Thursday, February 01, 2018

DOWNLOAD MUSIC: Jay Patrick - E Go Better

John Patrick Odiba A.K.A Jay Patrick dA RAPOSTLE is a Kano State born original Benue State fast rising gospel star, a chorister, a rap minister and an aspiring Barrister.

Before now,  he had dropped a sensational gospel tune titled DEM TOO MUCH which received a good number of plays.

He just dropped this single titled "E Go Better" Which is an inspirational song, calling on all Nigerians and the world to unite. In his words:

"We need love,
We need peace,
We need Joy,
So we can have hope.
Nigerians ,don't make it any difficult than it already is.
We need each other and except we understand that then  E go Better"



Sunday, July 31, 2016

Remembering my Grandfather

Remembering My Grandfather

When I was little growing up. I had it mixed in every manner. My grandfather (May his soul rest in peace) normally told me very awkward things, some were true but most were lies. I got to know this only in my 20s. The lies will be published soon.
I once told my dad that his father-in-law told me that all things die and that in the end, even death shall die (my dad won't remember this).
My grandfather thought it wise to correct a 'non-error' thing. He told me that a Gentleman drink is never served unless it is served in a tumbler. He had a day before his death tried suing an airline for invasion. The plane had almost blown off his roof. I remember him saying it was “…trespass to space.”
On the appointed day of his death, the old guy said when people die they go to heaven and it's cool there: lots of light, music, sweet food, big big akpukpa, sweet kunu, soya milk and Jollof rice.
I was like ka mimi? I can't wait to die!

                                                                TARKAA, Moses Kator


Friday, April 29, 2016

[Listen and download] DEM TOO MUCH - Jay Patrick dA RAPOSTLE.

click here DOWNLOAD

Dem too much
John Patrick Odiba A.K.A Jay Patrick dA RAPOSTLE is a Kano State born original Benue State rising gospel star,a chorister,a rap minister and an aspiring Barrister.:
He has earlier dropped two singles he titled" NEVER LEAVE YOU" and "MOST HIGH GOD",which were all rap.
Today he presents this powerful unraped african praise flavour,a single he titles "DEM TOO MUCH" which announces GOD's faithfulness to all mankind...
Download and be bless

Friday, March 18, 2016


The concept of Sovereignty of Parliament is one which is quite opposed to the rule of law as it acts against the principle of Separation of Powers.
By parliament in England, we mean the House of Lords, House of Commons and the Queen.
For a resolution to become an Act of Parliament, it must be reached by the three. Parliament is also referred to as Queen in Parliament.
The discussion bothering on the sovereignty of parliament also applies to those legislative bodies who have supreme authority even more than the constitution e.g in Nigeria from 1966-1999.
The Sovereignty of Parliament can arise from two considerations:
1.                  Parliament can make and unmake any law.
2.                  No authority in England can by law override the law of parliament.
Different instances can be shown to prove that parliament can make and unmake any law:
1.                  Parliament through the Act of Settlement can regulate succession to the crown or throne in the British society. That means it has the power to make and unmake any person the king or queen of England.
2.                  Parliament can by law regulate the dues and taxes payable by any person to the British government. And it can also by law extend the territorial limitation of the British Empire.
3.                  Parliament is elected for a fixed term or tenure but it has been found on several occasions to have extended its tenure in office. e.g in the 18th century, it extended its 3 year tenure to seven, when the king and Prime Minister suspended elections because of the unfavourable political climate. In 1914 and 1918, it extended its tenure from five to ten, also in 1935-1940.
          It has been argued by political and constitutional analyst that when parliament           extends its stay in office, it seizes to be parliament of the people but its own           parliament. On the contrary, other arguments hold to the fact that, when there is           change in law that has provided for a change of the tenure of parliament, the     change or extension of tenure derives its validity from the new amendment or          repeal of the Act of Parliament.
4.                  Parliament can regulate the private rights of British subjects e.g parliament can by law give boys and girls right to inheritance during the lifetime of their parents, it can declare certain aliens as citizens of Britain, it can also by law declare persons born under unlawful wedlock as legitimate children while those born under lawful wedlock as illegitimate children.
          It is evident from the above that parliament regulates the rights and duties of    private individuals as well as their enforcement. It is this that has given rise to the        adage: “Parliament can make and unmake anything in England except to change a       man into a woman.”
5.                  Parliament can by law give legal protection retrospectively to acts or omissions that were illegal when committed. It can enact an Indemnity Act exempting persons from legal liabilities to crimes committed by them. Parliament can also declare illegal, retrospectively, actions that were hitherto not illegal.
There is an argument surrounding the second consideration that no person or body of persons can by law override the laws made by parliament. It has been said that there are other persons allowed to make laws or disobey the laws made by parliament. These persons that make laws are said to be equal with parliament. Also, proclamations made by the crown are said to be equal to Acts of Parliament. But this has been disputed, because for proclamations to become law, they must be recognized by the will of parliament.
Parliament has the right to regulate its internal proceedings and no one outside including the courts is to interfere with its internal proceedings.
Parliament also has the right to declare an action as contempt of its authority and nobody including the court can hold an act as been contemptuous or punish for such contempt of the powers of parliament. This was the contention in the case of Hamsard V. Stockdale. The court held Hamsard guilty for publishing parliamentary proceedings, that his act was libelous. Parliament argued that it has authority to permit for publication of its proceedings under the Resolution of Parliament which is also an Act of Parliament. The court refused this view and held that Resolution of Parliament is not law and can not override an Act of Parliament.
Parliament appeared to have accepted the court’s interpretation by enacting the Parliamentary Papers Act permitting publishers to publish Acts of parliament.
For punishment of contempt of parliamentary authority, the case of the Sheriff of Middlesex provides us with the Locus Classicus. After deciding Hamsard’s Case, the court ordered the sheriff to seal the property of the publishers. The sheriff on carrying out this order, the parliament ordered the sheriff to be imprisoned for contempt of its authority. The sheriff pleaded with the court to declare his imprisonment illegal and restore his freedom. The court held, that it lacks capacity to interfere with the parliament imprisoning the sheriff and that the powers of parliament was a non-speaking one. That is, the House cannot be compelled to give reasons for its actions.

Tuesday, March 08, 2016


The concept of Supremacy of the Constitution means that, the constitution is the supreme law of the land and every authority or person created by the constitution is bound by its provisions.
Not only are government officials bound by the provisions of the constitution but also the people whether majority/minority.

Supremacy of the Constitution arises from different considerations:
1.  The constitution is considered supreme if it has been enacted by a legislature with supreme authority. e.g. the constitutions of Australia and Canada.
2.   A constitution may also be considered supreme if it has been enacted by the people. e.g. the Irish Constitution that was enacted by the people through a referendum and without consultation/approval of the British parliament, but passed their constitution in the name of the people.

Many constitutions of countries of the world derive their authority from the people. The preamble of such constitutions provides: “We the people of _________ hereby enact and adopt this constitution.” From the preamble, it means that the people have inherent powers to enact a constitution of their choice.
And every authority in exercise its powers must be conscious of the fact that the Supremacy of the Constitution is derived from the people.
The inherent powers of the people to enact a constitution unto themselves is not just a legal theory but has received judicial notice in the case of McCulloch V. Maryland.
The 1999 Constitution like its predecessor claims to derive its validity from the people. All the pre-colonial as well as the Independence Constitution were enacted by the British parliament. It can be said that they derived their validity/supremacy from the fact that they were enacted by the British parliament. The 1999 Constitution was enacted by the Provincial Ruling Council under the military regime. Such a constitution can be said to derive its supremacy from the Provincial Ruling Council.

The Supremacy of the Constitution could also arise from the logic of the situation. The constitution creates authorities and such authorities that are created and established by the government are to exercise their powers as well as be bound by such limitations placed in the constitution.
For the constitution will be useless if its provisions are not respected. In Marbury V. Madison, the court held to the effect; any law that is inconsistent with the provision of the constitution shall be declared invalid. This preposition has also been recognized by Nigerian courts. In the Nigerian case of Attorney General of Abia State and Ors V. Attorney General of the Federation, the court held the electoral act of 2004 to be inconsistent with S. 7 of the Constitution that vested powers in the State Houses of Assembly to make laws in respect to local government structure, function and finance.
The supremacy principle has been provided in the following sections of the constitution:
S. 1(1) –  this constitution shall be the supreme law of the land and shall have binding effects on persons throughout the federation.
S. 1(2) – no body or body of persons shall take over any part of Nigeria or the whole country except in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.
S. 1(3) – any law inconsistent with the provision of the Constitution shall to the level of its inconsistency be declared null and void, and the provision of the constitution shall prevail.

Sunday, February 28, 2016

Thanksgiving for Bro. Bode George

Being the transcript of a sermon delivered at a thanksgiving service to mark Chief Olabode George’s release from prison

Beloved, we are gathered today, to celebrate the triumphant emergence of our dear brother, father, husband, friend, Chief, Chieftain, officer and gentleman, Olabode George, from the dreary depths of Kirikiri prison. Like Daniel in the den of lions, like Jonah in the belly of the whale, our dear brother was cast amidst great waves of tribulation, but emerged victorious. Hallelujah.
We have every reason in the world to be grateful to the Almighty. I hear – I myself have not been there – that at the gates of Kirikiri there is a sign that says: ‘Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here.’ But our brother entered, and now he has come out. Many entered and did not come out. Some entered and came out with tuberculosis and all manner of grievous infirmities. Some came out and their wives were nowhere to be found.  In the case of our brother, his wife is still here. His houses are here. His cars are here. His friends are here. Hallelujah somebody.
The Bible says the Lord shall prepare a table for us in the presence of our enemies. In their presence, not behind their back. Brother George’s table is under construction. The angels have awarded the contract. If anybody likes let them come and accuse the angels of splitting that contract. They will gather, sayeth the Lord of hosts, but not in my name, and I will laugh at them. God will laugh at them the way our Baba here, Obasanjo has been laughing at his enemies.
Like Bro George, Baba knows what it is to walk through the valley of the shadow of death. He spent more than two years as a prisoner himself, before God elevated him to the most powerful position in the land. God placed him over and above his jailers. Bro George, God will lift you. The Almighty will elevate you.
Long before Baba Obasanjo’s travails, Obafemi Awolowo, our dear father and mentor, the man whose free education policy has made it possible for many of us to be where we are today, faced his own tribulation. They said he wanted to overthrow the government, that he wanted to blow the country up. They threw him in prison. When Pa Awolowo left prison it was to become the second most powerful man in the land.
Bro George, blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you, for yours will be the last laughter. You will laugh last. My prayer is that ‘I still dey laugh o’ will follow you all the days of your life, forever and ever, Amen.
Where was I? Yes. Bro George, blessed are you when men accuse you. They said you are a thief. It is their children that will become armed robbers. People of God, did Brother George steal any money? Did you see the word “thief” in the judgement with which they victimised our brother? For those who have not read the judgement, you can purchase your signed copy from the ushers at the end of the service.
I want you to read that judgement for yourself and tell me if Bro George was ever called a thief. What they said was “abuse of office.” ‘Abuse’ and ‘stealing’, are they the same thing? The Bible specifically says that thieves and liars shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven. Now tell me, does the Bible recognise anything called “abuse of office”?
People of God, did our brother abuse the House of God? Did he abuse the Church of God? Did he abuse the Servant of God? They said he split contracts. When God was creating heaven and earth didn’t he split the task into seven manageable portions, one for each day of the week, for managerial efficiency? Now they want to disgrace our brother for doing likewise.
Let me say it loud and clear – the PDP is the party in whom the Lord is well pleased. The Bible says one with God is a majority. PDP is the majority party in this land and therefore we are one with God. We are the apple of God’s eye, the umbrella in his hands. We are not perfect, no, nobody is. Verily verily I say unto you, no one but God alone is good.
Bro George, the years that the EFCC and Selective Justice have eaten, God will restore. And for all of you gathered here this morning, Kirikiri will not be your portion in Jesus Name. When they are calling the roll-call of the next set of inmates for Kirikiri they will skip your name in Jesus Name.
Join me and let us sing this song of praise to the Almighty. As we sing the ushers will go round with our special Ghana-must-go bags, for a thanksgiving offering. Hallelujah.

Thursday, February 25, 2016


The concept of Separation of Power is one which was developed to assist in the maintenance of the rule of law, limiting the powers of government as well as the abuse or misuse of powers. This concept postulates that if all the powers in a state are vested in a person or body of persons, the freedom and liberty of the citizens may not be guaranteed effectively.

For the purpose of separation, the powers of government are separated into legislative, executive and judicial powers.

Legislative power – power to make laws.
Executive power – power to enforce the laws made by the legislature.
Judicial power – power to settle disputes between persons and officers of the state.

It is very difficult to maintain a strict border line demarcation between the powers of the three organs of government. The separation of the powers of the legislature and judicial organs can be possible but that of the legislature and executive has proved abortive.
The idea of Separation of Power started in the European continent when the rulers were discovered to be wielding absolute powers. It was discovered that in England there was freedom and the rule of law which was attributed to Separation of Power.
Writing in 1690, an American philosopher, John Locke (1632-1704) said it is too great a temptation for human frailty for those who have powers to make laws, should also have in their hand, the power to execute such laws. When this happens, those who make laws disobey such laws at their execution to their whims and caprices or private advantage.
John Locke
In his argument, John Locke discovered that if powers to make laws and execute such laws were vested in a single authority, the rights and freedom of the people may not be effectively guaranteed.
The idea of Separation of Power was later developed upon by a French philosopher, Baron de Montesquieu (1689-1755) in the light of his study of the British society in the 18th century. This philosopher later paid dearly for his writing/views on Separation of Powers as he was asked to be executed by the French authorities on his return from Britain. They considered his ideas totally unacceptable and dangerous to France.
At that time in England, parliament succeeded in taking away from the king, the law making powers and the independence of the judiciary became established. After the passage of the Bill of Rights in 1683, the executive powers of the king became established.
Hence, Montesquieu found in England three functions to be performed by three authorities, provided they act in accordance with the constitution.
Baron de Montesquieu
Therefore, in England, there was freedom, liberty and the rights of individuals guaranteed.
By separation of powers, Baron de Montesquieu meant three things:
1.  There should be no overlapping of powers between one department and another.
2.  There should be no overlapping of functions between one department and another.
3.   No department should interfere or control the working of another.

It is these that Montesquieu posits that if all powers are vested in the same person or body of persons, the right and liberty of the citizenry will not be guaranteed.
While expounding on the advantages of Separation of Power, Montesquieu did not mean that there should not be checks and balances. The Americans while writing their constitution took note of this, and provided for an elaborate system of checks and balances. Each department of government while performing its constitutional functions is restricted by constitutional limitations. The executive powers are vested in the executive, legislative powers vested in Congress and judicial powers are vested in the courts.
While the law making power is vested in Congress, for a bill to become law, the assent or veto of the President is required. If the president declines assent to any bill, his veto power can be overridden if such a bill is passed by 2/3 majority of legislators in Congress.
The president is elected by the people and is answerable to same and not parliament. The president cannot dissolve parliament, neither can parliament dissolve the president and his ministers. The president appoints his ministers who are accountable to him.
The executive cannot sit or take part in parliamentary proceedings. The president is to send a bill to parliament to pass into law, but they are not bound to pass such bill to law.
The president has the right to appoint important government officials, ministers, and judges but subject to parliament’s approval.
The judicial function is that of the court, but parliament sometimes constitute itself into a trial court, where the president or any member of the executive is served with an impeachment notice for misconduct. The House of Representative frames such charges and the senate tries them.
Where the president is served impeachment notice and he is to be tried, the Chief Justice presides over the parliament.
The legislature makes laws, but the courts review such laws through Judicial Interpretation. This function has made the judiciary super-legislature.

The concept of separation of power is also enshrined in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
S. 4 provides for legislative powers i.e. power to make laws. It is made up of the House of Representatives and the Senate.
S. 5 provides for executive powers exercisable by the president, vice president, ministers or government departments on behalf of the president. The president is to see to the implementation of the laws made by the National Assembly.
S. 6(1)(3) provides for judicial powers exercisable by the law courts that can be extended by a law of the National or State House of Assembly.
In Nigeria, the law making power is vested in the legislature but under the principle of delegation of power, members of the executive or judiciary are found to be exercising such powers. e.g. by S. 46, the Chief Justice has been authorized to make laws in respect to fundamental human rights of the citizens. The Chief Justice has made this law which is the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rule, 2009.
Members of the legislature and the president are elected for four years in office. The president cannot dissolve the Senate neither can the Senate call the president to sack his ministers. Bills passed by the Senate require the assent of the president before such bills become law. Where the president declines his assent, such a bill becomes law when it is passed by at least 2/3 majority of members of the National Assembly. ~ S. 58 CFRN.
The president and his ministers are to be invited to attend a joint session of the National Assembly to make an address of national or fiscal issues bothering the country. ~S. 67(1)
Ministers are to appear before the National Assembly or any of its committees to give an address on operation of their ministries. ~ S. 67(2)
The National Assembly is empowered to direct or cause an investigation to be directed into the conduct of the affairs of any person, ministry, authority or department of government that is charged or intended to be charged with the duty for, or responsibility or the execution of laws made by the national assembly and the disbursement or administering moneys appropriated or to be appropriated by the National Assembly. ~ S. 88(1)
The functions ordinarily performed by the courts are performed by the legislature. e.g. S. 89, CFRN – the Senate is to summon any person to give evidence orally or in writing, direct or circumstantial in relation to any matter upon deliberation.
The legislature can also give a warrant for such a person to appear before them to present documents or give evidence when such a person fails to appear and as not adduced any reason for his failure to appear before the National Assembly.
The National Assembly is empowered to recover such moneys or expenses incurred in compelling such a person’s appearance. It can recover such fee just as a fine imposed by the court.
The Speaker of the House of Representatives or the Senate President of the Senate can give permit to any police officer or any person to compel its summon or warrant directed to any person.

Any question(s)?