Category Archives: Federalism

The contention over the skewed federalism that the Nigerian state system is will have no end unless the clarion call for restructuring is achieved. The latest in the unending controversy over fiscal control of the state came from a Bill for an Act to amend the NDDC Act sponsored by Senator Olamilekan Adeola (APC, Lagos West), who argued disingenuously that while outlining the general principles of the bill, that Following the discovery of oil in Bauchi, Lagos and Ogun, these states have officially joined the league of oil-producing states in Nigeria following the discovery of crude oil in Alkaleri LGA, Bauchi; Badagry, Lagos, and Ipokia, Ogun StateBy virtue of this, the states are entitled to the 13 per cent derivation that is due to oil-producing states, according to the provision of Section 162 Sub-Section 2 of the Nigerian constitution. Fiscal autonomy is a core federal principle and is the nugget of controversy in a fissiparous state like Nigeria. This controversial bill has, however, passed the second reading and committed to a committee.

The Deputy Senate President Omo-Agege who in his response was forward-looking noted that, We look forward to the day when indeed all states in Nigeria will not only produce oil but produce one form of mineral resource or the otherWhat this lead debate clearly shows is that my colleague from Lagos is a classic meddlesome interloper. The NDDC is a regional development commission. We must draw a distinction between the NDDC and the oil and mineral producing commission. Advisedly, Senator Adeola was told to redirect his effort towards the creation of the South West Development Commission.

This current bill raises several questions: one, how much information do we have about the productivity of the new found oil that just before dawn, some busybodies are already clamouring for sharing of the cake as usual baked by nature? Has the omnibus Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) not addressed some of the points at issue? Is NDDC no longer a dedicated commission meant to address the specific problems of the Niger-Delta? Above all, is frivolity a legislative virtue?

About 2009, oil was said to have been discovered in large quantity in two different locations in Ogun State, namely, Ogun Waterside and Ipokia Local Government Areas. The exact reserve in this is not in the public domain; the Lagos find over which Yinka Folawiyo Petroleum Company Limited (YFP) commenced oil production in the Aje field located in block OML 113 offshore Lagos about 2016 goes beyond speculation. Although the output is not exactly, that claimed capacity for about 40, 000 barrels per day and a storage capacity of about 750,000 barrels. In the third quarter of 2019, NNPC announced that crude oil, gas, and condensates were discovered in the Kolmani River region at a border community between Bauchi and Gombe states climaxing what industry watchers described as over 40 years of exploration. The finding is plagued by opacity. The Minister of State for Petroleum Resources, Timipre Sylva, over a year ago, announced the discovery of about one billion barrels of crude oil in the North East, with a caveat that there was a need for more exploration in the area. In his words, From the evaluation results that we are getting, the reserve that has been discovered in the North East is about a billion barrels. Those are the kinds of figures that we are seeing and we are beginning to understand the geological structure of the region.

Excerpt from:

Federalism is the answer, after all - Part 57 | The Guardian Nigeria News - Nigeria and World News Opinion The Guardian Nigeria News Nigeria and...

Addis Ababa, November 23, 2021 (Walta) The formation of new regional states debunks the myth that the current federal government is anti-federalism, the President of Somali Regional State, Mustafa Mohammed said.

Formation of the new South West Ethiopia Regional State is taking place in Bonga town in attendance of delegates of the five zones and one special woreda incorporated in the regional government.

In a message posted on his Facebook page, Mustafa Mohammed congratulated the people of the South Western Ethiopia Regional State, established today.

This is the second regional state established after the reform. Last year, Sidama Regional State was established. The formation of new regional states debunks the myth that the current federal government is anti-federalism he noted.

It is to be recalled that a referendum was conducted on September 30 to form the South West Ethiopia People Regional state by combining Kaffa, Sheka, Bench Sheko, Dawuro, West Omo zones, and Konta special woreda.

Read more from the original source:

Formation of New Regional States Debunks Myth that the Current Gov't is anti-federalism - Mustafa Mohammed - - Walta Information Center

When the #EndSars protests engulfed Nigeria in late 2020, General Muhammadu Buhari demonstrated an appalling lack of understanding, empathy and foresight. In desperately ill health and busy with frequent visits to hospitals abroad, he handed over his responsibilities to an array of sycophants and shady characters who have no business with leadership.

Buharis initial stint as head of state was as a military general between 1983 and 1985 when he was deposed in a palace coup dtat by General Ibrahim Babangida and his cabal. Given his military antecedents, can Buhari be truly committed to the genuine federalisation of the Nigerian polity?

I would argue not. The military establishment is generally strictly hierarchical in nature and concepts and practices relating to the devolution of power are often problematic to entrench.

The over-centralisation of power became doubly evident during the nefarious reign of General Sani Abacha whose regime hanged the Ogoni nine in 1995. I conducted a series of studies on the Ogoni tragedy culminating in a book, Ken Saro-Wiwas Shadow (expanded edition): Politics, Nationalism and the Ogoni Protest Movement.

Indeed, Nigerias current political problems are simply too daunting to embark on an honest journey to true federalism at this stage. Federalism entails the sharing of political power between the central seat of government and other federating units within a polity. In this way, power, responsibilities and obligations are not solely imposed on the central government but shared with other regions or states (as in the case of the United States) of a nation.

The Nigerian military has toyed with the idea of federalism since the first putsch that installed Major-General Johnson Aguyi-Ironsi as head of state on 15 January 1966.

Since then a rash of military adventurers has held the country in thrall. It continued to claim that it was a federation when in fact there was a steady concentration of political power at the centre to the detriment of the federating units. These eventually rose to 36 states.

The article continues below

Free download

Get your free PDF: Top 200 banks 2019

The race to transform

Complete the form and download, for free, the highlights from The Africa Reports Exclusive Ranking of Africas top 200 banks from last year. Get your free PDF by completing the following form

Meanwhile, the federal seat of power became more arbitrary distant, unresponsive and insufferably corrupt and inefficient. The notions of nationhood and national interest are, at the best of times, inchoate and contentious. They have become more meaningless if not completely lost.

In June 2020, the US Council on Foreign Relations declared that Nigeria was on verge of state collapse. John Campbell and Robert Rotberg, both of Harvards Kennedy School of Government corroborate this view.

Nigerias unpoliced borders have been usurped by well-armed mercenaries, cattle rustlers and a bewildering assortment of jihadists, bandits and terrorists.

Meanwhile, the country bleeds. School children by the hundreds are captured frequently by terrorists who demand and receive millions in ransom. Since January 2021, well over 1,000 students have been kidnapped for ransom in Nigeria.

Ethnic tensions and agitations have reached fever pitch, lives are lost daily on the highways and farmlands at an alarming rate. Girls and women are routinely raped on the way to and from markets and farms by bandits. There is no security to be found anywhere. Militants in the Niger Delta led by the Niger Delta Avengers have destroyed oil installations.

The banned Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) movement has become re-vitalised. Largely inspired by the Biafran secessionist bid of 1967-70 it is led by the ex-fugitive Nnamdi Kanu. The Inspector-General of Police, Usman Baba has confirmed that the Eastern Security Network (ESN), the militant arm of the movement, is responsible for the deaths of 187 soldiers, police and paramilitary operatives.

Sunday Adeyemo, a currently exiled Yoruba freedom fighter, is fervently agitating for the creation of a Yoruba nation. He says there would be no elections in 2023. None of this began under Buharis leadership. But things have got worse under his leadership.

Buhari is the nominal leader of the Fulani, an ethnic group to be found in considerable numbers in virtually every West African country. He is alleged to have invited his ethnic kinfolk from across West Africa in 2015 to aid his presidential ambitions.

Such a case of ethnic particularism deflects the purpose of Nigerian nationhood. It also undermines the concepts of sovereignty, territoriality and ultimately, modernity. Buhari also has no understanding of the notion of true federalism.

He is pursuing a grand agenda of Fulanisation. As the nominal leader of the Fulani in West Africa, there has been an alarming influx of Fulanis from other West African nations.

The retreat into ethnic chauvinism has also meant an evisceration of the nation-state as a modernist project. Since it has become quite difficult to transform this dire state of affairs within Nigerian territory, there has been an expatriation of political struggles abroad as activists seek to pursue their causes outside the country.

The ban on Twitter, just as the brutal clampdown on anti-SARS protesters is an anti-people onslaught, a measure against digital democracy, an attack on the idea of freedom and finally, an act of feudalist terror.

Buharis desperation demonstrates him to be a Don Quixote. He is out-of-place, out-of-joint, irretrievably lost within a borderless technological universe that he does not understand.

With this sort of frame of mind, concepts such as federalism go out of the window. Indeed the immediate problems of political survival and dominance are far more pertinent than such highfalutin concepts.

Sanya Osha, Senior Research Fellow, Institute for Humanities in Africa, University of Cape Town

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Go here to read the rest:

Nigeria is a federation in name only, and Buhari is unable to change this - The Africa Report

The 29th meeting of the Southern Zonal Council held here on Sunday exhorted the need for strong Centre-State and inter-state relations in true spirit of federalism for propelling the countrys growth.

Union Home Minister Amit Shah, who chaired the four-hour-long meeting, said Prime Minister Narendra Modis vision too was co-operative and competitive federalism to achieve all-round growth in the country.

He said the Zonal Councils were able to successfully resolve many contentious issues among states despite being only advisory in nature.

''In the context of today's meeting, 40 out of 51 pending issues were resolved,'' Shah said in a tweet late in the night.

The ancient culture, traditions and languages of southern states enrich Indias culture and ancient legacy. Indias development cannot be imagined without the very important contribution of these states, the Home Minister remarked.

He said the Zonal Councils provided an opportunity for interaction at the highest level among members for resolution of contentious issues.

Chief Ministers of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Puducherry, Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy, Basavaraj Bommai and N Rangasamy respectively, attended the meeting while those of Tamil Nadu, Telangana and Kerala skipped.

Telangana Governor and Puducherry Lieutenant Governor Tamilisai Soundararajan, Lieutenant Governor of Andaman and Nicobar Islands Admiral D K Joshi, Administrator of Lakshadweep Islands Praful Khoda Patel attended.

Telangana Home Minister Mahmood Ali, Kerala Finance Minister K N Balagopal and Tamil Nadu Higher Education Minister K Ponmudi represented their states.

They raised issues concerning their respective states, with the AP CM making a strong pitch for granting special category status to the state.

Karnataka Chief Minister Basavaraj Bommai on Sunday stressed on strong Centre-State relations and good inter-state ties for the development of federal democracy.

At the same time, he asserted his state's rights on inter-state rivers like Cauvery, inter-linking of rivers and said Karnataka should get its rightful share in Cauvery, Krishna and Pennar river basins.

Puducherry Chief Minister N Rangasamy wanted the Centre to earmark at least Rs 1,500 crore as additional central assistance to the territorial government in next year's budget to compensate the loss in revenue over GST.

The Telangana government, represented by its Home Minister Mahmood Ali, said it was ready to sort out some pending issues with the AP government in an amicable manner through discussions.

Tamil Nadu government raised the issue of size and capacity of fishing boats to be used in the Indian Exclusive Economic Zone and the transfer of railway lands for Metro Rail projects while Kerala presented its case for prevention of antimicrobial resistance by regulating their use and prevention and control of non-communicable diseases.

SZC vice-chairman and host Jagan Mohan Reddy took up various pending issues related to the AP Reorganisation Act, 2014 and sought speedy resolution of issues with Telangana, with the intervention of the Centre.

Shah responded positively to this and directed the Central ministries concerned to prepare an action plan within a month for division of assets between AP and Telangana in accordance with the Act.

Summing up, the Home Minister asked the states to give top priority and address the menace of drugs and check their spread.

Chief Ministers should give priority to addressing the menace and spread of narcotics, as drug usage destroys the lives and potential of our youth, Shah said and also asked them to have zero tolerance to child sexual abuse cases as crimes against children were unacceptable.

The event ended with a dinner hosted by the AP Chief Minister to the visiting dignitaries.

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Read more here:

SZC: Better ties mooted in spirit of federalism - Devdiscourse

Terming the Centres decision to extend the extended the jurisdiction of the Border Security Force (BSF) in Punjab as an insult to the state police and gross violation of the spirit of federalism, the Punjab Assembly on Thursday adopted a resolution seeking the withdrawal of the Centres notification extending the BSF jurisdiction.

The House unanimously passed the resolution rejecting the Centres order in the absence of the only two Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) members of the state Assembly.

The Union government had last month amended the BSF Act to authorise the border guarding force to undertake search, seizure and arrest within a 50 kilometer ( km) stretch, up from the existing 15 km, from the international border in Punjab, West Bengal and Assam.

The resolution was moved by Punjab Deputy Chief Minister Sukhjinder Singh Randhawa. It said, Punjab is a land of martyrs and the brave. Punjabis have made exemplary sacrifices in our Countrys freedom struggle and later on in the wars of 1962, 1965, 1971 and 1999 Punjabis have received the highest number of Gallantry Awards in the Country. Punjab Police is a unique patriotic force which has contributed immensely in maintaining the unity and integrity of the country, it said.

The resolution said as per the Constitution of India, maintaining law and order is the responsibility of the state government and for this purpose, the government of Punjab is fully competent.

The decision of extending the jurisdiction of BSF from 15 km to 50 km by the Union government is an expression of distrust towards the state police and the people of Punjab. This is their insult too. The Union government should have consulted the state government before taking such a major decision. The law and order situation in Punjab is totally under control. and there is no need to extend the jurisdiction of BSF, it said.

The resolution said this is a gross violation of the spirit of federalism enshrined in the Constitution of India. Extending the jurisdiction of BSF is also symbolic of petty politics. All the political parties of Punjab have unanimously condemned this decision of the Union government and have demanded the Union government should withdraw notification,.

Randhawa termed the Centres notification on extending BSFs jurisdiction an? attack on the federal structure. He also said that the House members should meet Prime Minister Narendra Modi over the issue.

Akali leader Bikram Singh Majithia told the House that the Congress-led government in the state should pass a decision that the Punjab Police would not co-operate with the BSF beyond 15 km.

The rest is here:

Punjab Assembly passes resolution against Centres BSF order, calls it insult, violation of the spirit of fe - The Statesman

By Express News Service

TIRUPATI/BENGALURU: Many issues that have eluded solution for many years can be resolved if we work with the spirit of cooperation, Chief Minister Basavaraj Bommai said in his address at the 29th meeting of the Southern Zonal Council held in Tirupati on Sunday which was chaired by Union Home Minister Amit Shah.

It is inevitable for southern states to work with the true spirit of cooperative federalism as enunciated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi as the states are geographically interconnected. The states need to come together and work together, only then the country can develop, he added.

The Southern Zonal Council offered a good forum for resolving issues related to inter-state water sharing, transport connectivity, health etc in a spirit of consensus, he added. He raised several issues that needed coordination with other states. Karnataka has already conveyed its stand on river-linking projects in Godavari, Cauvery and other river basins to the Centre. Karnataka should get its share of surplus water in the Cauvery, Krishna and Pennar river basins, he said. He objected to Tamil Nadu taking up the Cauvery-Vaigai-Gundar link works even before the allocation of surplus waters to other states.

Centre must not approve TN water project: Bommai

Bommai said Tamil Nadus Cauvery-Vaigai-Gundar link works have no legal sanction and urged the Centre not to approve the project. He reiterated Karnatakas demand to the Centre not to accord legal clearance to major permanent irrigation projects taken up by neighbouring states in violation of verdicts of Water Disputes Tribunals.

Telangana has no right to take up the Palamaru Ranga Reddy and Nakkalagandi lift-irrigation projects from the Srisailam reservoir in Krishna basin to draw a large quantum of surplus water, Bommai said. He also opposed the construction of Rajiv Gandhi Sangam Banda barrage by Telangana. Such a permanent project to draw surplus waters would deprive Karnataka of its rightful share, he said, expressing Karnatakas readiness to take up a joint survey.

A joint survey should also be conducted on the impending submergence of villages in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh due to the construction of Gundravulu reservoir by Andhra Pradesh across Tungabhadra river. Andhra should share the details it has submitted to the Tribunal and clearances it has obtained from the Centre regarding the project, he demanded.

On sharing Krishna waters, he said Andhra and Telangana have no clearance for any projects other than the ones approved for utilising the already adjudicated quantum of waters. Bommai appealed for a speedy response on concluding an agreement with Telangana, Puducherry, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala on boosting interstate transport services.

He stressed the need for better coordination among home departments of southern states to effectively prevent and combat crime and strengthen communication networks in border areas. Karnataka is at the forefront of harnessing renewable energy sources. It is the only state which has met the targets set by the Centre. The Union government should remove inter-state tariff disparities in the interest of drawing investment, he added.

The state government has created a Core DBT (Direct Benefit Transfer) Forum to ascertain the identities of beneficiaries. In its budget, Karnataka has already announced linking all centrally sponsored schemes to the DBT Forum to prevent the use of fake documents and eliminate fake beneficiaries.

Excerpt from:

Karnataka CM Basavaraj Bommai to other states: Give us our share of water - The New Indian Express

Like the hyenas, Nigerian stakeholders are gathering in several conclaves across the country to bargain for a giant share of the wealth of the country, a by-product of the natural endowment of the peoples of the geo-political entity.

In the din of haggling the necessity for creating wealth and saving for the rainy days are the points at issue but the sharing of the already baked cake and getting the lion share without respectability and consideration of the sections of the geopolitical entity that are the source of the national cake.

This indication came from the North-west of the country as the Engr. Elias Mbam-led Revenue Mobilisation, Allocation and Fiscal Commission make the round of the country to perform its constitutional obligation of reviewing the extent controversial revenue allocation formula in the country as engrossed in the 1999 Constitution as amended.

Besides, the other day, Pan Niger Delta Forum (PANDEF), the apex South-South socio-cultural group, gave notice to the country that it would resist moves by a section of the country to aggrandise the resources emanating from the Niger-Delta region to itself.While demanding an upward review of the derivation allocation from its present 13 per cent to 50 per cent, it noted that other regions in the past enjoyed the reward of resources from their lands to the tune of about 50 per cent.This was expressed in the communiqu that was signed by Senator Emmanuel Ibok Essien, national chairman, Akwa Ibom State; Chief Thompson Okorotie, deputy national chairman, Bayelsa State; and Senator Bassey Ewa- Henshaw, PANDEF chairman, Cross Rivers State; Prof. Godini Darah, PANDEF chairman, Delta State, Dame Betty Igbeyi, PANDEF National Woman Leader, Edo State and Prof. B. B. Fakae, member, PANDEF BoT, Rivers State. According to the communiqu,when revenues from cocoa (in the West), groundnut (in the North), and Palm Produce and Coal (in the East) were the nations economic mainstay, derivation in the Revenue Allocation principle was not less than 50 per cent. And now derivation, as a revenue allocation principle, has been resolutely suppressed since crude oil became the countrys major revenue earner. As it disagreed with the sinister move by some members of the House of Representatives to expurgate the section on derivation, it reminded the Nigerians thatthe principle of derivation as encapsulated under the proviso to Section 162 (2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), was aimed at providing recompense to the producers of any natural resources for the expropriation and sequestration of their rights to control and manage same, by the Nigerian State.

More:

Federalism is the answer, after all - Part 54 Opinion The Guardian Nigeria News Nigeria and World News - Guardian Nigeria

Natalie Gomez-Velez, professor at City University of New York School of Law, discusses the oral arguments before the US Supreme Court on Texas' new abortion law and considers their implications for the constitutional system...

Last weeks US Supreme Court arguments in Whole Womens Health v. Jackson and US v. Texas challenging the Texas abortion ban revealed a startling vulnerability in the US system of federalism and constitutional supremacy. They laid bare that a states flagrantly unconstitutional six-week abortion ban, when structured to avoid effective judicial review, can flummox the Supreme Court while allowing the law to remain in effect for months. Such a state law scheme threatens not only constitutionally protected abortion rights, but potentially any constitutional right disfavored by any state legislature. The Justices know this. The Court must act now to stop this law and others like it.

The November 1, 2021 arguments focused not on the Texas bans unconstitutionality, but on whether and how abortion providers and the United States could sue to stop the law. Several Justices acknowledged that S.B. 8s unprecedented structure was designed specifically to avoid effective judicial review. Their questions revealed deep skepticism about the laws scheme to evade review of its unconstitutional six-week abortion ban. Such questions came from across the Courts ideological spectrum, including Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett (believed to favor narrowing or overturning abortion rights well-settled by almost fifty years of jurisprudence since Roe v. Wade), and Justices Sotomayor and Kagan (who consider the abortion right under Roe and its progeny settled precedent). Indeed, virtually all of the Justices questions indicated that they see the Texas laws fundamental structural problems. That should predict a ruling that one or both challenges to the law will go forward and perhaps succeed in striking down S.B. 8. The question is, why is the Court permitting the law to remain in effect while considering these questions, especially when it knows that the law fundamentally undermines the supremacy of the Courts own decisions.

The Justices misgivings stem from S.B. 8s unprecedented design to evade judicial review of its clearly unconstitutional bana design that could be used to attack other constitutional rights. There is no dispute that S.B. 8s six-week abortion ban is unconstitutional under current law. Yet Texas legislated private enforcement to thwart judicial review of this question by exploiting loopholes in existing state action state sovereign immunity doctrines that determine who is authorized to challenge the law and who may be sued to invalidate it. Unlike most state abortion restrictions S.B. 8 is enforceable indirectly through civil lawsuits by private citizens against anyone who performs, aids and abets or intends to participate in a prohibited abortion.

The law authorizes any private party to sue anyone who assists a banned abortion, win damages of not less than $10,000 for each abortion, and collect costs and attorneys fees. It allows virtually no affirmative defenses, affords no preclusive effect when defendants win, and denies costs to those wrongly targeted. This bounty hunter structure is designed specifically to shield the law from pre-enforcement reviewor any effective sweeping judicial reviewwhile chilling abortion access with threats of ruinous litigation carrying hefty statutory damages. In short, S.B. 8 is designed to impede abortion access through threats of costly ruinous litigation against anyone deemed to provide any kind of assistance, while limiting avenues to challenge the law and excising state actors who may be sued to invalidate the law.

The implications of S.B. 8s design extend well beyond abortion. That design, if replicated, threatens the entire constitutional structure of federal supremacy and judicial review. Justice Kagan went to the heart of the matter during the Whole Womens Health argument, noting:

[T]he entire point of this law, its purpose and its effect, is to find the chink in the armor of Ex parte Young, [which] set out a basic principle of how our government is supposed to work and how people can seek review of unconstitutional state laws[T]he fact that after, all these many years, some geniuses came up with a way to evade the commands of that decision, [and] the even broader principle that states are not to nullify federal constitutional rights and to say, oh, weve never seen this before, so we cant do anything about it I just dont understand the argument.

Justices Kavanaugh and Kagan pointed out that S.B. 8s structure could serve as a model to eviscerate other constitutional rights. Kavanaugh noted that S.B. 8s structure could easily become the model for suppression of other constitutional rights And it could be free speech rights. It could be free exercise of religion rights. It could be Second Amendment rights if this position is accepted here. Responding to Texass argument that a congressional remedy is needed to remedy the problem, Justice Kagan added isnt the point of a right that you dont have to ask Congress? Isnt the point of a right that it doesnt really matter what Congress thinks or what the majority of the American people think as to that right?

There appeared to be some differences in the Justices willingness to permit the USs case to proceed as compared with the case filed by private plaintiffs. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar made strong, compelling arguments about the need to protect the supremacy of federal constitutional law. However, some Justices expressed concern about permitting the United States to sue a state in equity, even for this purpose. For example, Chief Justice Roberts pressed Prelogar as to what limiting principle could be applied to broad equity suits by the federal government against the states. Prelogar responded that the limiting principle arises from the way this statute operates to try to deprive any meaningful review anywhere and again emphasized that such a suit to protect the supremacy of federal law would not open the floodgates for challenges involving ordinary state law private rights of action.

In both arguments, several Justices seemed to acknowledge that state law schemes like S.B. 8, if allowed, threaten other constitutional rights and severely undermine the constitutional order. The recognition of that threat begs the question why the Court has yet to enjoin S.B. 8. It recalls the Courts disconcerting rulings on September 1, 2021and October 22, 2021, declining to halt S.B. 8 pending resolution of the novel procedural questions presented by the laws design. Despite expedited consideration of these cases, the Courts continued failure to enjoin operation of a clearly unconstitutional law that daily causes irreparable harm significantly undermines fundamentals of the US constitutional structure, including the protection of individual rights, the Supremacy Clause, federalism, and judicial review. This is deeply problematic.

The Courts unwillingness to halt this unconstitutional law while reviewing its bizarre, evasive scheme undermines the rule of law as well as the Courts own legitimacy. As Justice Sotomayor correctly noted, every day the Court fails to grant relief is devastating, both for individual women and for our constitutional system as a whole. Even Chief Justice Roberts, dissenting from the Courts earlier refusal to halt S.B. 8, noted [t]he statutory scheme before the Court is not only unusual, but unprecedented, because [t]he legislature has imposed a prohibition on abortions after roughly six weeks, and then essentially delegated enforcement of that prohibition to the populace at large, with the desired consequence appear[ing] to be to insulate the State from responsibility for implementing and enforcing the regulatory regime. Yet the Court still has yet to enjoin S.B. 8.

The record related to these cases is replete with examples of the irreparable harm suffered by women, doctors, and others affected by S.B. 8. In the days and weeks since S.B. 8 became law, the harmful effects of its abortion ban and nightmarish vigilante enforcement structure have become increasingly evident. For example, as the Justice Departments brief notes, S.B. 8 has blocked nearly all abortions that otherwise would have been performed in the state. Many seeking abortion care have traveled, often hundreds of miles, to other states for care, in some cases overwhelming providers in Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico, and as far away as Nevada. This travel, along with waiting periods and other restrictions, delay abortion care, inviting medical complications and compounding anguish.

In addition, S.B. 8s bounty hunter provision not only works to diminish abortion access in Texas, but it also provokes harassment and profit-seeking well beyond Texas. As one report explains:

S.B. 8 invites lawsuits against anyone who performs or abets an abortion. That could mean an array of people and groups, including clinics and their employees, from doctors to receptionists; friends, relatives or strangers who pay for an abortion, including people who donate to or administer abortion funds; insurers that approve a claim; ride-share drivers who drive a patient to a clinic; and anyone who shares information about abortion options.

In short, S.B. 8s harmful effects extend well beyond Texas and impair far more than just abortion access. The questions raised during oral argument only strengthen the case for halting S.B. 8.

To the extent that the Court raised concerns about crafting an appropriate remedy, such concerns are addressed substantially in the District Court decisions. For example, US District Judge Robert Pittmans decision in US v. Texas provided a careful analysis addressing the USs standing to sue and the likelihood of success of its claims that S.B. 8 is unconstitutional, preempted by federal law, and violates intergovernmental immunity. As Solicitor General Prelogar noted at argument, Judge Pittmans decision offers a workable remedy. It enjoined Texas from implementing S.B. 8 and enforcing it in any manner, and identif[ied] all the various stages of the S.B. 8 enforcement proceedings where that injunction would [] operate to stop the threat of those enforcement actions that have chilled the exercise of the right.

In closing, Solicitor General Prelogar reminded the Court to:

think about the startling implications of Texass argument here Texass position is that no one can sue, not the women whose rights are most directly affected, not the providers who have been chilled in being able to provide those women with care, and not the United States in this suit. They say that federal courts just have no authority under existing law to provide any mechanism to redress that harm. And if that is true, if a state can just take this simple mechanism of taking its enforcement authority and giving it to the general public backed up with a bounty of $10,000 or $1 million, if they can do that then no constitutional right is safe. No constitutional decision from this Court is safe.

These arguments are compelling and implicate not only constitutionally protected abortion rights, but the very constitutional structure. The Justices questions during oral argument seem to signal that the Court will permit at least one, if not both challenges to proceed.

Yet the Courts failure to enjoin S.B. 8 while the cases are pending remains alarming. Permitting flagrantly unconstitutional action to go unchecked by cynical state legislative sleight of hand threatens much more than the constitutional right to abortion. It threatens the very character of US constitutional governance and the rule of law. It also threatens the Supreme Courts legitimacy, which is already in doubt.

Natalie Gomez-Velez is a professor of law at City University of New York School of Law and the director of the Center on Latinx Rights and Equality.

Suggested citation: Natalie Gomez-Velez, SCOTUS Skepticism and the Texas Abortion Law, JURIST Academic Commentary, November 8, 2021, https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2021/11/natalie-gomez-velez-supreme-court-abortion-ban-arguments/.

This article was prepared for publication by Katherine Gemmingen, Commentary Co-Managing Editor. Please direct any questions or comments to her at commentary@jurist.org

Opinions expressed in JURIST Commentary are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST's editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.

The rest is here:

SCOTUS Skepticism and the Texas Abortion Law - JURIST - Commentary - Legal News & Commentary - JURIST

Supreme Courts disapproval of states withdrawing general consent to probe cases for CBI brings into focus the distrust between Centre and states. A number of opposition ruled states had withdrawn the general consent that allows CBI to investigate cases in their jurisdiction. Unlike the CBI which is constrained by the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act to seek consent from state governments, other premier central investigating agencies like NIA arent hamstrung by such a requirement.

Despite states withdrawing general consent, on a number of occasions high courts and Supreme Court have overridden the frivolous objections of state governments to order CBI inquires. At the root of the problem is the perception among opposition politicians that the Centre can force CBI to do its bidding in cases with political implications. The opposition has raised the argument that it is only politicians in their ranks who face action from central agencies.

Read also: States withdrawing consent to CBI not desirable position: SC

It remains to be seen how SC will address this issue. In the past, it had termed the CBI a caged parrot. The breakdown of federalism is a worrying development. Strong federal agencies are in national interest because big crimes often straddle state and national borders and state agencies may not have resources or jurisdiction to thwart such offences. It is in Indias interest to spare CBI from political meddling. But how to achieve this end remains the big question.

END OF ARTICLE

See the original post here:

National interest demands a strong, impartial CBI. The loss of trust in the agency among opposition ruled stat - The Times of India Blog

.

The Pan Yoruba Socio-Political group, Afenifere has asked President Muhammadu Buhari to stop dissipating energy on hunting advocates for true federalism or self-determination.

Rather, the government according to its National Publicity Secretary, Jare Ajayi in an exclusive chat with Vanguard should concentrate on putting a stop to banditry and terrorism.

Ajayi who was reacting to the Presidents declaration that the government has discovered sponsors of Sunday Igboho and Nnamdi Kanu said that Afenifere felt that the government should concentrate on putting a stop to banditry and terrorism rather than dissipating energy on hunting those who are advocating for true federalism or self-determination.

The phenomenon of Sunday Igboho and Nnamdi Kanu in terms of desiring their own nations came about as a result of the failure of the Nigerian state to cater adequately for Nigerians.

if the insecurity and social dislocation in the country are brought to an end, the agitation for separate nations will fizzle out.

Commenting on the 61-year anniversary speech of the President, the group spokesperson said that government should face reality and tackle the challenges facing the country.

Ajayi noted that the the picture painted by President Buhari of the Nigeria situation was at variance with what is on the ground.

The presidents claim that a lot has been achieved in the last six years in infrastructure, social care, governance, Nigerias image and influence in Africa and the international community is against the reality on the ground.

There has never been a time in the annals of modern Nigeria that the countrys infrastructure was this decadent, social care near-absent and the image of the country was so battered.

Indeed, the difference between now and in the days of the late Sani Abacha was that the head of state then was wearing Khaki while the present head of government wears a civilian dress and there are democratic institutions like the legislature that were absent then.

In terms of the countrys influence in Africa, how many countries in Africa now respect Nigeria going by the inhuman treatments Nigerians are subjected to in different parts of the world including Africa these days?

Also Read:

Afenifere spokesman also called on the president to be more sincere and live up to his words that his administration will listen to the people.

Quoting President Buhari where he said that We shall continue to serve the country: listen to all and protect our democracy and country, Ajayi said that there are many instances in which the Buhari-led government has shown that the people did not matter.

Some instances that can be immediately cited were various court judgments that the government spurned once these judgments are not in its favour, various agreements it reached with trade unions and it failed to honour and government policies that the people kicked against but the government went ahead or tried to go ahead to impose them.

According to Ajayi, the greatest area in which the government has failed in recent times is in the area of security.

Whatever infrastructure government put in place, it is only those who are alive and in good condition that can enjoy these things. But how can those who have been killed, kidnapped or maimed by terrorists enjoy those infrastructures the president is thrilled to say that his government is putting in place?.

Afenifere asked President Buhari to do away with impunity, nepotism, be more sincere in its tackling of security challenges in the country and above all, allow restructuring to take place so that peoples of Nigeria can sit down and decide on the modality for their continued staying together in a United Nigeria that is truly federal.

Vanguard News Nigeria

Read more from the original source:

Leave advocates of true federalism, self-determination alone; face banditry, terrorism, Afenifere tells Buhari - Vanguard