🫂🇵🇹🇨🇴 James Rodriguez: “Cristiano is a role model. When I arrived at Real Madrid, he was one of the first people to welcome me. He invited me to his house, and we became close friends”.
“He’s a wonderful person and an example for everyone. Just look at his physique at 41 years of age”.
If there is one thing I should commend the administration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the 10th National Assembly for, it should be the passage of the Bill for the establishment of State Policing.
So, it is no longer news that as of yesterday, the Senate passed the Bill into Act to alter the provisions of Sections 214, 215 and 216 of the Constitution to establish State Policing.
Most of you might have been asking:
What is in this amendment that has suddenly made it the talk of the town?
Well, that is exactly what I am here to explain briefly.
The first thing to note is that unlike before, where we had only one Nigeria Police Force, that will no longer be the case.
The Constitution has now been amended to provide for both the Federal Police and State Police respectively. (See Clause 12 of the Bill amending Section 214 of the Constitution.)
But the National Assembly did not stop there.
They understood that a State Police Commissioner would naturally be loyal to the authority that appoints him.
For that reason, the amendment now gives State Governors the power to appoint Commissioners of Police, unlike before when only the Police Service Commission exercised such powers.
However, a Governor cannot simply wake up one morning and appoint a man in uniform as Commissioner of Police just because he likes his face or because he irons his uniform properly.
The amendment clearly states that Governors must first obtain recommendations from the National Police Council before making such appointments.
Even after the appointment, it must still be ratified by a two-thirds majority of the State House of Assembly. (See Clause 17 of the amendment.)
The amendment also addresses another long-standing issue.
Unlike before, when Governors found it difficult to issue directives to Police Commissioners because they were not directly under them, Governors can now issue lawful directives to Commissioners of Police.
However, such directives must strictly relate to the maintenance of public safety and public order within the state. (See Clause 17(6) of the amendment.)
The National Assembly was also aware that giving Governors unchecked powers to direct Commissioners of Police could lead to abuse.
As a safeguard, the amendment provides that where a Commissioner of Police believes that a directive issued by a Governor is unlawful, he can refer the matter to the State Police Service Commission for review. (See Clause 13(5) of the amendment.)
But the National Assembly still did not stop there.
Knowing fully well that some Governors might be tempted to use State Police to witch-hunt political opponents, the amendment expressly bars a State Commissioner of Police from arresting, detaining, investigating, or using force against any person merely for criticizing the government, except in accordance with the law. (See Clause 17(7) of the amendment.)
The National Assembly also tried as much as possible to reserve significant powers for the Federal Government.
As a result, they inserted an interesting provision that allows the Federal Government to intervene in the affairs of a state under certain circumstances.
But before such intervention can happen, one of two conditions must exist:
First, there must be a complete breakdown of law and order within the state which the state is unable to handle.
Or,
The State Governor must have requested such intervention in order to prevent a breakdown of law and order.
Even then, the National Assembly still reserved powers for itself by providing that the Federal Government must seek the approval of the Senate within 48 hours before such intervention can proceed. (See Section 214(10) of the amended Constitution.)
Lastly, an Inspector General of Police or a Commissioner of Police can no longer be removed from office by a President or Governor simply because they woke up on the wrong side of the bed or because they do not like his face.
The amendment to Clause 14 of Section
Sneidjer vs Messi in 2010 😂
Wesley Sneijder in 2010
✔️Won UEFA Champions League
✔️Won Serie A
✔️Won Coppa Italia
✔️FIFA World Cup 2010 (runner-up)
🥇Individual Awards
✔️UEFA Club Midfielder of the Year
✔️FIFA World Cup Silver Ball (2nd-best player of the tournament)
✔️FIFA World Cup Bronze Boot (joint top scorer with 5 goals)
✔️FIFA World Cup All-Star Team
✔️ Champions League G/A ( 9 )
Lionel Messi in 2010
✔️La Liga
✔️Supercopa de España
🥇 Individual Awards (2010)
✔️European Golden Shoe
✔️La Liga Best Player
✔️Champions League G/A ( 9 )
✔️0 goal in the 2010 World Cup
✔️ Knocked out in the 2010 World Cup Quarter finals
Despite Sneidjer winning the treble with Inter and reaching the World Cup final, guess who won the Ballon d'Or the same year?
When the World Cup favors Messi, they use it to determine the Ballon d'Or. But when it's the other way around, they bend the rules. And Sepp Blatter undoubtedly passed the legacy on to Gianni Infantino.
Politics is played everywhere. The game is the game.
Remove FIFA, and Messi would have ony four or five Ballon d'Or awards.
Remove Ángel Di María, and Messi would have zero Copa América titles.
Remove penalties and Emiliano Martinez, and Messi would have zero World Cups.
Ronaldo has been carrying Portugal, while Messi has been carried by his teammates and FIFA. End of discussion!
🚨 Roberto Martínez when asked about not subbing off Cristiano.
“It made no sense at all to take off Cristiano Ronaldo who is the best goalscorer in history off the field when we were looking for goals”.
🚨 JUST IN: Iluke-Bunu in Kabba LGA of Kogi State is reportedly under attack by armed bandits.
Sadly, the Vice Principal of Government Secondary School, Iluke, Mr. Gani Anifowose, was killed during the attack this morning.
Is this really the renewed hope they promised us?