Friday, July 5, 2013
Thanks Ralph Odua for your support.
I want to use this opportunity to thank Ralph Odua for placing financial resources at our disposal to pursue this case and mobilize the electorate. Ralph Odua we are proud of you. When we harness our various talents, we will together move mountains.
Thursday, July 4, 2013
My response to a post on my Facebook wall.
My response to Philo Asimu on my Facebook wall @ Philo Asimu the rights you are enjoying today in London were fought and won by people like me. I want my people to also the benefit from fundamental Human rights too. I am fighting for my people and the future generations, so that they do not have to go to other climes to enjoy these rights. In the future it will be said that when one Governor of Edo State VERBALLY ban Okada from our streets, that one Osbert Agho stood on the side of the people.That he went to the federal High Court in Benin to unshackle his people from poverty. That because he stood for the people the VERBAL decision of the governor was revised, that today people can ride Okada on the streets of Benin because that lover of Human rights fought on the side of the poor.
Be at the federal High Court on Monday 8th July. 2013
@ All my joy will not know bonds if you all translate your support into making your presence at the Federal High court, Auchi Road behind INEC office @ Ikpoba Hill on Monday 8th July, 2013. According to one advert, it says you will NEVER walk alone. Please do not let me walk alone on this issue. Please come out enmass on Monday.
The challenge to the Ban on Okada and
Here is a post by Emmanuel Ebesunun in the Edo Political Parliament when Frank Obaresan Okuokoni ask a lawyer to give an insight...... Emmanuel Ebesunun wrote... Very thorny question Frank Obaresan-Okoukoni especially as our courts have a habit of delivering very strange decisions when politics and politicians are involved. Anyway let me give it a try :
As a general rule govt has no power to deprive ANYONE of the use of his property, okada is property, and the right to the use of one's property is one of our God given rights [they are not constitutional rights as most people mistaken label them, the const ONLY protects our rights, it does not give them to us]. Now let us apply this general rule and the exceptions that follow it in the two available situations :
1. For private use; govt cannot prevent anyone from using his okada to move freely about his lawful business, to do so will be impeding the person's freedom of movement and depriving him of the right to the lawful use of his property. The only thing govt has power to do is make regulations as to how the okada can be used in the interest of the health and safety of the general public, e.g., require that the owner license it, require that anyone riding it have a valid license to so do, require that anyone riding it and/or being conveyed on it put on a crash helmet, etc.
2. The issue becomes more complicated when the okada is for commercial purposes, as I recall we have a hackney carriage law that deals with categories of vehicles that can be used for the commercial conveying of human beings, and okada is not listed, in fact okada for commercial use was not in practice as at the time the law was enacted. Does that mean that okada cant be used for commercial purposes?. There are two schools of thought on such an issue, the first is of the view that govt's regulatory power [in the interest of the health and welfare of the general society] can be used to decide what classes of vehicles are fit for commercial purposes, if the view of this first school of thougt is applied, govt has power to ban okada. The contrary school of thought is that govt CAN ONLY regulate to the extent of requiring licensing; equipment; and safe practices in the interest of the health and welfare of the general public. World wide, when it comes to commercial use, govt has always won the argument with the first school of thought except when there is some discriminatory intent and/or outcome and/or some other egregious circumstance implicated in the determination of whether a particular class of vehicle be used or not. Banning okada use in only 3 LGA has a clearly discriminatory impact/intent.
Bottom line?, it depends on the how the court is suaded one way or the other, so the okada riders better get the best available, and although now mute, avoid state courts while pursuing their remedies.
The above is a generalized overview, but let's look at the specifics from the post, did the governor verbally ban okadas?, he has no power to do so, that will amount to legislating/making laws, and only the House of Assembly has the power to pass laws subject to the govs accent in some cases. Even if there is an existing law banning okada, did he comply with the provisions pf that law when he announced the ban verbally?, if he did not comply with the provisions of the law then the ban in invalid!. Did the governor threaten to confiscate and burn okadas?, if he did then he has exceeded his powers, ONLY the courts have the power to pronounce a person guilty of a violation of laws/regulations, and only a court can impose punishment, confiscating and burning okada for the violation of any law banning their use is punishment fit only for imposition by the courts and not the governor.
As a general rule govt has no power to deprive ANYONE of the use of his property, okada is property, and the right to the use of one's property is one of our God given rights [they are not constitutional rights as most people mistaken label them, the const ONLY protects our rights, it does not give them to us]. Now let us apply this general rule and the exceptions that follow it in the two available situations :
1. For private use; govt cannot prevent anyone from using his okada to move freely about his lawful business, to do so will be impeding the person's freedom of movement and depriving him of the right to the lawful use of his property. The only thing govt has power to do is make regulations as to how the okada can be used in the interest of the health and safety of the general public, e.g., require that the owner license it, require that anyone riding it have a valid license to so do, require that anyone riding it and/or being conveyed on it put on a crash helmet, etc.
2. The issue becomes more complicated when the okada is for commercial purposes, as I recall we have a hackney carriage law that deals with categories of vehicles that can be used for the commercial conveying of human beings, and okada is not listed, in fact okada for commercial use was not in practice as at the time the law was enacted. Does that mean that okada cant be used for commercial purposes?. There are two schools of thought on such an issue, the first is of the view that govt's regulatory power [in the interest of the health and welfare of the general society] can be used to decide what classes of vehicles are fit for commercial purposes, if the view of this first school of thougt is applied, govt has power to ban okada. The contrary school of thought is that govt CAN ONLY regulate to the extent of requiring licensing; equipment; and safe practices in the interest of the health and welfare of the general public. World wide, when it comes to commercial use, govt has always won the argument with the first school of thought except when there is some discriminatory intent and/or outcome and/or some other egregious circumstance implicated in the determination of whether a particular class of vehicle be used or not. Banning okada use in only 3 LGA has a clearly discriminatory impact/intent.
Bottom line?, it depends on the how the court is suaded one way or the other, so the okada riders better get the best available, and although now mute, avoid state courts while pursuing their remedies.
The above is a generalized overview, but let's look at the specifics from the post, did the governor verbally ban okadas?, he has no power to do so, that will amount to legislating/making laws, and only the House of Assembly has the power to pass laws subject to the govs accent in some cases. Even if there is an existing law banning okada, did he comply with the provisions pf that law when he announced the ban verbally?, if he did not comply with the provisions of the law then the ban in invalid!. Did the governor threaten to confiscate and burn okadas?, if he did then he has exceeded his powers, ONLY the courts have the power to pronounce a person guilty of a violation of laws/regulations, and only a court can impose punishment, confiscating and burning okada for the violation of any law banning their use is punishment fit only for imposition by the courts and not the governor.
On Amechi's, the Rvivers State Governor car accident.
When you drive recklessly on the roads the end will always be accident. When your security drives with their heads our of the drivers window you will always be involved in an accident. When you drive in a convoy of 40 cars and using up 2000 litres of petrol just to go from point A to B a distance 8 kilometres you will always be in an accident. Rotimi Amaechi was in a self inflicted accident. He should stop heating up the polity.
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
The challenge to the Ban on Okada in the Federal High Court.
Here is a post by Emmanuel Ebesunun in the Edo Political Parliament when Frank Obaresan Okuokoni ask a lawyer to give an insight...... Emmanuel Ebesunun wrote... Very thorny question Frank Obaresan-Okoukoni especially as our courts have a habit of delivering very strange decisions when politics and politicians are involved. Anyway let me give it a try :
As a general rule govt has no power to deprive ANYONE of the use of his property, okada is property, and the right to the use of one's property is one of our God given rights [they are not constitutional rights as most people mistaken label them, the const ONLY protects our rights, it does not give them to us]. Now let us apply this general rule and the exceptions that follow it in the two available situations :
1. For private use; govt cannot prevent anyone from using his okada to move freely about his lawful business, to do so will be impeding the person's freedom of movement and depriving him of the right to the lawful use of his property. The only thing govt has power to do is make regulations as to how the okada can be used in the interest of the health and safety of the general public, e.g., require that the owner license it, require that anyone riding it have a valid license to so do, require that anyone riding it and/or being conveyed on it put on a crash helmet, etc.
2. The issue becomes more complicated when the okada is for commercial purposes, as I recall we have a hackney carriage law that deals with categories of vehicles that can be used for the commercial conveying of human beings, and okada is not listed, in fact okada for commercial use was not in practice as at the time the law was enacted. Does that mean that okada cant be used for commercial purposes?. There are two schools of thought on such an issue, the first is of the view that govt's regulatory power [in the interest of the health and welfare of the general society] can be used to decide what classes of vehicles are fit for commercial purposes, if the view of this first school of thougt is applied, govt has power to ban okada. The contrary school of thought is that govt CAN ONLY regulate to the extent of requiring licensing; equipment; and safe practices in the interest of the health and welfare of the general public. World wide, when it comes to commercial use, govt has always won the argument with the first school of thought except when there is some discriminatory intent and/or outcome and/or some other egregious circumstance implicated in the determination of whether a particular class of vehicle be used or not. Banning okada use in only 3 LGA has a clearly discriminatory impact/intent.
Bottom line?, it depends on the how the court is suaded one way or the other, so the okada riders better get the best available, and although now mute, avoid state courts while pursuing their remedies.
The above is a generalized overview, but let's look at the specifics from the post, did the governor verbally ban okadas?, he has no power to do so, that will amount to legislating/making laws, and only the House of Assembly has the power to pass laws subject to the govs accent in some cases. Even if there is an existing law banning okada, did he comply with the provisions pf that law when he announced the ban verbally?, if he did not comply with the provisions of the law then the ban in invalid!. Did the governor threaten to confiscate and burn okadas?, if he did then he has exceeded his powers, ONLY the courts have the power to pronounce a person guilty of a violation of laws/regulations, and only a court can impose punishment, confiscating and burning okada for the violation of any law banning their use is punishment fit only for imposition by the courts and not the governor.
As a general rule govt has no power to deprive ANYONE of the use of his property, okada is property, and the right to the use of one's property is one of our God given rights [they are not constitutional rights as most people mistaken label them, the const ONLY protects our rights, it does not give them to us]. Now let us apply this general rule and the exceptions that follow it in the two available situations :
1. For private use; govt cannot prevent anyone from using his okada to move freely about his lawful business, to do so will be impeding the person's freedom of movement and depriving him of the right to the lawful use of his property. The only thing govt has power to do is make regulations as to how the okada can be used in the interest of the health and safety of the general public, e.g., require that the owner license it, require that anyone riding it have a valid license to so do, require that anyone riding it and/or being conveyed on it put on a crash helmet, etc.
2. The issue becomes more complicated when the okada is for commercial purposes, as I recall we have a hackney carriage law that deals with categories of vehicles that can be used for the commercial conveying of human beings, and okada is not listed, in fact okada for commercial use was not in practice as at the time the law was enacted. Does that mean that okada cant be used for commercial purposes?. There are two schools of thought on such an issue, the first is of the view that govt's regulatory power [in the interest of the health and welfare of the general society] can be used to decide what classes of vehicles are fit for commercial purposes, if the view of this first school of thougt is applied, govt has power to ban okada. The contrary school of thought is that govt CAN ONLY regulate to the extent of requiring licensing; equipment; and safe practices in the interest of the health and welfare of the general public. World wide, when it comes to commercial use, govt has always won the argument with the first school of thought except when there is some discriminatory intent and/or outcome and/or some other egregious circumstance implicated in the determination of whether a particular class of vehicle be used or not. Banning okada use in only 3 LGA has a clearly discriminatory impact/intent.
Bottom line?, it depends on the how the court is suaded one way or the other, so the okada riders better get the best available, and although now mute, avoid state courts while pursuing their remedies.
The above is a generalized overview, but let's look at the specifics from the post, did the governor verbally ban okadas?, he has no power to do so, that will amount to legislating/making laws, and only the House of Assembly has the power to pass laws subject to the govs accent in some cases. Even if there is an existing law banning okada, did he comply with the provisions pf that law when he announced the ban verbally?, if he did not comply with the provisions of the law then the ban in invalid!. Did the governor threaten to confiscate and burn okadas?, if he did then he has exceeded his powers, ONLY the courts have the power to pronounce a person guilty of a violation of laws/regulations, and only a court can impose punishment, confiscating and burning okada for the violation of any law banning their use is punishment fit only for imposition by the courts and not the governor.
The Ban on Okada and
Here is a post by Emmanuel Ebesunun in the Edo Political Parliament when Frank Obaresan Okuokoni ask a lawyer to give an insight...... Emmanuel Ebesunun wrote... Very thorny question Frank Obaresan-Okoukoni especially as our courts have a habit of delivering very strange decisions when politics and politicians are involved. Anyway let me give it a try :
As a general rule govt has no power to deprive ANYONE of the use of his property, okada is property, and the right to the use of one's property is one of our God given rights [they are not constitutional rights as most people mistaken label them, the const ONLY protects our rights, it does not give them to us]. Now let us apply this general rule and the exceptions that follow it in the two available situations :
1. For private use; govt cannot prevent anyone from using his okada to move freely about his lawful business, to do so will be impeding the person's freedom of movement and depriving him of the right to the lawful use of his property. The only thing govt has power to do is make regulations as to how the okada can be used in the interest of the health and safety of the general public, e.g., require that the owner license it, require that anyone riding it have a valid license to so do, require that anyone riding it and/or being conveyed on it put on a crash helmet, etc.
2. The issue becomes more complicated when the okada is for commercial purposes, as I recall we have a hackney carriage law that deals with categories of vehicles that can be used for the commercial conveying of human beings, and okada is not listed, in fact okada for commercial use was not in practice as at the time the law was enacted. Does that mean that okada cant be used for commercial purposes?. There are two schools of thought on such an issue, the first is of the view that govt's regulatory power [in the interest of the health and welfare of the general society] can be used to decide what classes of vehicles are fit for commercial purposes, if the view of this first school of thougt is applied, govt has power to ban okada. The contrary school of thought is that govt CAN ONLY regulate to the extent of requiring licensing; equipment; and safe practices in the interest of the health and welfare of the general public. World wide, when it comes to commercial use, govt has always won the argument with the first school of thought except when there is some discriminatory intent and/or outcome and/or some other egregious circumstance implicated in the determination of whether a particular class of vehicle be used or not. Banning okada use in only 3 LGA has a clearly discriminatory impact/intent.
Bottom line?, it depends on the how the court is suaded one way or the other, so the okada riders better get the best available, and although now mute, avoid state courts while pursuing their remedies.
The above is a generalized overview, but let's look at the specifics from the post, did the governor verbally ban okadas?, he has no power to do so, that will amount to legislating/making laws, and only the House of Assembly has the power to pass laws subject to the govs accent in some cases. Even if there is an existing law banning okada, did he comply with the provisions pf that law when he announced the ban verbally?, if he did not comply with the provisions of the law then the ban in invalid!. Did the governor threaten to confiscate and burn okadas?, if he did then he has exceeded his powers, ONLY the courts have the power to pronounce a person guilty of a violation of laws/regulations, and only a court can impose punishment, confiscating and burning okada for the violation of any law banning their use is punishment fit only for imposition by the courts and not the governor.
As a general rule govt has no power to deprive ANYONE of the use of his property, okada is property, and the right to the use of one's property is one of our God given rights [they are not constitutional rights as most people mistaken label them, the const ONLY protects our rights, it does not give them to us]. Now let us apply this general rule and the exceptions that follow it in the two available situations :
1. For private use; govt cannot prevent anyone from using his okada to move freely about his lawful business, to do so will be impeding the person's freedom of movement and depriving him of the right to the lawful use of his property. The only thing govt has power to do is make regulations as to how the okada can be used in the interest of the health and safety of the general public, e.g., require that the owner license it, require that anyone riding it have a valid license to so do, require that anyone riding it and/or being conveyed on it put on a crash helmet, etc.
2. The issue becomes more complicated when the okada is for commercial purposes, as I recall we have a hackney carriage law that deals with categories of vehicles that can be used for the commercial conveying of human beings, and okada is not listed, in fact okada for commercial use was not in practice as at the time the law was enacted. Does that mean that okada cant be used for commercial purposes?. There are two schools of thought on such an issue, the first is of the view that govt's regulatory power [in the interest of the health and welfare of the general society] can be used to decide what classes of vehicles are fit for commercial purposes, if the view of this first school of thougt is applied, govt has power to ban okada. The contrary school of thought is that govt CAN ONLY regulate to the extent of requiring licensing; equipment; and safe practices in the interest of the health and welfare of the general public. World wide, when it comes to commercial use, govt has always won the argument with the first school of thought except when there is some discriminatory intent and/or outcome and/or some other egregious circumstance implicated in the determination of whether a particular class of vehicle be used or not. Banning okada use in only 3 LGA has a clearly discriminatory impact/intent.
Bottom line?, it depends on the how the court is suaded one way or the other, so the okada riders better get the best available, and although now mute, avoid state courts while pursuing their remedies.
The above is a generalized overview, but let's look at the specifics from the post, did the governor verbally ban okadas?, he has no power to do so, that will amount to legislating/making laws, and only the House of Assembly has the power to pass laws subject to the govs accent in some cases. Even if there is an existing law banning okada, did he comply with the provisions pf that law when he announced the ban verbally?, if he did not comply with the provisions of the law then the ban in invalid!. Did the governor threaten to confiscate and burn okadas?, if he did then he has exceeded his powers, ONLY the courts have the power to pronounce a person guilty of a violation of laws/regulations, and only a court can impose punishment, confiscating and burning okada for the violation of any law banning their use is punishment fit only for imposition by the courts and not the governor.
Tuesday, July 2, 2013
Obama refusal to visit Nigeria.
On Obama refusal to visit Nigeria.... Down the road President Obama is going to want to visit Nigeria, probably nearing the end of his tenure. My advice to GEJ is that he should not to accept that visit. It will be a disgrace to Nigeria and the African/Black people if he accept. Then it will be on record that the first Black President of the USA did not visit the most populous country in the African continent.
Barrister Festus Keyamo wins for Democracy in the Court.
Comrade Enabulele Enabulele post this on Edo Political Forum.
So it took a single Barrister to let a whole National Assembly know that they should be confirming Service Chiefs before their appointments by the President?
A non-lawmaker, knows what lawmakers don't know that they should be doing.
Barrister Festus Keyamo instituted a case in 2008, questioning the President's right to appoint Security Chiefs without approval from the Senate.
Glad the Abuja Federal High Court ruled in his favor and granted an order restraining the President from henceforth appointing Service Chiefs without first obtaining the Senate's approval.
Shouldn't it had been the Senate that raised such issue?
Or are they unaware of their own duties?
Perhaps they knew but since its not related to budget nor something that will give them more public appeal, they don't care.
By this singular action, a true comrade and democrat Barrister Festus Keyamo has deepen democracy in the Land. I join others to congratulate him and all lovers of Democracy. Just like our case that is coming up on the 8th of July 2013. That is next Monday. Many of our leaders do not know and will want to use gra gra to cover up. Always stand for you right. The Lare Mrs Rosa Park of the civil rights movement in the USA said " I aint taking it no more" lets stop taking every rubbish they send our way. Again what are you personally doing about it. Me I non go take am again too.
So it took a single Barrister to let a whole National Assembly know that they should be confirming Service Chiefs before their appointments by the President?
A non-lawmaker, knows what lawmakers don't know that they should be doing.
Barrister Festus Keyamo instituted a case in 2008, questioning the President's right to appoint Security Chiefs without approval from the Senate.
Glad the Abuja Federal High Court ruled in his favor and granted an order restraining the President from henceforth appointing Service Chiefs without first obtaining the Senate's approval.
Shouldn't it had been the Senate that raised such issue?
Or are they unaware of their own duties?
Perhaps they knew but since its not related to budget nor something that will give them more public appeal, they don't care.
By this singular action, a true comrade and democrat Barrister Festus Keyamo has deepen democracy in the Land. I join others to congratulate him and all lovers of Democracy. Just like our case that is coming up on the 8th of July 2013. That is next Monday. Many of our leaders do not know and will want to use gra gra to cover up. Always stand for you right. The Lare Mrs Rosa Park of the civil rights movement in the USA said " I aint taking it no more" lets stop taking every rubbish they send our way. Again what are you personally doing about it. Me I non go take am again too.
Monday, July 1, 2013
PDP might win Edo State in 2016.
My response to Pauly Okpere's post on Edo Political Forum..... If GEJ wins the Presidency, he will definitely have a say in who becomes the next governor of Edo State. I think Edo State will be the first governorship contest in his second term and since he is not ever going to ask to be elected again he will kick some ass which is obviously APC. A good politician must always think right and ahead. I say Pauly Okpere your prophecy get analysis.
Here is my response to Philo Asimu on Edo Peoples Parliament .... @ Philo Asimu you are right the government does not have jobs to give to the people, therefore they do not have any excuse to ban a business that was created out of the hardship and poverty. How do you grow the economy when you with the wave of the hand remove over N50 million Naira that exchange hands daily between Bike riders, passengers, spare parts dealers ,Alajors, Road side food and Ogogoro vendors, mechanics, vulcanizers and even Yellow Fever police? The way forward is for the Governor re-instate the bike riders, that is both commercial and private. Then he should introduce a bill to the house of Assembly that will limit the use of bike to some roads. The house too should hold a town hall meeting. So that they can feel the pulse of the people and carry everyone along.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)