"Aye or Nay? Aiya My Dear, you decide lah...
Just sms His Majesty for me after you decide, ok?"
Just sms His Majesty for me after you decide, ok?"
LAGOS, Nigeria, 31 June 2020 - The Supreme Court today decided that His Majesty the King of Nigeria was entitled to sign into law the "Kill All Poor People" Bill passed by the Parliament of the Kingdom of Nigeria, last week, even though the Bill was passed via Short Message Service (or 'SMS', a form of text messaging on mobile phones) sent by 51 out of the 100 Members of Parliament to His Majesty's mobile phones.
The Chief Justice of the Nigerian Supreme Court writes in his decision:
"We follow the very famous decision in this area called Nizar v Zambry, by the Malaysian Court of Appeal, which decided in 2009 that:
"There is no mandatory, express requirement that provides for a motion of no-confidence to be passed in the State Assembly against the Respondent before he ceases to command the confidence of the majority.
The fact that the Respondent has ceased to command the confidence of the majority may be ascertained through extraneous means."
This means that HM the King was entitled to gather the votes of the Members of Parliament by such 'extraneous means' as he thinks appropriate."
Surely, 'extraneous means' can include by SMS."
Before this decision, the Supreme Court of New Zealand has also decided in 2018 that the King of New Zealand could conclude that the Parliament of that country has passed a Bill to castrate all male followers of the Catholic faith found in the country, the 'extraneous means' here being voting by the use of emails to the King. The New Zealand court also based its decision on the famous decision of Nizar v Zambry, by the Malaysian Court of Appeal in 2009.
And before the New Zealand case, the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka has also decided in 2015 that the King of Sri Lanka could conclude that the Parliament of that country has passed a Bill to ban all television stations in the country who criticised the ruling party, the 'extraneous means' here being voting by the use of 'circular resolutions' which were signed by the Members of Parliament from the ruling party while they were on holidays in foreign beaches and casinos. Again, the same famous decision by the Malaysian Court of Appeal in 2009 was followed.
And before the Sri Lanka case, the Supreme Court of Finland has also decided in 2013 that the King of Finland could conclude that the Parliament of that country has passed a Bill to pay 100 members of the King's royal household as well as each Member of the Parliament USD10 million a year for life, after the King gathered 'extraneous evidence' of the wishes of the Members of Parliament by chatting with them by the poolside while they were all having a wet-t-shirt party at the Palace over the weekend. The King of Findland called it a "Vote at the Palace". Again, the same famous decision by the Malaysian Court of Appeal in 2009 was followed.
And before the Finland case, the Supreme Court of Singapore has also decided in 2011 that the Emperor of Singapore could conclude that the Parliament of that country has passed a Bill to amend the Constitution of Singapore to appoint Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong as the Emperor of Singapore and abolish the Parliament forever, after the Emperor gathered 'extraneous evidence' of the wishes of the Members of Parliament by talking to each of them while they were all locked up in the Singapore Prison after being arrested under the Internal Security Act of Singapore for suggesting in Parliament that it was time for Minister Mentor Lee Kwan Yew to "retire graciously and stop behaving like he is the Emperor." Again, the same famous decision by the Malaysian Court of Appeal in 2009 was followed.
The Chief Justice of the Nigerian Supreme Court writes in his decision:
"Relax lah, people. What's the big deal??
Look, if you can decide on whether to change the leader of a Government by just talking to the Members of the Legislative Assembly outside of the Assembly and in the Palace, just like they did it in Perak, Malaysia, in that very famous decision, then why can't you do it via SMS?? After all, HELLO, we are at 21st Century already, and we should embrace the latest technology of the 21st Century!
Don't you guys watch the American Idol?? From what I understand, you can elect the American Idol by sending SMS, right?? So why not the passing of a Parliamentary vote? I personally think that there would be nothing wrong if the President of the USA should be elected by SMS.
Come on, our Members of Parliament are so busy nowadays! So, they shouldn't have to come to the stupid Parliament House to pass laws or elect Prime Ministers all the time! After all, company directors are allowed to pass Board Resolutions by written circulars (just sign the damn paper!), so why not our Members of Parliament? They should be allowed to do it wherever they are, whenever they want - just like we are entitled to order takeaway Chinese food via SMS and mobile phones. Why not?!
To us in the Court, we just don't understand why we should even have a Parliament House anymore. Indeed, why the f**k do we need the Speaker for?? (Especially when His Majesty the King doesn't mind becoming the part-time Speaker to count the votes for us...) It's a complete waste of taxpayers' money."
Meanwhile, the other 49 Members of Parliament who insisted that all votes by the Parliament should be taken in the Parliament were labeled as "belonging to the 20th Century" by the Chief Justice. The leader of this group of 49 MPs, Mr Neezal, said:
"The Members of Parliament, as the People's Representatives, are elected by the People to transact business in the Parliament for and on behalf of the People - NOT the Palace. The Parliament House is where the Sovereignty of the People lies. Whatever they want to say, they must say it in this place so that the People can see and hear us. Ultimately, we are accountable to the People, and so we must do it before the People's eyes, NOT the King.
In the old days before we have Constitutional Monarchy, the King (Executive Branch of the Government) was of course very powerful. Even today, the Executive Branch still controls the guns - the Police, the Military. Everything was done in a very non-transparent manner. Now, we have the Parliament, at least what we do inside Parliament is open to the public and recorded in the Hansard. But things you do in the Palace could be secret.
For example, everything we say in the Parliament is immune from being sued in court, so that we can speak as the People's Representatives without fear or favour. When we vote, the People - such as my own constituency - can see what I voted for/against, and they know I did not vote because someone points a gun at my head.
Now, if we do it OUTSIDE of the Parliament House, how could we be sure what went on when the MPs sent their SMS?? Maybe they were being forced or blackmailed to send that kind of SMS to the King??
Whatever it is, I just don't understand why can't they do it in the Parliament House. How can the King behave as if His Majesty is the Speaker??"
Elsewhere, in the Netherlands, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands will decide next month whether Live TV footage of the shouting of the slogan "Down with the Spanish Armada!" by more than half of the Members of the Dutch Parliament attending the 2020 UEFA Champions League Semi-Finals (First leg) between Ajax Amsterdam and the Spanish Champions, Real Sociedad, in the Amsterdam Football Stadium last month, could be regarded by Her Majesty the Queen of Netherlands as "extraneous evidence" of a "Parliamentary Vote to Declare War on the Kingdom of Spain."
