MiaBeer:


At least you’re honest about your life. Too bad for you. Where are you going to get your next ogogoro?

In which of your elementary school were you taught that "the executive arms of government leads other arms of government"? Can you show me where it is stated in the constitution?

Which law in Nigeria states that "The president holds the last order in the country and not the other arms of government"?

Where did you get this from:

"What the executive order does is that, it gives the president in recent times, the ability to churn out Executive Orders in the form of 'laws seeking to regulate the activities of the other arms of government."

Who told you that the president can regulate the other arms of govt? Where is it in the constitution?

You claim that "By appointment the heads of other arms of government, it means the president is paramount to other authorities".

Is that what the constitution says? Which arms of govt does the president appoints heads?

When the chief justice of the federation swears in the president, what does that mean?

How does the president appointing judges into the supreme court automatically mean that the president isn't subject to an order given by the court? Can you show me where it is in the constitution?

lexy2014:


kindly explain how you arrived at that conclusion and help us with the law that backs up your claim.

also, help me out with the various areas the supreme court has jurisdiction to adjudicate on and the areas it doesnt have jurisdiction to adjudicate on

As regards the CBN policy, the case ought to have gone first to the High Court. From the High Court, it may proceed to the Appeal, then Supreme Court.

Taking that channel, the Supreme Court then assumes proper jurisdiction.

The issue with the case at the Supreme Court now is that, whatever be the outcome is not binding on CBN to carry out, because the CBN is not a party to the case. If it had gone through the High Court and the CBN correctly included in the case then whatever ruling the Courts gave would be binding.

The governors circumvented this due to the time it would take to pass through the lower courts up to the apex court.

AfricanColumbus:


As regards the CBN policy, the case ought to have gone first to the High Court. From the High Court, it may proceed to the Appeal, then Supreme Court.

Taking that channel, the Supreme Court then assumes proper jurisdiction.

The issue with the case at the Supreme Court now is that, whatever be the outcome is not binding on CBN to carry out, because the CBN is not a party to the case. If it had gone through the High Court and the CBN correctly included in the case then whatever ruling the Courts gave would be binding.

The governors circumvented this due to the time it would take to pass through the lower courts up to the apex court.

you claimed that "The don't have the required jurisdiction on monetary policies"

my question you was that you "explain how you arrived at that conclusion and help us with the law that backs up your claim".

how does the above answer the question of "jurisdiction on monetary policies"?

I also asked you to "help me out with the various areas the supreme court has jurisdiction to adjudicate on and the areas it doesnt have jurisdiction to adjudicate on". i dont see where you answered the question.

with regards your claims, who gave CBN the approval to implement this policy? who announced that the old N200 should remain legal tender?

press9jatv:
In the first place the Supreme Court of justice shouldn’t have entertain the Elrufai and the clueless loser aggrieved Governor’s suits. APC and Tinubu will be heavily shamed and disgrace in the upcoming presidential poll. February 25th presidential poll is here. Tinubu ti lule piiii piiii. Presidential order supersede joor. APC has been destroyed and it will continue to be destroyed in this nation. You suffered Nigerians for complete 8 years and you are still talking here. You this clueless APC Governor’s that’s not with Buhari on the cbn policies will be highly dealt with. The clueless Elrufai too on which he’s their ring leader in this clueless rants will be the scapegoat of this upcoming election. You think Nigerians are joking niiii. Elrufai will be dealt with for not obeying Buhari order. All your wailing will never hold any water. Tinubu and you guys ti lule piii piii

You guys are very funny with your illiterate take.

Buksaylor:
This matter involves the CBN..as monetary issues concerns.So what has Federal Government got to do with that.

The goons didn't even study the Constitution before rushing to sue the federal government..

You need to study the suit, not the constitution.



The suit is against the implementation of the deadline.




It does not concern CBN. It is a suit directed at the FG, especially the Buhari-led executive which is the primary enforcer of laws in Nigeria.





No one is against the naira redesign. But many people are against the rapid demonetization which is causing hardship and chaos.

NwokoloOwa:
The Supreme Court is the highest arbiter in the country. The Courts interpet the law. Not the Executive, not the Legislature. A court judgement is a process, its a marathon, not a dash. In between that process their are orders, rulings, etc.on various aspects of the case. This is so, so that all parties are given opportunity to present their own side of the case. This is clear to all countries practicing democracy and even some monarchies.

The Supreme Court was clear on the interim order granted on the Naira redesign. The President just disobeyed a valid court order for reasons that are not explainable. Its unfortunate.

Thus,, during the delivery of the Supreme Court Judgement, the Court should also decide whether the Presidential Address went against the Supreme Court Order or not??

lexy2014:


this why when you asked a simple question, dont answer with plenty grammr. you just ended up contradicting yourself as highlighted above.

is the case before the supreme court a criminal matter?

How does the supreme court not have jurisdiction over monetary policies?

Does that exempt it from adjudicating on a case relating to monetary policies?

Monetary policy is not a constitutional matter so I don't understand what you mean by; I contradicted myself.

I'm not very sure where you mean I contradicted myself but I will respond to your last three paragraphs as highlighted. But if you still feel I contradicted myself, you can point my attention in that direction in a more clearer way.

The case before the supreme court is not a criminal matter, and I made that abundantly clear in my earlier submission. I only used that as a parallel that same way the supreme court does not have original jurisdiction over criminal matters, it does not have original jurisdiction over monetary policies of the CBN. It is a matter meant for lower courts.
Monetary policy of the CBN does not erode the powers of the state governments as conferred on them by the constitution.

I am not very sure if the use of "original jurisdiction" that's causing the misunderstanding. What it means the SC cannot hear it or can only do so on appeal from the Appeal Court as it is a matter that ought to be filed in a lower court.
For example, election result petition in a presidential election is primarily heard by the Supreme Court and not by any lower court. Same way a plaintiff cannot file a governorship election petition in the SC not until it gets there on appeal. Likewise, a plaintiff cannot file even on appeal a petition over local government election in the SC just because it is supreme.

Though not very related but it is worth saying. Not even all appeals can get to the Supreme Court. The Appeal Court has final jurisdiction over certain matters, same way as the FHC on certain matters.
The Supreme Court has a clearly defined role to play by the constitution on where it can exercise original jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court is not designed to concern itself with everything in a country simply because it is "Supreme"

ReubenE:

Monetary policy is not a constitutional matter so I don't understand what you mean by; I contradicted myself.

I'm not very sure where you mean I contradicted myself but I will respond to your last three paragraphs as highlighted. But if you still feel I contradicted myself, you can point my attention in that direction in a more clearer way.

The case before the supreme court is not a criminal matter, and I made that abundantly clear in my earlier submission. I only used that as a parallel that same way the supreme court does not have original jurisdiction over criminal matters, it does not have original jurisdiction over monetary policies of the CBN. It is a matter meant for lower courts.
Monetary policy of the CBN does not erode the powers of the state governments as conferred on them by the constitution.

I am not very sure if the use of "original jurisdiction" that's causing the misunderstanding. What it means the SC cannot hear it or can only do so on appeal from the Appeal Court as it is a matter that ought to be filed in a lower court.
For example, election result petition in a presidential election is primarily heard by the Supreme Court and not by any lower court. Same way a plaintiff cannot file a governorship election petition in the SC not until it gets there on appeal. Likewise, a plaintiff cannot file even on appeal a petition over local government election in the SC just because it is supreme.

Though not very related but it is worth saying. Not even all appeals can get to the Supreme Court. The Appeal Court has final jurisdiction over certain matters, same way as the FHC on certain matters.
The Supreme Court has a clearly defined role to play by the constitution on where it can exercise original jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court is not designed to concern itself with everything in a country simply because it is "Supreme"

1. If you claim that the supreme court can't hear criminal cases, then why can't it hear a case regarding monetary policy which isn't a criminal matter? Don't you now see where you contradicted yourself?

2. you are just repeating yourself that the supreme court does not have jurisdiction over monetary policies. That's not what I asked. I asked HOW does the supreme court not have jurisdiction over monetary policies?

3. Does your claim that the supreme court does not have jurisdiction over monetary policies exempt it from adjudicating on a case relating to monetary policies?

4. You said "The Supreme Court has a clearly defined role to play by the constitution on where it can exercise original jurisdiction.".

5. Can you provide the section of the constitution with regards the above?

BluntCrazeMan:
Thus,, during the delivery of the Supreme Court Judgement, the Court should also decide whether the Presidential Address went against the Supreme Court Order or not??

Definitely, you can trust the Justices on that

StrongAlphMale:


Bros this thing you just said applies only in a sane country. For the president to obey the supreme court? Nah e no go fit happen for Nigeria.

WITH PETER-OBI,, IT IS POSSIBLE..



AND HE WILL MAKE SURE THAT COURT JUDGEMENTS ARE NOT BIASED..



Haaaa...
Na there,,, you go see SC reversing themselves taaya

lexy2014:


1. If you claim that the supreme court can't hear criminal cases, then why can't it hear a case regarding monetary policy which isn't a criminal matter? Don't you now see where you contradicted yourself?

2. you are just repeating yourself that the supreme court does not have jurisdiction over monetary policies. That's not what I asked. I asked HOW does the supreme court not have jurisdiction over monetary policies?

3. Does your claim that the supreme court does not have jurisdiction over monetary policies exempt it from adjudicating on a case relating to monetary policies?

4. You said "The Supreme Court has a clearly defined role to play by the constitution on where it can exercise original jurisdiction.".

5. Can you provide the section of the constitution with regards the above?

(1) The Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have original jurisdiction in any dispute between the Federation and a state or between states if and in so far as that dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends.
(2) In addition to the jurisdiction conferred upon it by subsection (1) of this section, the Supreme Court shall have such original jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by any Act of the National Assembly:
Provided that no original jurisdiction shall be conferred upon the Supreme Court with respect to any criminal matter. (Sec. 232)
In (1) the SC has original jurisdiction over disputes between states vs the FG or states vs states "on disputes involving the existence or extent of a legal right" as conferred by the constitution. Now the litigation in question is not challenging the legal right of the FG through the CBN to conduct monetary policy, but it's implementation. Currency cum monetary policy belongs to the Exclusive list so states do not even have the locus standi to challenge it. Now, if I have the sole right to do something, why must the way I choose to do it be excluded from the "right" especially when there is no extant law prescribing how I must choose to exercise that right.
The case is between the States and the CBN, and independent agency of government which they wilfully omitted in the suit..... This case is meant for the Federal High Court and not the SC.

SC jurisdiction continuum:

(1) The Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction, to the exclusion of any other court of law in Nigeria, to hear and determine appeals from the Court of Appeal.
(2) An appeal shall lie from the decisions of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court as of right in the following cases–
…
(b) decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings on questions as to the interpretation or application of this Constitution;
(c) decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings on questions as to whether any of the provisions of Chapter IV4 of this Constitution has been, is being or is likely to be, contravened in relation to any person;
… (Sec. 233)

(1) An appeal shall lie from decisions of the Federal High Court or a High Court to the Court of Appeal as of right in the following cases –
…
(c) decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings on questions as to the interpretation or application of this Constitution;
(d) decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings on questions as to whether any of the provisions of Chapter IV of this Constitution has been, is being or is likely to be, contravened in relation to any person;
… (Sec. 241)

(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the Federal High Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters –
…
(q) subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the operation and interpretation of this Constitution in so far as it affects the Federal Government or any of its agencies;
… (Sec. 251)

It is the Federal High Court that has original jurisdiction on "the operation and interpretation of the constitution as far as the matter affects the Federal Government or any of its agencies. So any entity suing the federal government because of the operations of its agencies should approach the Federal High Court as the first port of call.


Again, I never said the case is a criminal case. I only used that as an example to drive home my point, I don't understand why you keep quoting that in my comment

ReubenE:

(1) The Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have original jurisdiction in any dispute between the Federation and a state or between states if and in so far as that dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends.
(2) In addition to the jurisdiction conferred upon it by subsection (1) of this section, the Supreme Court shall have such original jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by any Act of the National Assembly:
Provided that no original jurisdiction shall be conferred upon the Supreme Court with respect to any criminal matter. (Sec. 232)
In (1) the SC has original jurisdiction over disputes between states vs the FG or states vs states "on disputes involving the existence or extent of a legal right" as conferred by the constitution. Now the litigation in question is not challenging the legal right of the FG through the CBN to conduct monetary policy, but it's implementation. Currency cum monetary policy belongs to the Exclusive list so states do not even have the locus standi to challenge it. Now, if I have the sole right to do something, why must the way I choose to do it be excluded from the "right" especially when there is no extant law prescribing how I must choose to exercise that right.
The case is between the States and the CBN, and independent agency of government which they wilfully omitted in the suit..... This case is meant for the Federal High Court and not the SC.

SC jurisdiction continuum:

(1) The Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction, to the exclusion of any other court of law in Nigeria, to hear and determine appeals from the Court of Appeal.
(2) An appeal shall lie from the decisions of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court as of right in the following cases–
…
(b) decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings on questions as to the interpretation or application of this Constitution;
(c) decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings on questions as to whether any of the provisions of Chapter IV4 of this Constitution has been, is being or is likely to be, contravened in relation to any person;
… (Sec. 233)

(1) An appeal shall lie from decisions of the Federal High Court or a High Court to the Court of Appeal as of right in the following cases –
…
(c) decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings on questions as to the interpretation or application of this Constitution;
(d) decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings on questions as to whether any of the provisions of Chapter IV of this Constitution has been, is being or is likely to be, contravened in relation to any person;
… (Sec. 241)

(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the Federal High Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters –
…
(q) subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the operation and interpretation of this Constitution in so far as it affects the Federal Government or any of its agencies;
… (Sec. 251)

It is the Federal High Court that has original jurisdiction on "the operation and interpretation of the constitution as far as the matter affects the Federal Government or any of its agencies. So any entity suing the federal government because of the operations of its agencies should approach the Federal High Court as the first port of call.


Again, I never said the case is a criminal case. I only used that as an example to drive home my point, I don't understand why you keep quoting that in my comment

With all this grammar, why didn't you answer numbers 1 to 3?

1. If you claim that the supreme court can't hear criminal cases, then why can't it hear a case regarding monetary policy which isn't a criminal matter? Don't you now see where you contradicted yourself?

2. you are just repeating yourself that the supreme court does not have jurisdiction over monetary policies. That's not what I asked. I asked HOW does the supreme court not have jurisdiction over monetary policies?

3. Does your claim that the supreme court does not have jurisdiction over monetary policies exempt it from adjudicating on a case relating to monetary policies?

4. How does the grammar you put up there exempt the supreme court from adjudicating on a matter that concerns CBNs implementation of a monetary policy?

lexy2014:


With all this grammar, why didn't you answer numbers 1 to 3?

1. If you claim that the supreme court can't hear criminal cases, then why can't it hear a case regarding monetary policy which isn't a criminal matter? Don't you now see where you contradicted yourself?

2. you are just repeating yourself that the supreme court does not have jurisdiction over monetary policies. That's not what I asked. I asked HOW does the supreme court not have jurisdiction over monetary policies?

3. Does your claim that the supreme court does not have jurisdiction over monetary policies exempt it from adjudicating on a case relating to monetary policies?

4. How does the grammar you put up there exempt the supreme court from adjudicating on a matter that concerns CBNs implementation of a monetary policy?

The problem is you are reading my comments with a premeditated conclusion.

I seriously do not understand why you are still asking question one despite my several admonitions that it is an example of many other things the SC cannot adjudicate on unless on appeal. Which kain wahala be this... How many times do I need to say this.
The SC cannot adjudicate on criminal, civil, and any matter concerning a government agency (including CBN whether in monetary policy or otherwise) unless only on appeal. The Federal High Court has exclusive jurisprudence over such cases.
Since you obviously have issues with me writing grammar, if the Constitution say the Federal High Court nai get right to first judge any matter wey concern operations of FG and hin agencies, shey that one no clear to you say the matter na FHC e suppose go first?

Your question 4, lemme quote jurisdiction access from the constitution again whether you will disabuse your mind and read the meaning properly.

(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the Federal High Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court [/b]in civil causes and matters –
…
(q) subject to the provisions of this Constitution, [b]the operation and interpretation of this Constitution in so far as it affects the Federal Government or any of its agencies;
… (Sec. 251)
@bold. The Federal High Court exercise jurisdiction to the "EXCLUSION" of any other court exclusion here includes every other court including the SC.


Nice conversing with you. Bye

ReubenE:


The problem is you are reading my comments with a premeditated conclusion.

I seriously do not understand why you are still asking question one despite my several admonitions that it is an example of many other things the SC cannot adjudicate on unless on appeal. Which kain wahala be this... How many times do I need to say this.
The SC cannot adjudicate on criminal, civil, and any matter concerning a government agency (including CBN whether in monetary policy or otherwise) unless only on appeal. The Federal High Court has exclusive jurisprudence over such cases.
Since you obviously have issues with me writing grammar, if the Constitution say the Federal High Court nai get right to first judge any matter wey concern operations of FG and hin agencies, shey that one no clear to you say the matter na FHC e suppose go first?

Your question 4, lemme quote jurisdiction access from the constitution again whether you will disabuse your mind and read the meaning properly.

(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the Federal High Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court [/b]in civil causes and matters –
…
(q) subject to the provisions of this Constitution, [b]the operation and interpretation of this Constitution in so far as it affects the Federal Government or any of its agencies;
… (Sec. 251)
@bold. The Federal High Court exercise jurisdiction to the "EXCLUSION" of any other court exclusion here includes every other court including the SC.


Nice conversing with you. Bye

The questions are straightforward. Kindly answer as numbered.

1. If you claim that the supreme court can't hear criminal cases, then why can't it hear a case regarding monetary policy which isn't a criminal matter? Don't you now see where you contradicted yourself?

2. you are just repeating yourself that the supreme court does not have jurisdiction over monetary policies. That's not what I asked. I asked HOW does the supreme court not have jurisdiction over monetary policies?

3. Does your claim that the supreme court does not have jurisdiction over monetary policies exempt it from adjudicating on a case relating to monetary policies?

4. How does the grammar you put up there exempt the supreme court from adjudicating on a matter that concerns CBNs implementation of a monetary policy?

AfricanColumbus:



Presidential orders are hardly unconstitutional, that's the issue. They are hardly unconstitutional because they pass through the legislature before announcement.

Thats fine but if they are the judiciary can shut it down.

Lexy2014. Too bad for you. Where are you going to get your next agbado from?

MiaBeer:
Lexy2014. Too bad for you. Where are you going to get your next agbado from?

Sorry. I don't get you

lexy2014:


Sorry. I don't get you

Where are you going to get your next agbado and ewa from?

MiaBeer:
Where are you going to get your next agbado and ewa from?

Sorry. I still don't get what you trying to say

AfricanColumbus:

Presidential orders are hardly unconstitutional, that's the issue. They are hardly unconstitutional because they pass through the legislature before announcement.

Guy where are getting these your lies from? Look how confident you are in spreading misinformation.

How do presidential orders pass thru the legislature before announcement? Where is it done?

If it passes thru the legislature, what will the legislature do with it?

Ofodirinwa

lexy2014:


Guy where are getting these your lies from? Look how confident you are in spreading misinformation.

How do presidential orders pass thru the legislature before announcement? Where is it done?

If it passes thru the legislature, what will the legislature do with it?

Ofodirinwa

You're not informed.

AfricanColumbus:

You're not informed.

Since you are informed, then you shouldn't have any problems answering these questions.

How do presidential orders pass thru the legislature before announcement? Where is it done?

If it passes thru the legislature, what will the legislature do with it?

lexy2014:

Sorry. I now get what you trying to say. Ok I can now confirm that I’m a loser. Sorry again o

Sorry for yourself. I can’t pity urchins like you.

MiaBeer:

Sorry for yourself. I can’t pity urchins like you.

bro, sorry i dont follow. i really wish i knew what you are talking about

lexy2014:


bro, sorry i dont follow. i really wish i knew what you are talking about

Sorry for yourself. I can’t pity urchins like you.

MiaBeer:

Sorry for yourself. I can’t pity urchins like you.

i really wish i knew what you are talking about

lexy2014:

i really wish i knew what you are talking about

Do you wish you’re not a gay mumu as well?

lexy2014:


Since you are informed, then you shouldn't have any problems answering these questions.

How do presidential orders pass thru the legislature before announcement? Where is it done?

If it passes thru the legislature, what will the legislature do with it?

You’re not informed. Period.

MiaBeer:

Do you wish you’re not a gay mumu as well?

i really wish i knew what you are talking about

MiaBeer:

You’re not informed. Period.

Since you are informed, then you shouldn't have any problems answering these questions.

How do presidential orders pass thru the legislature before announcement? Where is it done?

If it passes thru the legislature, what will the legislature do with it?

lexy2014:


i really wish i knew what you are talking about

I really wish you have sense. Take the damn pills

lexy2014:


Since you are informed, then you shouldn't have any problems answering these questions.

How do presidential orders pass thru the legislature before announcement? Where is it done?

If it passes thru the legislature, what will the legislature do with it?

You’re not well informed. I can’t educate a kitchen table like you.