2015: Amaechi warns Presidency over alleged plot to manipulate Rivers governorship poll

Minister of Transportation, Chibuike Amaechi.

The Rivers State Governor, Chibuike Amaechi, has warned of looming danger if the Presidency does not allow the people of the state to freely elect their governor during the 2015 governorship election.

Stating that it was the inalienable right of the people to do so, the governor said his administration and the people would resist any such plan as it could throw the state into avoidable crisis.

Mr. Amaechi said this in a statement on Monday following media reports that the Presidency was perfecting plans to impose an unnamed politician on the state during the poll.

Media reports alleged at the weekend that the new Rivers State Commissioner of Police, Dan Bature, had been directed by the Presidency to install a certain Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, gubernatorial aspirant as governor in the 2015 elections.

The reports specifically stated that Mr. Bature was instructed by the First Lady, Patience Jonathan, who is an indigene of the state, to use the former Rivers police commissioner, Joseph Mbu’s draconian style and tactics in causing crisis in Rivers State.

According to the reports, the police officer was asked to tackle Mr. Amaechi, his supporters and Rivers people and then install the preferred candidate as governor.

The governor, in a statement by his media aide, David Iyofor, said while it was easy for a few in the Presidency to dismiss the reports, “We in Rivers State, with the benefit of hindsight and our collective recent bitter experience in the hands of former Police Commissioner, Joseph Mbu, who was also reported to have a similar mandate, cannot.”

The statement added, “The people of Rivers State will strongly and bravely resist any attempt by anyone or institutions, including The Presidency, to unconstitutionally install the preferred PDP aspirant as governor of the State, now or in the 2015 election.

“There is no provision in the Nigerian Constitution and laws for the ‘installation’ of a preferred aspirant as governor of a state by The Presidency. What our laws prescribe is a free and fair election that must be devoid of police and security forces coercion, harassment and intimidation of voters.

“Rivers voters must be allow to and will freely choose and elect their governor in the 2015 elections. It is their inalienable democratic right that they will not and will never surrender to anyone or institution, including The Presidency.

“We must warn that the looming danger ahead for our polity and our country is indeed ominous, if this noxious script is acted out. This is an avoidable crisis that must be avoided by all parties mentioned in the reports.”

The governor congratulated and welcomed Mr. Bature to the state and said, “We expect and hope that he would act professionally and would firmly resist any external influences and pressure to be politically biased and partisan in the discharge of his duties to Rivers people as police chief.

“We pray that God and his conscience guide him to do only what is constitutional, lawful, right, just and fair in the policing of Rivers State.”

The governor assured Rivers people that the government would remain vigilant in the build up to the 2015 elections.


Now available on

  Premium Times Android mobile applicationPremium Times iOS mobile applicationPremium Times blackberry mobile applicationPremium Times windows mobile application

TEXT AD: Revealed!!! The Only Way Left of Getting an Extra Large Manhood and also Last Up to 38Mins+. Get the Insider Secret Here

TEXT AD: This NAFDAC APPROVED Solution Will Make You Stay Longer Than 40Mins In Bed Tonight And Help Your Erection. Click Here To Read The Free Reports

All rights reserved. This material and any other material on this platform may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, written or distributed in full or in part, without written permission from PREMIUM TIMES.

  • the truth

    amaechi please go and sit down. you are looking for sympathy, always accusing. we from rivers state know your lack of performance.the people would vote your cabal out in 2015.

    • emmanuel

      See wahala, the man rubbished the CP, then welcomed him thereafter.

      Ameachi has already taken on this man, so the man CP now has two options, be intimidated or het hostile to him

      He is a shameless politician!

  • dagbolu

    D truth, u r a pathetic impersonator. If Amaechi has not performed as alleged by u, wat about dat ur benefactor in Aso rock, who has failed tragically and calamitously?

  • adetolure Taiwo

    Amechi was mistakenly elected as the governor of river state. he is master of fabricator meanwhile it is either possibly for to
    having high blood pressure. federal government should please let Amechi should be tested

    • Alowonle

      Omo ale Yoruba niwo yi. Taiwo

  • BlackieUmukoro

    Amaechi may think he is helping to deepen democracy, when actually he is behaving like a mad in the market place who is picking pieces of paper and think is carrying out environmental sanitation. Lair muhammed will latch on amaechi’s mad talk soon

    • Don B. Messi

      Are you trying to make me laff or wot???
      I dey LaffooO!!

  • redeem

    Why cant the ikwerres talk to this man

  • me



    Thank you Jiti, it is a well-rehearsed and presented argument. The enemies of Nigeria, the purported owners of Nigeria plc, through some of their own pretending as friends of Nigeria, ambushed the Nigeria project. How could Saraki and Ndume with all the axes dangling over their heads, be allowed to lead the House and make laws for Nigeria? Can lawless vagabonds make laws for right-thinking citizens? The fact that they could be elected into the National assembly speaks much of the looseness of our laws and the stupidity of Nigerian voters. Saraki, Dogara, Ndume, Melaye and co can not be trusted to make meaningful and sincere laws for Nigerians. They are treacherous, untrustworthy and betrayers. They will sell Nigeria to the highest bidders, God forbid. The earlier APC expelled them, the better for the success of Nigeria’s project. Corruption is definitely fighting back through these mischievous and evil Saraki, Dogara and co.

  • Tunde Fawole


  • Ogunjimi Dipo O


  • Bejim

    Fine argument, in so far as the writer’s determination of 2011 (with its NAS rules) is upheld as the paradigm of legislative rectitude in Nigeria! One would have preferred a deeper reach into history for a truer understanding of the present issues with today’s our brand of democracy. Nigeria’s “democracy” stands on a fallacious constitution which about “We the people…” as its authors. The fallacious constitution itself sought to build democracy upon a fraudulent, oppressive and undemocratic amalgamation by Lugard. The present inconsistencies and dissonances are but natural aftermaths of a failure to honestly interrogate the country’s foundations.

    • Onike24

      Please what exactly is your point?

    • All Trust

      I don’t see any thing wrong in what happened in the NASS. A standing rule is a rule approved by a simple majority of a group and is used to guide the administration of that group. Senate Standing rule 2011 can not be used by default to guide the workings of the 8th senate since it is believed to have died when the 7th senate was buried. The Clark of the senate and those present on the first day of the senate sitting, especially if they form simple majority can get a standing rule for the new senate. Next, it is the court that will need to interpret whether the Clark must go about waiting or searching for the absconded APC senators who should have known that it would have been unconstitutional had the Clark not inaugurated the 8th senate because some selfish guys went to ICC for a sham meeting with the gods of APC

      • Supo

        At what point did they purport to change the Standing Rules on 9th June, 2015? For the purpose of thus discuss it’s important for us not to speculate. Did they or did they not change the Rules on the 9th? If they did at what point did they do so because we know they did not do so on the floor of the Senate on that day. So when did they do so? I guess that’s what the Police would have to unravel.

  • kjj

    The arguments are incomplete. All the senators-elect knew that the senators of the eight assembly will be will convened on the said date at 10 am. But they willfully refused to turn-up. That is no fault of the clerk. Each assembly give themselves a set of standing rules. What set of standing rules were used in 1999. As per elections in the senate, if the 2011 standing rulrules ended its validity with the end of the seventhseventh assembly, then the clerk decided the set of rules to be used pending the adoption of any standing rules by the eight assembly.

    • All Trust

      I completely agree

      • Tunde Fawole

        With what? With the fact that the Clerk has the legal justification to “decide the set of rules to be used”(sic) when the law does not give the clerk that power? So Senate clerks can AMEND Senate rules?

        • Alh Ameachi Rochas

          Mr Lawyer kindly tell us in 1999, who wrote the standing rule for the Senators?
          Why would Senators decide to hold a meeting at almost the same time at which the assembly was to be constituted knowing fully well that there was a letter sent to the Clerk by Mr President to constitute the 8th house, in that case which constitution should they follow, APC or Nigeria constitution?
          Tell us which part of the constitution or rather the Senate rules that says 2/3 or all the members must be present to vote?
          Mr Lawyer do you pass judgement when a case is still under investigation? I say this cos you are passing judgement on the senate deputy president on an allege forgery with no proof.
          Mr Lawyer you talked about morality what will you call Tambuwa’s case as a speaker with the support of the then opposition?
          If Buhari did not follow due process as INEC stipulate and you still recognised him as the President why should you accuse the Clerk and senate president of not following due process of asset declaration and name calling of members present?

          • Supo

            Are these legal issues you’re raising or moral ones? Just asking ni of.

  • Pause

    This is a case of a group crying over spilled milk….it is just unfortunate that the so-called educated people would invest time to waste trying to bamboozle their gullible SW readers.

    Senate President Saraki and Deputy-President Ekweremadu were duly elected by majority of senators. There is nothing any desperados can do about it. It is lack of understanding of what is going that makes people such as the writer to be personalizing the matter. Deep down the issue is not about Sarak and Ekweremadu. Rather it is about having majority of senators wanting something different from what 51 others want. If elections were held again today, both men or two others from the Like Minds would emerge winners.

    By the way no one forced 51 senators to go about loitering around Abuja at a time when the Senate was in session. Personally I think that the constituencies of these 51 senators should recall them for their display of irresponsibility. Those 51 senators are stooges and have nothing to offer Nigeria and their constituencies.

    For the desperate writer to be arguing the case on MORAL grounds is so redundant that the argument merits no response at all. let him float with his emotions until it settles down over time, naturally, hopefully.

    • Dada

      Did you read this essay? The author acknowledged the moral argument and left it BEHIND. He then proceeded with the legal argument-okay? Please read and think. That is the minimum required from civil minded people and civilised minds. This is democracy and we are in the public domain. Your own task is that since you are opposed to his argument, then advance yours and at the right time we will all meet in the court.

      • Pause

        I did read it enough to capture his main point. What is the legal argument? The bottom-line argument, legally speaking, is Section 50(1) and it is clear that anyone can be elected regardless of party affiliation. What other legal argument does the writer put? He assumed that that the existing order was forged? If so, who forged it? Let us say it was forged and that a new elections were held, which highly unlikely, my point is that the Like Minds would win again.

        • Dada

          Are Standing Orders which the author referred to and which formed the foundation of the author’s argument Moral orders or Legal orders?

          • Pause

            The writer Implied from his emotions:

            the writer’s argument was that if removing senate and deputy requires 2/3 majority why would electing them require less than that. Notice that the writer is implying here not that it was stated in the Constitution. So could he/you not imagine why a simple majority was required to elect both leaders but a 2/3 required to remove them?

            Standing Orders:

            It is obvious to me that the writer was neither the NASS clerk nor one of the 75 senators who attended the inaugural session. He is implying that Standing Orders were violated. To that I say let us wait for the police report and events to play out.

            Bottom line: the only reliable reference we have today is the Constitution and, based on it, the writer has no basis to conclude that the elections were a nullity. 75 senators were in attendance. The idea that the NASS clerk should have waited until every single senator was accounted for was ridiculous to say the least.

          • Dada

            You are being asked to think here my friend. This means you must first with draw your false submission that the author is raising a moral argument-even when moral arguments have legitimate place in all these. Okay? Now having demolished you view that the author is raising a moral argument (when he is not), now let us look at the legal argument which is what the author is raising.
            First Question: Under what legal provisions are Senate President/Deputy Senate President elected?
            Second Question: Were these provisions fulfilled with the purported “election” of Mr. Saraki?
            Third Question: if you claim those provisions were “fulfilled” then under what conditions (legal, illegal, criminal, forged) were they fulfilled?
            Fourth question: Who legally are the authors of the legal provisions for the election of Senate President/Deputy Senate President?

            Put on your thinking cap-these are the strong grounds of the author’s submission. These questions are NOT moral questions, they are legal questions and therefore are legal arguments. Your job? Refute the author’s legal argument with counter legal arguments relying on legal provisions. That is the way of civilised discourse. Join it. Civilised discourse is the Change we fought for, pounded the streets for and not some ambitions of someone (Abubakar Bukola Saraki) who went back to conspire with PDP against the Change Mission we all fought for on the streets with out votes, brains and minds.

          • Pause

            Since you remind me of thinking I assume you are already at it yourself. However I would like you to improve your comprehension skills because you read but you appear not to comprehend properly.

            The writer is interested in morals and implicitly made the assumption throughout the write-up. First he sided with the APC leadership for conducting the straw poll. He is an APC apparactchik. He went on to confuse himself and folks like you informing that he was not interested in the moral aspect of the matter. For taking side with APC leadership he invariably assumed that other members of APC who did not agree with APC leadership are the ‘bad guys.’ Whatever else he wrote thereafter was meant to convince the readers that Saraki & Co are the bad guys.

            About your legal questions, I think that the relevant sections of the Constitution cited by the writer are sufficient to answer your questions. Still I will not address the 3 questions directly rather i will make the following statements relevant to the issues we are discussing, as follows.

            As i have stated in my last post, the only provable evidence we have right now is the relevant sections of the Constitution and the writer cited a few of them: key to my point is that fact that the Constitution allows for any NASS member to aspire to lead either chamber regardless of party affiliation. So there is nothing Constitutionally weird/wrong with Ekweremadu or anyone else contesting or getting elected. I make this point because APC people create the impression that it is unheard of. The second point to make is that quorum was formed as required by the Constitution before the elections were held. Everything appears great so far, correct?

            Now,then, after the elections, the APC leadership as represented by this writer began to raise 2 key issues, first, that all senators must be seated necessarily before a senate presidency & deputy-presidency elections can be held, and, second, that the STANDING ORDERS were forged. With regard to the first issue, you would agree with me that 57 or 75 senators represent a quorum by law to elect the two leaders. This means that, contrary to the writer’s argument, we do not need all one of the 108 senators, one died, to be present to conduct the senate activity; constitutionally one-third can suffice actually; simple majority is required.

            On the issue of Standing Orders, as i stated in my previous response, the writer has no information to begin to claim that the Orders were forged. He has to exercise patience until the police investigation is completed. His other point was that the order of events was not followed on that day, for example, roll calls should have preceded the voting et. al. My response to that is that conceivably the senators may decide to skip a sequence if the attending senators all agreed to that. Why not? Talking of sequence of events, Buhari himself did not follow the sequence of events literally when he submitted his credentials to INEC, yet he was adjudged qualified enough to stand for the elections. My guess here is that the Senate should be able to show that the ORDER in question was not violated and if it was violated that it was not done to the extent that it would invalidate the elections of Saraki and Ekweremadu. Note please that I am not privy to realities of things in the Senate, so I cannot say for sure what transpired with respect to whether or not the Order was forged. But the writer also is not privy to that information too. Therefore he was wrong to use that “forged Order” claims by APC senators to reach an unsubstantiated conclusion to the effect that the elections of the two mean were null and void. A professional lawyer/legal mind would wait until provable evidence becomes available. The writer was interested in something else other than the truth, nothing but the truth, so help him God.

          • Dada

            The legal question is the legality or illegality of the purported election of Mr. Saraki as President of Senate and Mr. Ekweremadu as Depute Senate President. So my challenge to you is that given that Mr. Ogunye has shown that the election is illegal under the law, show me that the purported election is legal. By this, show readers that Mr. Ogunye’s legal argument is flawed by citing law. Can you do this please?

          • Pause

            but he did not show it is illegal under the law (Constitution); he hinges his argument on the Senate Order. But there are two weaknesses to that argument. One is that the issue is still being looked upon and until the police and perhaps the courts make a pronouncement it should not be part of any responsible debate. The second weakness is that the Constitution overrides the Senate Orders. I mean I could bring up some cooked-up unsubstantiated issues to undermine any group but, the world expect legal people to follow the evidence and not cook them up, which is what the writer engaged in here. I want you to check the post made by someone using a moniker “Mayo;” I think that this person articulated the issues I am raising, perhaps, much better.

          • Supo

            “One is that the issue is still being looked upon and until the police and perhaps the courts make a pronouncement it should not be part of any responsible debate.”

            Did you you just say that? Unbelievable. So we should suspend discussion on a matter of public interest because the Police is investigating the issue and might become a matter for the courts to decide? Are you for real?

        • Olusola

          those involved in the forgery goes to court and from there to jail. That is the position of our laws if they were fund guilty of forgery. So a new election will only take place when they have taken their bedsit at Kirikiri.

          • Pause

            Which law are you referring to and has anyone broken the law?

            Besides it is not factual thay lawbreakers go to jail in Nigeria….if they do why is Buhari not in Kirikiri as we speak after all he did not follow INEC procedures when he submitted his credentials….shall I say WELCOME TO NIGERIA which you created….you allow Buhari to compromise our procedures but you want others to go to jail for the same infractions……stop hypocrisy….do not engage in it or be ready to see the repetition of what transpired at INEC and NASS multiplying from day to day

          • Olutola

            I can see that your IQ is very low if you cannot sieve out sick election manoeuvring from fact. President Buhari’s case is very similar to Obama’s case where certain sick politician allege he was not born in the USA. President Buhari contested previously and INEC cannot check the same certificate they already wrote Army board and sourced same. Remember INEC was silent all through for two reasons (1) They had a copy previously availed them by the same army board (2) the law actually did not say you MUST have WAEC certificate only that you must have been educated to school certificate level and the law provided various ways of enumerating it which included primary school leaving certificate and at least 10yrs in civil Service and many more such categories under which President Buhari qualified. Each year a University determines how to accept students so also NDA but NMTC at the time of President Buhari so if at the time they lowered requirements you cannot blame the beneficiary but the fact of the matter was President Buhari sat for his WASC and passed as required in the second division, photos were released, actual master list of the results were released just like I had mine with the principal of my secondary school and they can re-issue same with my TODAYS photo because that is who I am now (still same person). Then President Obasanjo said President Buhari joined four years after me and I do not know anyone who didn’t have WASC in those days and he further said and I quote “mind you the forgeries and corruption of today were non existent in those days” I still went to University at a time in Nigeria where each University had WAEC master copy for entire nation and your results were checked on day one. You are not ashamed that your uncle or his handlers ordered that they should remove President Buhari’s certificate from his file. Are you also so dumb that you do not know Army board have reversed itself that they have found the same certificate? Gen Akinrinade said he was pained at heart that anyone in authority is pretending not to know that Army keeps originals and only gives certified copies back to them (at least I am aware of that). President Buhari had to swear affidavit because while he was in detention his CTC was taken by military folks who ransacked his house. What else do you want in this country? If your brother President Jonathan did well Nigerians will vote for him. He performed badly. It is so sad that there are evil minded folks like you still saying same old thing even after loosing an election. Did USA election authority listen to Donal Trump? NO, they got all the confirmation required to satisfy the law. In your own case since you are a perjured person we will allow you display your open madness!

          • SAM .A

            why do you go to this length to educate a moron who can’t read and understand.He is a tribalist from se suffering from election loss. his brain is already arrested at the campaign and election level , he can’t think beyond.

          • Pause

            The most dangerous Nigerians are adults like you who just follow-follow….especially such DAURA COW HEADS needing shepherding at a close proximity all day long are the first to tell others to think! Remember, the brain cells do not grow same way as other organs of the body. Your comment suggests that your brain cells need a lot of growing to undergo….see a doctor or brain surgeon for assistance.

          • Pause

            You lack English comprehension skills. My comment was not about the certificate itself rather it was about Buhari referring INEC to Nigerian Army instead of the examiner as required. Besides I stated that I used the Buhari example to show that he did not follow the INEC procedures literally but still became the president. MY POINT IS ABOUT FOLLOWING THE ORDER/PROCEDURE!!

            Now tell your readers your IQ level when you read comprehensively as primary school level….msssh

  • simonibekwe

    No impunity will be tolerated in this change dispensation. Every constitution of Nigeria must be obeyed to the last letter. Ekweremadu and Saraki are not above the law of the land.

  • G.T. Ojumu

    This is unarguably the most brilliant legal submission I have read in recent times.

    • All Trust

      It is laced with subjective and biased language showing he is not objective enough. From all indications he is an APC sympathizers. He is legal adviser to premium times; thus he shares the same bias with premium times. It can now be confirmed where Premium Times is coming from and where it is going

      • Supo

        What has all that got to do with his analysis even if true? Challenge his arguments on solid legal grounds and cut out the straw man chit chat.

  • larry

    I call on you(jiti), on what part are you for because I want to be factual with this your article been based on the NASS crisis in electing their officers. Pointing on the ground indicting some particular people rightly from the south-west to the north-east you are mentioning. I want ask you must election be one hundred percent of the total outcome including the participants because saraki and dogara won unopposed the election conducted by the clerk of the house . On the what account must it be illegal that of the concoction of Ike Ekweremadu on forgery of the standing orders of the house but if it could be true that doesn’t indicate the police investigation based on the disagreement among themselves likewise it could be settled. If the crisis still persist ,you call take up the challenge to use legal qualification because call the fourth citizen of the country some names is uncalled for .you are entitled to your opinion but take consideration.

    • absam777

      Why are you putting a pedestrian argument in a matter that is above your understanding? If something is illegal then we should allow the law to take its course.

      It would be nice to resolve the matter legally rather than through some political expediencies.. It is high time we start doing things right as a country.

      We cannot afford to have fraudsters to make law for us.

      • larrt

        At what point in time must he begins to write on issue that is obvious to the blind ? Was he sleeping when the drama is been put to display.As matter of fact, he is been sentimental on his article and his career his of caricature profession.writing on the pages of newspaper of nonetity. Even though I challenge with his law profession that how sure is he of the forgery standing orders is indicting of ???? I rest my case

        • Tunde Fawole

          Legal arguments are not sentiments. Check the English language Dictionary for the meanings of (i) Legal arguments and (ii) Sentiments. You may wish to do a re-think after this check.

          • larry

            Are sure that legal argument cannot be sentimental ? this is not about dictionary meaning rather is of comprehensive details. Refrain from such comment

          • Tunde Fawole

            Legal arguments are about the law. Your sentiments are about you-they are “you-centered”. Legal arguments are “LAW_CENTERED”. This is about MEANING. Since you are oblivious of this, you will be helped to go back to the source of meaning-which the dictionary is. Think and come back for reason dependent conversations

          • larry

            why are you inaccurate from your writing because you indicate that legal argument are above the law likewise you said legal argument are law centered. before dictionary was in progress , are there not be writing? it show that are still dependent and you are yet to be independent.I think people like you are ignorant.Am not here for people like you . A word is enough for wise .

          • Onike24


          • Tunde Fawole

            Can you please point out where it was said that legal argument is above the law? Legal arguments ARE LAW DEPENDENT. Your (i.e. larry) sentiments are ‘YOU -DEPENDENT” and therefore personal to YOU-larry. IN YOUR SENTIMENTS YOU APPEAL TO YOURSELF. In legal arguments because they are LAW -DEPENDENT- rational people and citizens APPEAL TO THE LAW. Do you still want to learn and be instructed properly?

          • Tonnero

            The man has entered aclass much higher than his competence.

          • Supo

            Tune, you’re wasting your time with this one. He’s way over his head.

        • Supo

          You haven’t said anything sir. Your post makes no sense quite frankly.

      • Onike24

        Thank you!

  • absam777

    A very good submission. We cannot have bandits and fraudsters making law for us,

  • Bode Osanaiye

    Jiti Ogunye is a man whose opinion I respect a lot,but this one is a complete mismatch.His points are ill-suited and he has failed to recognise the illogicality of a purported party supremacy viewed against the backdrop of the well-grounded principle of parliamentary supremacy and the avowed pre-eminence of the legislature.This write-up is at best, sentimental, biased and a priori, very bland ,empty and devoid of any reason.I am sorry to say this.

    • Onike24

      Sentimental? Did he not address the fact the internal wranglings of the party, in this instance was inconsequential to the law? Why are we unable to face facts!

    • Tunde Fawole

      Mr. Bode Osanaiye, are you talking law?

      • Supo

        Of course he’s not talking law. He’s running a beer parlour commentary of no value.

    • Tonnero

      You are the one that is not clear at all. Mr. Ogunye’s legal arguments do not rest on party supremacy. They rest on the following legal grounds: you cannot base the election on Standing Rules 2015 which does not exist. 2) if you say you used Standing Rules 2011, then the process clearly enumerated was not followed and 3) you cannot claim that the election was valid because the senate had a quorum of one third his contention being you need ALL senators except those who cannot be there or who expressly choose not to be there. Where did you see party supremacy there? He talked about morality and he talked about the law. You must be one of the rabble rousers he refers to. It is stoopid for anyone to say NASS should not toe party lines. Which agenda are they supposed to push? Their personal agenda or party agenda?

    • Ademakinwa Nelson

      You had to say all that to explain why you do not agree with an idea from Jiti…. it says a lot about your own parochial views…

    • Supo

      Except that you did not address any single issue he raised. Not one. Nice try. Address the issues or move on.

  • DON

    Sorry Jiti Ogunye accept my condolence, Tell APC to accept their lost and move on.

    • Tunde Fawole

      Mr. Don, Is that Law?

      • DON

        Which law?

        • Tunde Fawole

          Your condolence.

          • DON

            I know you are lost

      • Hassan

        Take the matter to the court for determination

  • All Trust

    The essay is full of
    bitterness and too much crying over spilled milk. I don’t see anything wrong in what happened in the NASS. A standing
    rule is a rule approved by a simple majority of a group and is used to guide
    the administration of that group. Senate standing rule 2011 can not be used by
    default to guide the workings of the 8th senate since it is believed to have
    died when the 7th senate was buried. The Clark of the senate and those present
    on the first day of the senate sitting, especially if they form simple majority
    can get a standing rule for the new senate. Next, it is the court that will
    need to interpret whether the Clark must go about waiting or searching for the
    absconded APC senators who should have known that it would have been unconstitutional
    had the Clark not inaugurated the 8th senate because some selfish guys went to
    ICC for a sham meeting with the gods of APC. Is it not unconstitutional and
    illegal for Senators-elect to be absent at the time of the senate inauguration????
    They were overconfident as if APC means Nigeria and that APC’s constitution
    supersedes Nigeria’s constitution and that party supremacy in APC is superior to
    Nigeria’s constitution. None sense!

    • Tunde Fawole

      Mr. All Trust Is that the law?

      • Pause

        what is the law?

        • Tunde Fawole

          The Law upon which a Senate President and Deputy Senate President can be said to have been legally elected.

          • Mike udi

            Stop asking is that the law. Go and check senate rules.

          • Pause

            So we should now abandon our Constitution which is supreme? Ok, which senate rules are you referring to? Those of Senate 7 or 8?

          • Tunde Fawole

            Those clearly stated by the author. Go back and read the essay.

          • Pause

            I read it and i have posted the weaknesses of basing his argument on Senate Orders. You may go to read those comments below. The bottom line though is that the writer could not fault the elections on constitutional grounds and his effort to cling to the Senate Orders that are under police investigation is irresponsible of him to base his argument.

          • Supo

            He actually did fault it on constitutional grounds. Please enough of the straw man argument. Read the man’s analysis again.

          • Hassan

            The author is not an authority more so when he was busy dwelling in half truths.

          • Tunde Fawole

            The author stated them and argued they were not followed. The onus on you? Show that they were followed.

          • Pause

            but the writer would not know if the police investigations are not completed and perhaps final pronouncement by courts. So he writer is jumping into an unresolved area… a waste of time, really

          • Pause

            But the writer stated which law applies: Section 50

          • Tunde Fawole

            Then State your legal refutation of the author on the point of law.

          • Pause

            read my other comments below or the comments by someone using a moniker “Mayo.”

      • All Trust

        Well it is not necessarily the law. Its my logic anyway. Am just fed up with all the nonsense in the NASS that is drawing us back

  • Mayo

    Normally, I enjoy reading Jiti Ogunye’s article but I had to struggle to read this article.

    1) At first, Jiti said he really didn’t care about the morality of what had happened in the National Assembly and that he was more interested in the legality. But Jiti spent almost a quarter if not half of the beginning of this article talking about the immorality of what Saraki, PDP, et al had done. I had to struggle to continue reading to find out the legal arguments he had to raise (which he did finally raise towards the end). But the beginning sections of the article showed he was writing emotionally instead of factually as he often does.

    2) Jiti describes what happened thus ….What transpired in the NASS on Tuesday, June 9, 2015 was a coup d’état. We are bothered because it was also a coup d’état against the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and the rule of law.

    A coup means you are overthrowing an existing legal government or authority. You cannot describe what happened in the National Assembly as a coup, even against the constitution. If you do so, then it simply means anytime someone goes against the constitution (which is a crime), it is also a coup.

    Jiti also described what Saraki did as treachery but I can’t recollect Jiti describing Tambuwal’s actions in similar terms.

    3) Jiti also said .. in the absence of 51 Senators, who were “ambushed” into a fence-mending and ranks-closing meeting that eventually turned out to be a hoax,…. An ambush is set by your opponent to lull you into a trap. Is Jiti saying it was Saraki and his supporters who created a phantom meeting with the President?

    4) Jiti also said ….We are, therefore, not concerned about the moral wrong that the APC has suffered in the hands of her saboteur members, who, apparently fled a leprous PDP into the APC in the belief that staying back in the PDP in the 2015 general elections was going to harm their ambitions to get elected or re-elected into political offices.. Jiti conviniently forgot that some of these PDP members defected to APC long before the 2015 elections. Some of those members defected because they lost out in the power struggle in PDP. Saraki and some governors defected just after APC was formed, when it was doubtful that APC would end up winning any elections. Through most of this write-up, Jiti kept referring to members of PDP seperately from APC which gives the impression that Jiti is clearly partisan when it comes to APC and PDP instead of just neutral.

    5) I was finally able to get to the legal basis for Jiti’s arguments and I believe he has raised some valid issues about the calling of the roll, the submission of the receipts of declaration of assets. I’m not fully aware of the requirements with respect to the points and so cannot say if that is enough to render what transpired null and void. I will go and research those points. I also hope the clerk of the National Assembly will respond so that we the public learn.

    • Pause

      Everything you wrote from Items 1-4 is exactly my points earlier. With regard to your Item 5 I almost made the same point but I went further to state that the writer did not have information regarding Standing Orders because the issue is still subject of police investigation. Be that as it may, I stated that it is conceivable that attending senators may decide to move to the most important issue of the day if all attended agreed to that; I mean, if the law allows one-third or simple majority of the senators to form a quorum, then the same senators may change their order or expedite discussions as they deem fit. Finally, Buhari did not follow literally the order by which he was supposed to submit his credentials but he is the president today. My point with the Buhari’s example is that even if the order was not followed literally it would not invalidate the elections of the two men. And, if he elections were held today, the Like Minds would win, because they control simple majority. This writer is an APC appartchik and representing APC so they want to sack the senate leadership in a mago-mago way. But thy would first paint the other side as EVIL and then go forth to attack them…..we have to watch out for APC tricks before they crash Nigeria on our heads…

      • Supo

        “I mean, if the law allows one-third or simple majority of the senators to form a quorum, then the same senators may change their order or expedite discussions as they deem fit.”
        Was that what happened on the 9th of June? So at what point did they change “their order or expedite discussions”? It’s OK, please go ahead and speculate. We’ll like to know once your comment and Mayo are supposed to close all discussions on this matter. Oniyeye ale aimuda.

    • Moonlight

      Pls ignore this rabble rouser who think that Abuja is Lagos where laws are written to suite a particular godfather. Saraki/Ekweremadu leadership has come to stay. INEC registered 68m Nigerians before the elections out of which 48m got their PVCs and less than 30m Nigerians voted out of 170m, does that invalidate the election of the President? APC should tread with caution on this issue of Senate leadership. Any attempt to stampede Saraki/Ekweremadu out office may truncate our nascent democracy which PDP sustained for sixteen solid years. If Lawan/Akume group is popular, they should move for impeachment of Saraki/Ekweremadu if they can garner the required 2/3 majority in the Senate…

  • Moonlight

    Pls ignore this rabble rouser who think that Abuja is Lagos where laws are written to suite a particular godfather. Saraki/Ekweremadu leadership has come to stay. INEC registered 68m Nigerians before the elections out of which 48m got their PVCs and less than 30m Nigerians voted out of 170m, does that invalidate the election of the President? APC should tread with caution on this issue of Senate leadership. Any attempt to stampede Saraki/Ekweremadu out office may truncate our nascent democracy which PDP sustained for sixteen solid years. If Lawan/Akume group is popular, they should move for impeachment of Saraki/Ekweremadu if they can garner the required 2/3 majority in the Senate..

  • Gerald Okoduwa

    I urge Mr Ogunye and his likes in Nigeria’s legal practice to disregard the obviously compromised NBA and subject this legislative robbery to a judicial test and secure a supreme court pronouncement on it for posterity. One does not need to be a lawyer to deduce the difference between a sitting and an inaugural election. Those who are to sit and make laws must first be inaugurated and agree on who should preside under a mutually agreed terms. A few unauthorised members cannot forge such terms on their own. Saraki and his sponsors are bent on perpetuating impunity for selfish gains in an era of a government that is preaching integrity, transparency and the rule of law. Allowing them to get away with it at this stage will amount to submission to evil forces against the change the vast majority of Nigerians desire at this point in time. It is no longer enough to condemn these illegalities and attempts by proponents of corruption to kill Nigeria. It is time to resist them.

    • Moonlight

      Going to Court will be a long journey, Senate Unity Forum should move for impeachment of Saraki/Ekweremadu if they have the required 2/3 majority to effect any change in the Red Chamber, you don’t change Senate Leadership on the pages of Newspapers. Mind you, it may take Court next two years to make the so-called interpretation. Ekweremadu and Saraki were constitutionally elected by their colleagues to led them.

    • Reminder

      Naive in thinking. So wrote the rules for the 1st senate?

  • Funso Famuyiwa

    Mr. Jiti Ogunye, Thank you for this lengthy, but nonetheless, exhaustive, informative and analytic (Legal) disquisition on the NASS Legislative “Coup d’etat” perpetrated by Sen. Saraki and his ilk and which has put our nation in a quandary. I am at least delighted to learn that there are Valid Legal grounds, which you have carefully enunciated, that can be used to rein in these greedy, selfish and unprincipled interlopers.
    After the release of the Report of the Police Investigation, if it is compromised as is probable (Naija factor) aggrieved Senators at least have a credible basis for Legal adjudication. God Bless you.

  • Toyin

    Jiti, you should have taken this case up as a lover of democracy and a public interest attorney instead of all these grammars. This is the problem I have with these new generation lawyers. If late Gani Fahawenmi is to be around he would have been in court by now to challenge this act if actually the process that produced the leadership is unconstitutional. Nigerian masses missed you chief Gani. Jiti is here speaking grammar instead of leading a team of lawyers to challenge the illegality according to him in the court. May your gentle soul rest in peace Chief Gani Fahawehinmi.

  • Carl

    Too verbose. Arguments tall on sentiments but very short on substance. The entire write up is laced with bias and innuendos which is unbecoming of a professed legal practioner. Reading it was a waste of valuable time. Rubbish!!

    • Tunde Fawole

      Can you refute the arguments in the essay from the point of law please?

      • Pause

        You are just recycling questions. Since you like questions here is one for you. Can you read comprehensively? If yes, can you read comments by me and Mayo? After reading can you post your own comments and leave at that, without further tormenting users?

      • David Adeniran

        Did he even understand the essay at all?

        • Bayo Adepoju

          No be essay, na propaganda, period.

      • Bayo Adepoju

        Which point? Dem dey refute propaganda say wetin happen?

    • Supo

      Carl, stop pretending. You couldn’t follow the arguments and the analysis because you’re ill-equipped.

      • Pause

        the guy appears to reach the correct conclusion for anyone who understand the issues….you on the other hand ‘followed’ the arguments but you lack the intellectual preparedness to comprehend the issues apparently

        • Supo

          Mr. Pause, you must have me confused with someone else. I not only comprehend the issues, I adopt them as mine. I assure you I will be getting in touch with Mr. Ogunye as a professional colleague to see what we can do to move forward with a law suit along the line of his compelling analysis here. Stay tuned.

          • Bayo Adepoju

            Waste. Talk is cheap.

          • Supo

            I’m waiting for your analysis on the issue, Sir.

          • Bayo Adepoju

            My brother, wetin e talk wey person go analyze. The man buy new palmtop, na him sweet am so. Just ask am who write 1999 senate rule make you see race. That one, Jitti, na him l go follow waste my time? I no follow shine, shine bobo waka.

          • Supo

            Eyah, sorry o. I bin tink say na person I dey follow discuss…no vex…i don sabi now. Go take ya medicine.

          • Bayo Adepoju

            You no wan talk nonsense come my side, you hear me so? First and last warning.

          • Supo


    • Bayo Adepoju

      Ese baba mi. Na so. I sorry for gullible Nigerians. E no short on substance, substance no dey at all. Na propaganda talk be this, simple.

  • Peter

    A nation should not be suffering from recklessness and illegality when it has analytical legal minds like Jiti Ogunye – he should not end it but take up the case in the court.

    • Pause

      read comments by me and Mayo for the truth of the matter

    • Bayo Adepoju

      E no get matter, e for don run go court tay tay. You think say e no wan be hero? Abegi!

  • Edward

    Another fools paradise-maker… the likes of Oye-GUn, Tinubu and Akande will start rejoicing that they have a way out. Take note : this is a sycophant t work. You re telling us that there are vacancies at the Upper Chamber?

    It goes to show how desperate people can me.

    Jiti, can you tell us Nigerians voting pattern since 1999?

    Nonsensical claims

  • This whole sham among the very people who are meant to direct the affairs of the nation with apt legislation is just unacceptable after the whole sacrifices made by the Nigerian people, the consequences of which they are still suffering. All men and women of goodwill must rise up with their expertise and resources and work towards resolving this nonsense situation. Nobody gives what he does not have. If the very law makers of the country are master law breakers and immoral, how could we possibly move on? Unbelievable we struggled so much only to come back this far. The good news is that Nigeria does not have seasoned minds like Jiti nor uncommon personalities like PMB. It is more about forming a synergy among these individuals. Those scums on the other end quickly form a synergy. The 8th Nationsl Assembly has immensely taught us that lesson.

  • SAM .A

    Jiti Ogunye , a fire brand legal luminary has laid the foundation for legal storm or huricane to demolish this illegal election in the senate on June 9th. HE has positioned the Caterpillar for the demolition of Saraki /Ek weremad unprecedented illegally forged Foudation. Bravo Jiti.

    • Pause

      bravo, you said it and it is the truth…clap for your dumb self….kpa…kpa…kpakpakpa…kpaa

      now read comments by me and Mayo for the truth of the matter

      • Supo

        What comments? Those beer parlour commentaries that are supposed to close all discussions but so full of speculations and easily debunked? Abegi.

  • Malachi

    It’s indeed lamentable that people who before now could be numbered among the sane could descend so low into the embrace of parochial sentiments to discuss our national issues. One is not surprised because the second nature of a core Yoruba man is treachery. Tell me what the Yoruba has got in Nigeria without their trademark of treachery. But let it be known that the position of the Deputy President of the Senate is not for sale. If the Yoruba thinks that another war will be fought in Igboland, they should have their heads examined. If their treachery creates another cataclysm in Nigeria, they will bear the burden. Let them not be in doubt of this. Nonsense

    • Supo

      This one has completely gone bonkers. My friend address the salient issues raised by the learned gentleman or shut up. If you want to fight the Civil War all over again, you know where to start.

  • Supo

    Thanks, Titi. Very compelling.

    • Bayo Adepoju

      Very compelling? You just confirm say you no read pass first paragraph.

      • Supo

        That’s all you have to say about this, over a year later? Oya o, let’s hear your own opinion, you that has read the whole thing? Humour us, please.

  • Abdul

    Saraki is treacherous

  • javscong javscong

    Jiti, thanks for your very in dept analysis. My concern is that nobody has taken up this matter. If we are to make any meaningful progress in this country, it is not just insugency and corruption that MUST be wiped out. Impunity and fraud, the type Saraki and his co-conspirators have foisted, should not be allowed to stand. Is it an illegally constituted senate that will now confer legal status to the new service chiefs? I read that Saraki is trying to put an adhoc committee together for the purpose of confirming the service chiefs. My take is that Mr. President should not send the request for confirmation to this Saraki led senate. The service chiefs can continue in acting capacities until the current malfeasance in the senate is cleaned up. This is a man (Saraki) whose “wrap sheet” is a mile long and I do not know why he has not been charged to court. I understand that he is in fact on administrative bail. So what next for him and his criminal gang?

  • Yahaya Daudu

    From your presentations it is evident you are of a legal mind in calling but of what use is all this analysis to us if you don’t present a serious constitutional infringement of this magnitude before a court? We may believe completely in our judiciary but you can make a point for the records. Gain of blessed memory whom you also mentioned strived to address issues such as these in his life time and not all such cases that he went to the courts to challenge were successful but he always make a point. If all our institutional processes are subject to serious legal scrutiny most of them would fail woefully and this includes the last elections but we always have a way of allowing things to continue as we make amends and fortify for the future as the system gets better. With this your analysis and technical points with observations raised I think you should head for the courts not because the system will justify you or not but because it is a worthy cause. Good luck.
    With respect to morality, how come nobody said what Tambuwal did was immoral? He like Saraki had used members of the opposition then APC and some of his loyal ones in his then party the PDP to clinch the speakership against the express wish of his party. Those denying Saraki’s actions today were the very actors who made the affront of Tambuwal on his ruling party possible, then it was not wrong. Tambuwal switched camp just before the end of his tenure and we are witnesses to all that transpired. The leadership of the present ruling party were quick to remind Tambuwal of the support they gave during his emergence as the Speaker now that it is crystal clear that he is in Saraki’s camp. Tinubu said to Tambuwal point blank “your link to the south west is broken” but what goes around comes around. Incidentally this time around Tambuwal and Saraki share the same party with the actors. What moral lessons are these or are the claws not showing enough for all to see? It was right when it affected the PDP but wrong now that it affected the APC. Or was it the fact that the death knell of PDP was so certain and we should allow it die peacefully and all affront to it acceptable. Certainly too some goons are out to capture the Nigerian nation by all means possible at their disposal but we must not allow this to happen. We must command some standard and decorum in our political culture by which other polities should know us.

    • Bayo Adepoju

      E no fit do anything for court because e know say na nonsense e dey yarn. Na common propaganda e dey vomit. Fake ” notice me” apostle.