Sovereignty is neither negotiable nor transferable 2

Sovereignty is neither negotiable nor transferable

Folk sovereignty never leaves the people; it is ever resident with the people. Sovereignty comes with tremendous authority but it is not the same thing as authority. Authority is an aspect of the manifestation of sovereignty, the supreme overlord. Sovereignty is never transferable. In fact in a republic, one of the primary difference between sovereignty and authority is that one can be delegated while the other is absolute. I make this distinction because one incompetent Shitnator, Abaribe claims that the people surrender their sovereign power to the Legislature; that the Legislature is sovereign. In a true democratic society this claim is criminal and treasonable, even military dictatorship cannot make this wild claim. How could he say that people transferred their sovereign to the Legislature? How could this be if the people still have the power to sack the Legislature, the government, anytime any day? Can one lose something and still have it? Abaribe either do not understand sovereignty or he is a dictator. How could people part ways with their sovereignty if they still and always have the power to sack any government any time any day? Sovereignty is like a crown, kings do not give up their crowns to their proxies; rather they impact them with authority. It is common sense, if the King gives his crown to one proxy how could he delegate the next proxy? As you know, the King can delegate and impact authority to as much proxies as he needs. The King is able to delegate and impact authorities to many of his subject because the crown is still with him. Once the crown leaves him the power to delegate or impact authority would be lost.

 Likewise, sovereignty never leaves the people. Mr Abaribe should do his home work or take his incompetence and go back to his village. If the outcome of the national conference requires the approval of the national assemble why waste money and time for national conference since the National assemble in itself is a national conference. Some of the problem with Nigeria can be found in the National assemble itself. Among these are the expensive bicameral legislature Nigeria is operating; the ridiculous but outlandish jumbo pay members of these bodies arrogate to themselves; the Hausa/Fulani overwhelming dominance in the National assemble orchestrated by Hausa/ Fulani military lead juntas, etc. How could the National Assemble implement the recommendations of the National conference if the conference recommends, unicameral legislature, cut in national assembly’s $1.164M humongous annual pays? How could national assembly with overwhelming Hausa/Fulani dominance accept a pure secular state devoid of sharia; accepts rotational presidency, fiscal federalism, and regionalism and parliamentary systems if the conference recommends these.

  I kind have supported Jonathan's Presidency because I had and still want to accord him benefit of doubt. If Jonathan truly believes that the recommendation of the conference will be subject to yeah and nay of the national assemble I suggest he call off the conference because the exercise will be act in futility. I tend not to agree with Tinubu but it seems he was absolutely correct when described the President’s conference as a Greek Gift, a Trojan horse from the president to Nigerians. Mr. President quit pontificating on sovereign conference, and take back your Trojan horse and shove it.