation and not what could be contributed to it. And for whatever it is worth I also believe that the constitution is illegitimate having been foisted on us by an illegitimate government who acted without the will of the people.



However, I diverged from you on the basis on what is to be done to force an amendment or replacement of the constitution. I do not believe the court is the proper avenue to effect this change. The proper channel to do this would be with the executive and legislatures working together to legitimize the constitution incrementally or replacing it altogether OR in the alternative through the force of WE THE PEOPLE if possible for us to put aside our squabbling the trees and look at the beauty of the forest.


To my mind the pertinent question becomes how do we make the public so incensed as to let go of their primordial proclivities to want to force the government to either amend or replace the constitution OR remove the government when it continues to fumble and bumble along like it has successively been doing for 13 years? How do we form a pressure group;that would cut across all ethnicities; no political affiliation; with the sole aim of achieving the these goals? Anyone that could fashion out a way to do this is a genius in my own estimation lest Nigeria falls.

Yum,

Our people need some kind of serious help and desperately for that matter.

I am glad we have come to a point of agreement, even though we still have disagreements. I do not come to the court option lightly. I would also prefer for democracy to become entrenched in our society and get our people to the point where they know and understand the power of their votes.

But I fear the majority of our electorate is still so politically and constitutionally uneducated and it will take years maybe even decades to fix via the political process.

I look back at Nigeria and I recall very well, I am not sure where you are located in our out of Nigeria and when you were last there. But I recall crystal clear when Buhari kicked out Shagari, at least in the South West, I know people flooded the streets and danced kokoma for joy at the coup... That was until Idiagbon started making us frog jump as bustops at Ojuelegba... so when IBB came along and kicked out Buhari...We took the streets and danced AGAIN!!! That was until Dele Giwa was killed, his own blossom friend, Mamman Vatsa was arrested and killed, political program was started and truncated, Odeku, Snr. Yar'Adua was banned from politics, MKO Abiola won and the election was annulled...Shonekan was put in until...Abacha came along!!! And AGAIN, WE.... DANCED!!!!

Only to realize we were dancing with the devil in dark glasses...Saro Wiwa killed...Kudirat Killed... ALL parties adopt Abacha for president with MD Yusuf holding out... So by the time Abdulsalami came and permanently retired Abacha, we danced again... oh lord have mercy!!!

You see what I am getting at, we ave been so battered and bruised that we do not even know what is good anymore, to the point now where a governor goes to commission the tarring of a new road and we hail him! We are now a dancing people, look how we carry first all the time when they say who are the happiest people on earth...How won't we be happy when we dance so much!


This is why I have come to the realization that we need some smart thinking Nigerians who ON BEHALF of "We the people" who appear quite hopeless on figuring out how our politics works can use our legal systems that does seem to be doing a descent job nowadays to help "push" the country in the right direction and get a decision that we might be able to get the masses to rally and support and demand a change.

If we leave it to those legislooters in Abuja, we go wait tire...

Don't you see what Anonimi posted up there? We are shouting, amend the constitution to make it reflect the will of the people, what are some doing? Looking to see how more states can be created in order to be able to increase their cut of the national cake.

Why don't they want us in Diaspora to vote? As they know that at least SOME of us have opened our eyes and if they dare allow us to vote will will not be swayed by all the razzmatazz and boju boju they are used to playing with Nigerians to get their votes...

And by the way I cannot but help mention that despite the terrible record the military have in Nigeria, some NVS villagers are still calling for another military intervention...

Imagine that.

[Ajibs]

I still say you are not asking for the same thing with Soyinka. Like I said before the consequences of the reliefs you would ask for and those Soyinka is asking for are diametrically different. You want the constitution declared illegitimate and he wants the President compelled in accordance with the constitution to replace the constitution.

That there were submissions made in the face of the court approximating your view do not bring this matter to your radical proposition. You make submissions on law and facts to advance your theory of the case. It is not the case itself. The relief asked for is what a case is about.

Yum,
You are right and I concede that point. I am going for the drastic, so that this enables the compromise to be a proper fundamental restructuring of the constitution. Remember when you want to negotiate, you do not put your final offer on the table first. But yes one might need to back down from a prayer to declare the constitution illegitimate, but we should sue for something as close to that as legally allowable and possible. We should push the envelope and the law as far as we possibly can.

Yes the suit might initially query the validity and authenticity of the constitution, but not seek to declare it null and void. But as the suit progresses and ALL parties realize the potential outcome of the suit, all parties will then be forced or compelled by the court to take action.

For example at the end of the day, MY GOAL for the suit will be to compel the President and the NA to do the following:

1. The president and the National Assembly shall appoint a constitutional review committee / panel
2. The panel shall review the current constitution as well as past constitutions as well as past constitutional assemblies
3. The panel shall come up with guidelines for the convening of a constitutional assembly
4. INEC shall be tasked to conduct an election of members to the constitutional assembly
5. An assembly shall hold within a defined period of time
6. The FG and NA shall appoint their own representatives in a balanced propostion with those elected And recognized civil organations like unions, stuendt bodies and professional assocations shall elect representatives to the constituent assembly
7. The CA will produce a revised constitution for Nigeria
8. The new constitution wil be put up for a vote
9. The NA and FG in power at the conclusion of this process shall have a certain amount of days along with the state assemblies to pass the new constitution and enact it as the law of the land.

In the alternative the court shall declare the presidency, vice president, senate president, HOR president et al, illegally occupy office they shall resign and the CJN shall take over as president and enact a constitutionally assembly in line with the above criteria.

So now the suit will not seek to declare the current constitution illegitimate, BUT to declare by the nature in which the constitution was enacted, it cannot be said to be the will of the people and we ask that the people and the people need to be given a vote on the constitution that govern their lives.

[Yum]

Yum,
You are right and I concede that point. I am going for the drastic, so that this enables the compromise to be a proper fundamental restructuring of the constitution. Remember when you want to negotiate, you do not put your final offer on the table first. But yes one might need to back down from a prayer to declare the constitution illegitimate, but we should sue for something as close to that as legally allowable and possible. We should push the envelope and the law as far as we possibly can.

Yes the suit might initially query the validity and authenticity of the constitution, but not seek to declare it null and void. But as the suit progresses and ALL parties realize the potential outcome of the suit, all parties will then be forced or compelled by the court to take action.

For example at the end of the day, MY GOAL for the suit will be to compel the President and the NA to do the following:

1. The president and the National Assembly shall appoint a constitutional review committee / panel
2. The panel shall review the current constitution as well as past constitutions as well as past constitutional assemblies
3. The panel shall come up with guidelines for the convening of a constitutional assembly
4. INEC shall be tasked to conduct an election of members to the constitutional assembly
5. An assembly shall hold within a defined period of time
6. The FG and NA shall appoint their own representatives in a balanced propostion with those elected And recognized civil organations like unions, stuendt bodies and professional assocations shall elect representatives to the constituent assembly
7. The CA will produce a revised constitution for Nigeria
8. The new constitution wil be put up for a vote
9. The NA and FG in power at the conclusion of this process shall have a certain amount of days along with the state assemblies to pass the new constitution and enact it as the law of the land.

In the alternative the court shall declare the presidency, vice president, senate president, HOR president et al, illegally occupy office they shall resign and the CJN shall take over as president and enact a constitutionally assembly in line with the above criteria.

So now the suit will not seek to declare the current constitution illegitimate, BUT to declare by the nature in which the constitution was enacted, it cannot be said to be the will of the people and we ask that the people and the people need to be given a vote on the constitution that govern their lives.

Let me know when you are ready to throw dollars my way to commence that suit for ya. However, note that if you fail, the Federal Government may get cost against you, and I as your lawyer would not be responsible for paying those costs out of my professional fee. I full ground remain for naija.

Jokes aside, I like what you are doing here. That is trying to make us think outside of the box. However, if the suit is to start the conversation that may lead the public to become interested in constitutional amendment, I would say, we should go right ahead, but if the end of the suit is to force the government to pursue those policies you enumerated up there, I would say it is a pure waste of time.The Court cannot make policies for the Federal Government. It is not set up to do so. The executive makes policies which must be judged against the standard of the constitution by the courts (I keep saying this all the time and I don't know why it is not getting through).

The foregoing notwithstanding, I really do think if we make it the cause of our lives to get that constitution amended incrementally or totally discarded, and if we treat every party fairly and even handed we may be able to break through the chatter and force a change.For example ACN the opposition party is resting on their oars because there is no one to pressure them to introduce reformatory bills to the National Assembly to embarrass the government to act or at the minimum to force a conversation about the constitution. PRESSURE GROUP(ADVOCACY GROUP IN THE US) is the way to go.

[Yum]

Yum,

Our people need some kind of serious help and desperately for that matter.

I am glad we have come to a point of agreement, even though we still have disagreements. I do not come to the court option lightly. I would also prefer for democracy to become entrenched in our society and get our people to the point where they know and understand the power of their votes.

But I fear the majority of our electorate is still so politically and constitutionally uneducated and it will take years maybe even decades to fix via the political process.

I look back at Nigeria and I recall very well, I am not sure where you are located in our out of Nigeria and when you were last there. But I recall crystal clear when Buhari kicked out Shagari, at least in the South West, I know people flooded the streets and danced kokoma for joy at the coup... That was until Idiagbon started making us frog jump as bustops at Ojuelegba... so when IBB came along and kicked out Buhari...We took the streets and danced AGAIN!!! That was until Dele Giwa was killed, his own blossom friend, Mamman Vatsa was arrested and killed, political program was started and truncated, Odeku, Snr. Yar'Adua was banned from politics, MKO Abiola won and the election was annulled...Shonekan was put in until...Abacha came along!!! And AGAIN, WE.... DANCED!!!!

Only to realize we were dancing with the devil in dark glasses...Saro Wiwa killed...Kudirat Killed... ALL parties adopt Abacha for president with MD Yusuf holding out... So by the time Abdulsalami came and permanently retired Abacha, we danced again... oh lord have mercy!!!

You see what I am getting at, we ave been so battered and bruised that we do not even know what is good anymore, to the point now where a governor goes to commission the tarring of a new road and we hail him! We are now a dancing people, look how we carry first all the time when they say who are the happiest people on earth...How won't we be happy when we dance so much!


This is why I have come to the realization that we need some smart thinking Nigerians who ON BEHALF of "We the people" who appear quite hopeless on figuring out how our politics works can use our legal systems that does seem to be doing a descent job nowadays to help "push" the country in the right direction and get a decision that we might be able to get the masses to rally and support and demand a change.

If we leave it to those legislooters in Abuja, we go wait tire...

Don't you see what Anonimi posted up there? We are shouting, amend the constitution to make it reflect the will of the people, what are some doing? Looking to see how more states can be created in order to be able to increase their cut of the national cake.

Why don't they want us in Diaspora to vote? As they know that at least SOME of us have opened our eyes and if they dare allow us to vote will will not be swayed by all the razzmatazz and boju boju they are used to playing with Nigerians to get their votes...

And by the way I cannot but help mention that despite the terrible record the military have in Nigeria, some NVS villagers are still calling for another military intervention...

Imagine that.

Don't get me wrong NAR, I am as frustrated as you. Tell your man Jona to develop some cojones to do some really radical stuff. He is too incremental for my taste.