正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

****WHY MATHIAS WALUKAGGA WILL BE ON THE BALLOT**** In Ugandan administrative and constitutional law, any decision made by a tribunal, commission, or public body outside the powers granted to it by law is ultra vires, illegal, and null and void ab initio, meaning it has no legal effect from...

frankbalkazerg1's profile picture

Wayne Frank Ntambi

19,628 subscribers

35,741 次观看 • 8 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

新闻政治教育
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

UPDATE: National Unity Platform flagbearer for the Busiro East parliamentary seat, Mathias Walukagga, has petitioned the High Court to challenge his disqualification by the Electoral Commission (EC), arguing that he meets the required academic qualifications and that the Commission acted without jurisdiction in rejecting them. #MonitorUpdates #UgandaDecides2026 📹: Juliet Kigongo
3:52

UPDATE: National Unity Platform flagbearer for the Busiro East parliamentary seat, Mathias Walukagga, has petitioned the High Court to challenge his disqualification by the Electoral Commission (EC), arguing that he meets the required academic qualifications and that the Commission acted without jurisdiction in rejecting them. #MonitorUpdates #UgandaDecides2026 📹: Juliet Kigongo

Daily Monitor

86,193 次观看 • 8 个月前

Contempt of Court is Not a Law in Ireland Under Article 15.2 of the Constitution of Ireland, the sole and exclusive power of making laws for the State is vested in the Oireachtas. This means that only Acts passed by the Dáil and Seanad, and signed by the President, can be considered “law” in Ireland. At present, “contempt of court” is enforced by judges through inherent jurisdiction and common law practice, not through an Act of the Oireachtas. There is no statute that has been enacted by the Oireachtas which defines contempt of court, sets out its elements, or prescribes penalties. Because contempt is based on judicial discretion and unwritten common law, it does not meet the constitutional standard of being a law made by the Oireachtas. Therefore, while courts may act as if it is enforceable, it is not, strictly speaking, an Irish law under Article 15.2 of the Constitution. #Constitution #Ireland #Oireachtas #RuleOfLaw #Justice #Accountability #Truth
1:53

Contempt of Court is Not a Law in Ireland Under Article 15.2 of the Constitution of Ireland, the sole and exclusive power of making laws for the State is vested in the Oireachtas. This means that only Acts passed by the Dáil and Seanad, and signed by the President, can be considered “law” in Ireland. At present, “contempt of court” is enforced by judges through inherent jurisdiction and common law practice, not through an Act of the Oireachtas. There is no statute that has been enacted by the Oireachtas which defines contempt of court, sets out its elements, or prescribes penalties. Because contempt is based on judicial discretion and unwritten common law, it does not meet the constitutional standard of being a law made by the Oireachtas. Therefore, while courts may act as if it is enforceable, it is not, strictly speaking, an Irish law under Article 15.2 of the Constitution. #Constitution #Ireland #Oireachtas #RuleOfLaw #Justice #Accountability #Truth

Patrick McGreal

14,710 次观看 • 11 个月前

A temporary hold on signing the OTT contract for #Drishyam3 has been granted by the Delhi High Court, and it will be in effect until May 15.
1:37

A temporary hold on signing the OTT contract for #Drishyam3 has been granted by the Delhi High Court, and it will be in effect until May 15.

AB George

11,618 次观看 • 3 个月前

In a recent High Court case, a judge has upheld the legal accuracy of the interim update published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, dismissing the challenge from the Good Law Project. The Good Law Project is misrepresenting the judgement:
1:56

In a recent High Court case, a judge has upheld the legal accuracy of the interim update published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, dismissing the challenge from the Good Law Project. The Good Law Project is misrepresenting the judgement:

Michael Foran

27,418 次观看 • 5 个月前

Odious Debt is a legal reality. Under international law, when a creditor lends to a regime that loots the funds against the people’s interest, that debt becomes "odious." It is not the people’s burden to carry. The IMF claims it has no "political" mandate. But as a United Nations agency, it has a Duty of Care. Funding a regime that bypasses Parliamentary oversight and ignores the Law makes the IMF an accomplice to constitutional subversion. Article 201 of our Constitution, Public finance must be guided by transparency. Loans signed in secret, without public participation, are null and void ab initio. We demand a Forensic Audit of every shilling borrowed. The law is not a rug to sweep failures under. 🇰🇪 #SovereignDebt #Kenya #DeniBandia
2:50

Odious Debt is a legal reality. Under international law, when a creditor lends to a regime that loots the funds against the people’s interest, that debt becomes "odious." It is not the people’s burden to carry. The IMF claims it has no "political" mandate. But as a United Nations agency, it has a Duty of Care. Funding a regime that bypasses Parliamentary oversight and ignores the Law makes the IMF an accomplice to constitutional subversion. Article 201 of our Constitution, Public finance must be guided by transparency. Loans signed in secret, without public participation, are null and void ab initio. We demand a Forensic Audit of every shilling borrowed. The law is not a rug to sweep failures under. 🇰🇪 #SovereignDebt #Kenya #DeniBandia

Okiya Omtatah Okoiti

43,512 次观看 • 6 个月前

I talked to Ms. Meenakshi Natarajan and several other senior Congress leaders yesterday when I learned of this most remarkable and astonishing rejection of her nomination papers by the Returning Officer. This is, on the face of it, patently and blatantly illegal because no criminal case, in the eyes of the law, exists against Ms. Natarajan. This is because, in a private complaint, which anyone can file against anyone, no criminal case comes into existence unless and until the magistrate or the concerned judge takes cognizance. At the highest, in the present case of Ms. Natarajan, there is a notice by a court to her on a private complaint well before that court has taken cognizance, and indeed, the issue of cognizance is yet to be decided after hearing her by that court. So where is the question of a criminal case which she had to disclose? This is well established by Indian jurisprudence, including a High Court judgment directly on point. It is not possible that the Returning Officer took an independent, objective, fair, and impartial stance; otherwise, there is no way in law her nomination could have been rejected.. I hope and trust that the Election Commission in Delhi, the central body, will exercise its inherent, administrative, and superior powers to reverse this decision or order. Otherwise, it would be a very serious violation of the level playing field principle. It would create a highly skewed system in a democratic election, thereby affecting democracy and the basic structure itself. There is still time, since today is the last day for withdrawal. No one can, and should, in a true democracy, be denied even the right to nominate oneself for the Rajya Sabha in this manner. : Abhishek Singhvi ji Chairperson, AICC Law, RTI & HR Dept.
2:38

I talked to Ms. Meenakshi Natarajan and several other senior Congress leaders yesterday when I learned of this most remarkable and astonishing rejection of her nomination papers by the Returning Officer. This is, on the face of it, patently and blatantly illegal because no criminal case, in the eyes of the law, exists against Ms. Natarajan. This is because, in a private complaint, which anyone can file against anyone, no criminal case comes into existence unless and until the magistrate or the concerned judge takes cognizance. At the highest, in the present case of Ms. Natarajan, there is a notice by a court to her on a private complaint well before that court has taken cognizance, and indeed, the issue of cognizance is yet to be decided after hearing her by that court. So where is the question of a criminal case which she had to disclose? This is well established by Indian jurisprudence, including a High Court judgment directly on point. It is not possible that the Returning Officer took an independent, objective, fair, and impartial stance; otherwise, there is no way in law her nomination could have been rejected.. I hope and trust that the Election Commission in Delhi, the central body, will exercise its inherent, administrative, and superior powers to reverse this decision or order. Otherwise, it would be a very serious violation of the level playing field principle. It would create a highly skewed system in a democratic election, thereby affecting democracy and the basic structure itself. There is still time, since today is the last day for withdrawal. No one can, and should, in a true democracy, be denied even the right to nominate oneself for the Rajya Sabha in this manner. : Abhishek Singhvi ji Chairperson, AICC Law, RTI & HR Dept.

Congress

48,851 次观看 • 2 个月前

#WATCH | Delhi | On Supreme Court Judge Ujjal Bhuyan's reported remarks on interference of executive in the collegium system, Advocate Aman Lekhi says, "I tend to agree to the context in which Justice Bhuyan spoke. What is important to note in the case of Justice Sreedharan is three aspects: institutional integrity, perception (of independence), and the worth of law not only as a doctrine but also in practice. I feel that there has been a failure in all three counts. The executive has no role as far as the functioning of judges is concerned. The only involvement which justifies the executive's participation in the process is giving information about judges, which is otherwise not available to the court or the institution... When you are dealing with a sitting judge, no matter what your perception of the judge may be, that is part of the judicial realm. As long as there is no want of judicial integrity or honesty, or any breach of propriety by the judge concerned, it is beyond the executive to interfere... What has been released by the court suggests that Justice Sreedharan's transfer was shifted from Chhattisgarh to Allahabad due to the executive's interference. If something is prompted by the executive and a decision is subsequently re-engineered by the court, the entire process is compromised. That is not how it is supposed to work... Transparency has to fuel belief, not extinguish it, in the efficacy of the process..."
3:09

#WATCH | Delhi | On Supreme Court Judge Ujjal Bhuyan's reported remarks on interference of executive in the collegium system, Advocate Aman Lekhi says, "I tend to agree to the context in which Justice Bhuyan spoke. What is important to note in the case of Justice Sreedharan is three aspects: institutional integrity, perception (of independence), and the worth of law not only as a doctrine but also in practice. I feel that there has been a failure in all three counts. The executive has no role as far as the functioning of judges is concerned. The only involvement which justifies the executive's participation in the process is giving information about judges, which is otherwise not available to the court or the institution... When you are dealing with a sitting judge, no matter what your perception of the judge may be, that is part of the judicial realm. As long as there is no want of judicial integrity or honesty, or any breach of propriety by the judge concerned, it is beyond the executive to interfere... What has been released by the court suggests that Justice Sreedharan's transfer was shifted from Chhattisgarh to Allahabad due to the executive's interference. If something is prompted by the executive and a decision is subsequently re-engineered by the court, the entire process is compromised. That is not how it is supposed to work... Transparency has to fuel belief, not extinguish it, in the efficacy of the process..."

ANI

23,184 次观看 • 6 个月前

The Uniform Civil Code is unacceptable as it goes against the fundamental rights granted in the Constitution, and it is detrimental to the unity and integrity of the country. We (Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind) have already approached the court against the decision to implement the Uniform Civil Code in Uttarakhand with the hope of receiving justice in order to uphold the Constitution of the country, democracy, and the supremacy of law. As our Constitution guarantees Right to Freedom in article 25, 26 and 29 while recognizing the fundamental rights of citizens, and the Muslim Personal Law is also protected under the Shariat Application Act of 1937. Hence, We will not accept any law that is against Shariah. Muslims can compromise on things, but they can never compromise on their Shariah and Religion. #UniformCivilCode #UCC
2:21

The Uniform Civil Code is unacceptable as it goes against the fundamental rights granted in the Constitution, and it is detrimental to the unity and integrity of the country. We (Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind) have already approached the court against the decision to implement the Uniform Civil Code in Uttarakhand with the hope of receiving justice in order to uphold the Constitution of the country, democracy, and the supremacy of law. As our Constitution guarantees Right to Freedom in article 25, 26 and 29 while recognizing the fundamental rights of citizens, and the Muslim Personal Law is also protected under the Shariat Application Act of 1937. Hence, We will not accept any law that is against Shariah. Muslims can compromise on things, but they can never compromise on their Shariah and Religion. #UniformCivilCode #UCC

Arshad Madani

48,338 次观看 • 1 年前

This description of the Justin Trudeau government invocation of the Emergencies Act by CTV News is incredibly frustrating. The Federal Court found that the government's use of the EA was illegal and unconstitutional. This is never mentioned. Instead, CTV covered the Rouleau Commission, which is not a court and does not create precedent. The Rouleau Commission also found that while it was Rouleau's view that the threshold to use the act was met, another decision maker could reasonably reach a different conclusion. This is exactly what went on to happen, but was for some reason omitted by CTV. The illegal and unconstitutional use of this extraordinary law is a huge stain on Trudeau's legacy and one of the greatest infringements of civil liberties in Canada in a generation.
0:45

This description of the Justin Trudeau government invocation of the Emergencies Act by CTV News is incredibly frustrating. The Federal Court found that the government's use of the EA was illegal and unconstitutional. This is never mentioned. Instead, CTV covered the Rouleau Commission, which is not a court and does not create precedent. The Rouleau Commission also found that while it was Rouleau's view that the threshold to use the act was met, another decision maker could reasonably reach a different conclusion. This is exactly what went on to happen, but was for some reason omitted by CTV. The illegal and unconstitutional use of this extraordinary law is a huge stain on Trudeau's legacy and one of the greatest infringements of civil liberties in Canada in a generation.

Christine Van Geyn

41,021 次观看 • 1 年前

When uPresident Ramaphosa announced the Madlanga Commission to investigate the allegations made by General Mkhwanazi the following happened 1. MKP and Jacob Zuma in his personal capacity went to Constitutional Court and High Court to try and stop the commission. 2. MKP deployed its Gauteng members and leadership to protest outside the Madlanga Commission venue to try and impose fear on the Madlanga Commissioners and the evidence leaders. 3. MKP said the Madlanga Commission is a fruitless and wasteful expenditure process. 4. MKP said Ad Hoc Committee is qualified enough to even do better than the Madlanga Commission. Thank you President Ramaphosa for defending the Madlanga Commission in Court ..... otherwise we would not be having this wonderful Commission. MKP is a party that only exist to fight Zuma's personal battles and its battle is President Ramaphosa, it doesn't matter if he takes good decisions.... MK just fight those good decisions MK is a Party that is driven by hatred towards President Ramaphosa.
2:31

When uPresident Ramaphosa announced the Madlanga Commission to investigate the allegations made by General Mkhwanazi the following happened 1. MKP and Jacob Zuma in his personal capacity went to Constitutional Court and High Court to try and stop the commission. 2. MKP deployed its Gauteng members and leadership to protest outside the Madlanga Commission venue to try and impose fear on the Madlanga Commissioners and the evidence leaders. 3. MKP said the Madlanga Commission is a fruitless and wasteful expenditure process. 4. MKP said Ad Hoc Committee is qualified enough to even do better than the Madlanga Commission. Thank you President Ramaphosa for defending the Madlanga Commission in Court ..... otherwise we would not be having this wonderful Commission. MKP is a party that only exist to fight Zuma's personal battles and its battle is President Ramaphosa, it doesn't matter if he takes good decisions.... MK just fight those good decisions MK is a Party that is driven by hatred towards President Ramaphosa.

RET ARE THIEVES

81,405 次观看 • 22 天前

#WATCH | Kolkata, West Bengal: On the Calcutta High Court restoring the jobs of 32,000 teachers, Advocate & CPI-M Leader Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya says, "If the court accepts that there has been a failure on the part of the recruiting authorities, then the beneficiaries cannot go above the recruiting authorities. If the recruitment process was illegal and initiated by malice and corruption, then there can be no question of sympathy in favour of the recruits... This judgment will ultimately encourage the corrupt administration. It will give much liberty to the corrupt administration to practice corruption and go ahead... I'm shocked to find that this judgment is not in tune with the constitutional morality of the Indian Constitution... Humanitarian grounds cannot go beyond the law. Then there will be no question of law..."
3:02

#WATCH | Kolkata, West Bengal: On the Calcutta High Court restoring the jobs of 32,000 teachers, Advocate & CPI-M Leader Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya says, "If the court accepts that there has been a failure on the part of the recruiting authorities, then the beneficiaries cannot go above the recruiting authorities. If the recruitment process was illegal and initiated by malice and corruption, then there can be no question of sympathy in favour of the recruits... This judgment will ultimately encourage the corrupt administration. It will give much liberty to the corrupt administration to practice corruption and go ahead... I'm shocked to find that this judgment is not in tune with the constitutional morality of the Indian Constitution... Humanitarian grounds cannot go beyond the law. Then there will be no question of law..."

ANI

20,003 次观看 • 8 个月前

The mistrial of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu By ALOY EJIMAKOR The purpose of this essay is to enhance a better public understanding of the arcane dimensions and complexities arising in the case of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu from 24th September 2024 (when Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako was recused) to 10th February 2025 when Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was surprisingly summoned to appear before the same Justice. Despite our abhorrence for the summons to appear before a Judge who no longer possessed jurisdiction, we nonetheless decided to honor the summons out of respect for the sanctity of the judiciary and the overriding need to avoid the fell consequences of an in-absentia proceedings that would be legally injurious to our Client. So, we appeared with the self-assurance and confidence that the proceedings would, as a matter of law, amount to a nullity because the Judge, having been recused by an extant Order of court, no longer possessed the requisite jurisdiction to conduct the hearing. It therefore came to pass that when the case was called, I immediately went on the record to state that we appeared “under protest”, and that our “limited” appearance is specifically aimed at protecting the constitutional rights of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and thus should, in no way, be misconstrued as succumbing to the jurisdiction of the court. Given this scenario, it therefore follows that - as far as it was conducted by a recused Judge - the infamous proceedings of 10th February 2025 carried all the elements of a “mistrial” of some sorts, to the extent that the purported order of adjournment sine die made by the Judge at the close of the “hearing” is obviously nugatory and of no legal or judicial effect whatsoever. Below are the additional reasons for our position: First of all, the process by which Honorable Justice Murtala-Nyako exited from the case as the trial judge was a “judicial event”, as it emanated from the COURT ORDER she made on 24th September 2024. A plain reading of the Order shows that Her Lordship graciously consented to the recusal and that alone amounts to an additional factor that endowed the order with more tenacity. Second, of then and now, the said Order is still extant and subsisting and was never appealed. So, it remains valid in all ramifications. To be sure, the Judge cannot REVIEW, REOPEN or REVISIT the matter of her recusal because she became FUNCTUS OFFICIO as of 24th September 2024 when the order was entered and enrolled. In Ukachukwu v. Uba (2005) 18 NWLR (Pt.956), it was held that: "The phrase "functus officio" has been defined to mean a task performed, fulfilling a function or discharging and accomplishing the intended purpose, and when it is referred to a Court, that Court will have no further force or authority in effect it would lack competence or jurisdiction in the matter anymore. It cannot review, re open or re-visit the said matter except under exceptional circumstances.” Third, the point needs to be made that the post-recusal Summons issued to Mazi Nnamdi Kanu that brought us to Court on 10th February 2025 is not to be blamed on the Court alone. The prosecution grandfathered this infamous unconstitutionality by a Letter it wrote to the same Court on 5th December 2024, requesting that the case be re-calendared for a hearing. In our prompt reaction and after a considered view that the said Letter strained the boundaries of prosecutorial misconduct, we countered with a reply, vehemently opposing re-listing the case to be heard before a Judge who is bound by an extant Order of recusal. To this date, the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court has not respondent to our Letter.
2:27

The mistrial of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu By ALOY EJIMAKOR The purpose of this essay is to enhance a better public understanding of the arcane dimensions and complexities arising in the case of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu from 24th September 2024 (when Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako was recused) to 10th February 2025 when Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was surprisingly summoned to appear before the same Justice. Despite our abhorrence for the summons to appear before a Judge who no longer possessed jurisdiction, we nonetheless decided to honor the summons out of respect for the sanctity of the judiciary and the overriding need to avoid the fell consequences of an in-absentia proceedings that would be legally injurious to our Client. So, we appeared with the self-assurance and confidence that the proceedings would, as a matter of law, amount to a nullity because the Judge, having been recused by an extant Order of court, no longer possessed the requisite jurisdiction to conduct the hearing. It therefore came to pass that when the case was called, I immediately went on the record to state that we appeared “under protest”, and that our “limited” appearance is specifically aimed at protecting the constitutional rights of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and thus should, in no way, be misconstrued as succumbing to the jurisdiction of the court. Given this scenario, it therefore follows that - as far as it was conducted by a recused Judge - the infamous proceedings of 10th February 2025 carried all the elements of a “mistrial” of some sorts, to the extent that the purported order of adjournment sine die made by the Judge at the close of the “hearing” is obviously nugatory and of no legal or judicial effect whatsoever. Below are the additional reasons for our position: First of all, the process by which Honorable Justice Murtala-Nyako exited from the case as the trial judge was a “judicial event”, as it emanated from the COURT ORDER she made on 24th September 2024. A plain reading of the Order shows that Her Lordship graciously consented to the recusal and that alone amounts to an additional factor that endowed the order with more tenacity. Second, of then and now, the said Order is still extant and subsisting and was never appealed. So, it remains valid in all ramifications. To be sure, the Judge cannot REVIEW, REOPEN or REVISIT the matter of her recusal because she became FUNCTUS OFFICIO as of 24th September 2024 when the order was entered and enrolled. In Ukachukwu v. Uba (2005) 18 NWLR (Pt.956), it was held that: "The phrase "functus officio" has been defined to mean a task performed, fulfilling a function or discharging and accomplishing the intended purpose, and when it is referred to a Court, that Court will have no further force or authority in effect it would lack competence or jurisdiction in the matter anymore. It cannot review, re open or re-visit the said matter except under exceptional circumstances.” Third, the point needs to be made that the post-recusal Summons issued to Mazi Nnamdi Kanu that brought us to Court on 10th February 2025 is not to be blamed on the Court alone. The prosecution grandfathered this infamous unconstitutionality by a Letter it wrote to the same Court on 5th December 2024, requesting that the case be re-calendared for a hearing. In our prompt reaction and after a considered view that the said Letter strained the boundaries of prosecutorial misconduct, we countered with a reply, vehemently opposing re-listing the case to be heard before a Judge who is bound by an extant Order of recusal. To this date, the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court has not respondent to our Letter.

aloy ejimakor

25,742 次观看 • 1 年前

🚨 HUGE. Supreme Court has finally FALLEN IN LINE ~ Rules that No court can fix timelines for Governors or the President to assent to bills, and no such thing as ‘deemed assent’ exists 🔥 The bench admits that declaring “deemed assent” is a JUDICIAL OVERREACH into powers constitutionally reserved for the Governor/President 🤯 • It also accepts Article 361 as an absolute bar on judicial review and clarifies that the President need not seek court advice when a bill is reserved. A massive constitutional win for the Modi era, restoring separation of powers and ending judicial adventurism 👌🏼
0:36

🚨 HUGE. Supreme Court has finally FALLEN IN LINE ~ Rules that No court can fix timelines for Governors or the President to assent to bills, and no such thing as ‘deemed assent’ exists 🔥 The bench admits that declaring “deemed assent” is a JUDICIAL OVERREACH into powers constitutionally reserved for the Governor/President 🤯 • It also accepts Article 361 as an absolute bar on judicial review and clarifies that the President need not seek court advice when a bill is reserved. A massive constitutional win for the Modi era, restoring separation of powers and ending judicial adventurism 👌🏼

The Analyzer (News Updates🗞️)

136,228 次观看 • 8 个月前

Elon Musk: 𝕏 is simply trying to adhere to the law. If the people in a country want the laws to be different, they should make the laws different. "What we're trying to do is simply adhere to the laws in a country. If something is illegal in the United States, or if it's illegal in Europe or Brazil or wherever it might be, then we will take it down, and we'll suspend the account because we're not there to make the laws. But if speech is not illegal, then what are we doing? Now we're injecting ourselves in as a censor. And where does it stop? And who decides? Where does that path lead? I think it leads to a bad place. So, if the people in a country want the laws to be different, they should make the laws different. But otherwise, we're going to obey the law in each jurisdiction. That's it. It's not more complicated than that. We're not trying to flout the law. We're trying to adhere to the law. And if the laws change, we will change. And if the laws don't change, we won't. We're just literally trying to adhere to the law." From: The All-In Podcast, September 9, 2024
1:06

Elon Musk: 𝕏 is simply trying to adhere to the law. If the people in a country want the laws to be different, they should make the laws different. "What we're trying to do is simply adhere to the laws in a country. If something is illegal in the United States, or if it's illegal in Europe or Brazil or wherever it might be, then we will take it down, and we'll suspend the account because we're not there to make the laws. But if speech is not illegal, then what are we doing? Now we're injecting ourselves in as a censor. And where does it stop? And who decides? Where does that path lead? I think it leads to a bad place. So, if the people in a country want the laws to be different, they should make the laws different. But otherwise, we're going to obey the law in each jurisdiction. That's it. It's not more complicated than that. We're not trying to flout the law. We're trying to adhere to the law. And if the laws change, we will change. And if the laws don't change, we won't. We're just literally trying to adhere to the law." From: The All-In Podcast, September 9, 2024

ELON CLIPS

5,539,295 次观看 • 1 年前

Josep Borrell, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy: "It is not a political decision. It is a decision of a court: the International Court of Justice. The decision of the court has to be respected and implemented. So I take note of the decision of the International Criminal Court to issue arrest warrants for Prime Minister Netanyahu, the former Minister of Defence Mr Gallant, and the Hamas leaders. This decision is a binding decision, and all states parties of the court - which include all members of the European Union - are binding to implement this court decision."
0:55

Josep Borrell, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy: "It is not a political decision. It is a decision of a court: the International Court of Justice. The decision of the court has to be respected and implemented. So I take note of the decision of the International Criminal Court to issue arrest warrants for Prime Minister Netanyahu, the former Minister of Defence Mr Gallant, and the Hamas leaders. This decision is a binding decision, and all states parties of the court - which include all members of the European Union - are binding to implement this court decision."

WikiLeaks

92,719 次观看 • 1 年前

Two cases which were brought before the Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe challenging Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 (CAB 3) have been struck off, NOT dismissed. CAB 3, which seeks, among other things, to extend President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s term of office and change the method of electing a president from direct election by citizens to election by Parliament, requires two referendums in law, but the ZANUPF faction sponsoring it wants to avoid a referendum. The Constitutional Court struck both cases off the roll this morning. It is important to understand that the cases were not dismissed on their merits. Rather, the Court held that the issues raised could not originate and be determined solely by the Constitutional Court and should first be ventilated in another forum, High Court. Professor Lovemore Maduku, who is arguing the cases, has indicated that they will now proceed to the High Court. Should the applicants fail to obtain the relief they seek there, the matters will inevitably return to the Constitutional Court on appeal. Many lawyers have described the Constitutional Court’s decision as an example of constitutional avoidance. In their view, the Court has declined to confront what has become a highly contentious constitutional question, preferring instead to defer consideration of the substantive issues. A central argument in the war veterans’ challenge, led by Professor Madhuku, is that Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 was discussed and approved by Cabinet, which included President Mnangagwa, the two Vice Presidents, and Cabinet ministers. Professor Madhuku argues that because President Mnangagwa stands to benefit directly from provisions extending his term of office, he should not have participated in deliberations on the amendments. According to the argument, the Constitution prohibits public officials from participating in decisions in which they have a direct personal interest. However, the Constitutional Court did not determine the merits of that argument, ruling instead that the matter should be heard elsewhere first. The legal battle is therefore far from over. It now moves to the High Court and, whatever the outcome there, is likely to find its way back to the Constitutional Court for a final determination.
2:15

Two cases which were brought before the Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe challenging Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 (CAB 3) have been struck off, NOT dismissed. CAB 3, which seeks, among other things, to extend President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s term of office and change the method of electing a president from direct election by citizens to election by Parliament, requires two referendums in law, but the ZANUPF faction sponsoring it wants to avoid a referendum. The Constitutional Court struck both cases off the roll this morning. It is important to understand that the cases were not dismissed on their merits. Rather, the Court held that the issues raised could not originate and be determined solely by the Constitutional Court and should first be ventilated in another forum, High Court. Professor Lovemore Maduku, who is arguing the cases, has indicated that they will now proceed to the High Court. Should the applicants fail to obtain the relief they seek there, the matters will inevitably return to the Constitutional Court on appeal. Many lawyers have described the Constitutional Court’s decision as an example of constitutional avoidance. In their view, the Court has declined to confront what has become a highly contentious constitutional question, preferring instead to defer consideration of the substantive issues. A central argument in the war veterans’ challenge, led by Professor Madhuku, is that Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 was discussed and approved by Cabinet, which included President Mnangagwa, the two Vice Presidents, and Cabinet ministers. Professor Madhuku argues that because President Mnangagwa stands to benefit directly from provisions extending his term of office, he should not have participated in deliberations on the amendments. According to the argument, the Constitution prohibits public officials from participating in decisions in which they have a direct personal interest. However, the Constitutional Court did not determine the merits of that argument, ruling instead that the matter should be heard elsewhere first. The legal battle is therefore far from over. It now moves to the High Court and, whatever the outcome there, is likely to find its way back to the Constitutional Court for a final determination.

Hopewell Chin’ono

29,767 次观看 • 1 个月前