These guys say Nina wouldn't have dumped Collins if he were rich
Saraki: New interpretation of impeachment draws controversy
The siege to the National Assembly complex by operatives of the Department of State Services, DSS yesterday was inspired by constitutional disputations as to the requirements for the removal of a presiding officer of the Senate. Until recently, there had been no argument as to what the constitution as stipulated in Section 50(2)(c) meant. That section which reads that a presiding officer, shall be removed “from office by a resolution of the Senate or of the House of Representatives, as the case may be, by the votes of not less than two-thirds majority of the members of that House.” It had been understood to mean that the provision expressly requires two-thirds of the 109 members of the Senate. That was the precedent that had been used in the removal of the only two presiding officers of the National Assembly in the history of the Fourth Republic; Senator Evan Enwerem (November, 1999) and Senator Chuba Okadigbo (August, 2000). However, opponents of Senate P...
Comments
Post a Comment