Thank you. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 6439, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the bureau. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to say so. I would ask Joe Fitzpatrick to move the motion. Formally moved. Thank you very much. No one is asked to speak against it. Therefore the question is that motion 6439 be agreed. Sorry, 6349. Motion 6349 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next item of business is consideration of motion 6357, also in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the bureau. This is sitting at a timetable for the railway policing bill at stage 3 later this afternoon. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to say so now. I would call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move the motion. Moved. Thank you very much. No member has asked to speak against the motion. The question is that motion 6357 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next item of business is topical questions. We start with question number one from Jamie Greene. To ask the Scottish Government what assistance it will provide to workers in Scotland who might lose their jobs as a result of RBS moving hundreds of jobs to India. Cabinet Secretary, Keith Brown. Presiding Officer, I want to start by saying how very concerned I am by this news from RBS and, of course, the impact that it will have on staff. I am also extremely disappointed and perturbed by the total lack of action to stop this by the UK Government, who are the majority shareholder in RBS. As soon as I heard the news, I asked my officials to speak to RBS to clarify the position and its likely impact in Scotland. We have been informed that RBS will do everything it can to support those affected and we will look to see positive action being taken, including redeployment into new roles where that is possible. It is very unhelpful that the UK Government appears to be allowing those job losses to take place and work to be transferred outwith the UK purely to save costs without any consideration of the financial impact on employees and their families. The Scottish Government will do everything we can to provide support and help to those affected in Scotland by job losses through the finance sector jobs task force and, if required, our initiative for responding to redundancy situations, the partnership action for continuing employment to pace. Jamie Greene I thank the cabinet secretary, at least for some of that response. I think that it is also important to note the context of those losses, of the total jobs being relocated to India, 59 of them will be lost in Scotland. Given that RBS employ over 10,500 people in Scotland and is quite a substantial Scottish employer and given that it is a part publicly on bank and has a mandate to reduce its operating costs, can I ask the cabinet secretary what contact the Scottish Government has had with RBS concerning its restructuring to help this bank to minimise any redundancies that it has had to make, while, at the same time, helping it to meet its streamlined objectives? We have had, in response to the member's question, very good discussions. In fact, it has been the feature of those that we have regular meetings through different forums in terms of the financial sector in Scotland. We have also had specific contact with RBS who have been very good at advising us in advance of major developments and, of course, in RBS, there are some very substantial developments in relation to what they went through during the recession. However, there was no contact made in relation to this development, which I think is very unfortunate. However, just to say to the member that this is a majority-owned bank and a majority ownership with the UK Government. We were told, of course, that we had to, in 2014, vote no to save those jobs. That was the cry from the Tory party. I think that I would expect to see, certainly elsewhere, Tory members of Parliament raising the issue with the people that have the big decision to make here, the UK Government. It may well be the case that, apart from arguing against Scotland's interests and not getting its fair share in terms of the deal with the DUP—not speaking up at all for Scotland—now we have a situation where I expect that we will see no representations from Tory MPs to the UK Government, who have a major responsibility here. It is not so much that we have a baker's dozen at Westminster, but we have a balker's dozen where they do not stand up for Scotland. Perhaps, if they did that, more than having a go at the Scottish Government, we could have saved those jobs. Jamie Greene It is rather unfortunate that the cabinet secretary has chosen to politicise this very important question about jobs in Scotland. What this Government is doing to help people to be made redundant is still no answer to the question. What is this Government doing to help people who have been made redundant is absolutely nothing. Moreover, this is not the first time that a large company has off-shore back-office functions to India and other places like that. This is an ever-growing global workplace, and the virtual services market is becoming increasingly international. Therefore, what is this Scottish Government doing to ensure that our Scottish workforce is adequately skilled to meet the demands of a changing marketplace? Cabinet secretary. Of course, if you care to check the official report, you will see who the first was to politicise the issue, and that was Jamie Greene. However, if you checked the official report, you just said that I did not answer what you intend to do. It is here in my first response. We will provide support to those affected in Scotland by job losses through the finance sector jobs task force, and, if required, through the partnership for action for continuing employment, I said that in my first response. I have to say that those responses, in particular pace, have been extremely effective in making sure that those who lose their jobs in these circumstances can be redeployed or find new continuing employment. That is the purpose of them. I have responded twice to Jamie Greene on what the Scottish Government will do. It would be good if we had some clarity as to what the Tories will do, whether they will raise this on Westminster or sit there meekly and accept the fate for what Jamie Greene rightly says is 59 individual employees and their families. Is it not about time that the Tories started to speak up for people like that? Cabinet Secretary, I agree that, after £45 billion of taxpayer's money has been spent propping up RBS, it is adding insult to injury that the UK Tory DUP Government is standing idly by while 443 jobs are being shipped to India. At a time when Brexit was meant to bring jobs and investment to the UK, he was also shocked that Tory DUP MSP Jamie Greene seems not to care that it is only 59 jobs on Scotland. Does he share my view that every single job lost is a job that Scotland should not lose? I would be careful about how we refer to other members in the chamber. I very much agree that the point that Kenny Gibson makes is that every single job is absolutely critical to the individual that holds a job and usually to the families that will depend on that job. Their life chances are being jeopardised by that decision. It is possible, of course, that it is possible, for the majority shareholder of the UK Government to step in in this circumstance. We would also say that, rather than getting involved in Brexit and deals and bunks and whatever else, if they concentrated on the day job of keeping people in work, we would all have a better situation in terms of employment in Scotland. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the Treasury regarding any additional funding for Scotland arising from the agreement between the Conservative and Democratic Unionist parties. I spoke with the chief secretary to the Treasury on 21 June and raised concerns about the potential financial implications for Scotland of the DUP deal that was being negotiated. I was given no detail on the negotiations and no reassurances whatsoever from the chief secretary of the Treasury about the potential funding impact. I followed up that conversation with a letter where I repeated my concerns about the potential implications of the deal but have not yet received any response. Following the announcement yesterday, the Deputy First Minister spoke to the Secretary of State for Scotland and he has agreed to take Mr Swinney's concerns to HM Treasury. I have also written today to the chief secretary seeking an urgent meeting to discuss the situation jointly with the Welsh Finance Minister, and I have highlighted that, if the matter cannot be resolved with HM Treasury, we will invoke formal dispute resolution proceedings to ensure that the matter is resolved. The UK Government's deal prioritises expenditure in Northern Ireland at a cost of all other parts of the UK, and if Scotland leaves almost £3 billion worse off, it would be if funding had been allocated using the well-established arrangements that are set out in the statement of funding policy. Lewis MacDonald I very much on ministers should indeed pursue any reasonable means to improve the position of our public services. It is right to test the basis for this billion-pound bung and its implications for the Scottish budget. It would appear that Theresa May has agreed to bring an end to austerity in Northern Ireland but only in order to continue imposing austerity on the rest of the United Kingdom. Does the cabinet secretary agree that this deal demonstrates that austerity is a political choice, not an economic necessity? If he agrees, then what new policies can we expect from the Scottish Government to end austerity here, too? I agree with Lewis MacDonald on the position around the alternative to austerity, and over the course of the general election in Scotland, the SNP put forward an alternative to austerity. The UK Government has clearly overlooked that in this grubby deal with the DUP for Northern Ireland, and we do not grudge Northern Ireland a penny. We just want fairness for every other part of the UK and not least Scotland. It is remarkable that the Conservatives find this a laughing matter, ripping off Scotland to the tune of £2.9 billion. That is a rip-off at the hands of the Scottish Conservatives, who seem to have lost their voice in that matter. The spending areas for additional funding for Northern Ireland are devolved areas—infrastructure, health, including mental health, education, broadband and deprivation—all within the scope of Barnett. A clear breach of the statement of funding policy undermining devolution and undermining that deal that we had across the devolved Administrations. That is why I have taken this issue up in the way that I have, and I will work with the Welsh Administration to pursue it as well. I have seen the excuse from the Conservative Party that this is about city deals, and that was the equivalence of Scotland. Of course, we know the reality in Scotland that this funding package is in addition to city deals for Northern Ireland. That is a rip-off for Scotland. The Tories did not take them long to settle down in Westminster and sell out Scotland. Lewis Macdonald Thank you very much. The Prime Minister has been fond of telling voters in Scotland, England and Wales that there is no magic money tree and there could be no increase in one budget without a cut in another. That is the sterile politics of austerity, but can the cabinet secretary tell us from the conversations that he and Mr Swinney have had if there is any indication from UK Government ministers which budget will be cut by £1 billion to fund Mrs May's deal with the DUP? John Swinney The UK Government has given no explanation whatsoever on how that will be funded. It certainly has not responded to my letter. It gave no explanation when I contacted the chief secretary to the Treasury. I find it somewhat difficult to believe that the chief secretary was unaware of the details of that negotiation when it was under way. However, it looked as if the rest of the UK will be paying the price, including Scotland, for this grubby deal for Northern Ireland. It promised transparency, so let us see what figures come out of that and what explanation comes out of it. In terms of transparency, we did get one piece of transparency. It feels like daylight robbery from Tory MPs who have admitted that that deal was simply about staying in government. Ivan McKee Thank you, Presiding Officer. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that this May DUP deal raises serious questions for Scottish Secretary David Mundell, who said a day before that deal was announced that he would not support funding that is deliberately sought to subvert the Barnett rules? Cabinet Secretary? Yes, I do agree with that. He also went on to say in a separate interview, I am not going to agree to anything that could be construed as backdoor funding to Northern Ireland. Now, as the secretary of state, is he irrelevant? Is he irresponsible? Is he ill-informed? Or, at the moment, he is in communicado failing to explain his position on this matter. However, it is important to point out the breach of rules. It is clear in paragraph 2.15 of the statement of funding policy that the assessment of whether a programme is unique at a UK level and, thus, outside the Barnett arrangements, should be exceptional and that any such assessment should be evidence-based, be undertaken in a timely manner and be considered by Treasury ministers and their counterparts in the devolved Administrations to ensure that all viewpoints are understood before final decisions are taken. Scotland and Wales have been overlooked in this grubby deal with the DUP. Murdo Fraser. Presiding Officer, if the cabinet secretary wants to see a grubby deal, all he has to do is look at the Green Party benches behind him. Given the Scottish Government's new-found enthusiasm for the Barnett formula, can the cabinet secretary give me a very simple answer to that question? Is it still the policy of the Scottish Government to pursue full fiscal autonomy for Scotland? SNP MSPs and SNP MPs will always try to get the best deal for Scotland. I heard Ross Thompson this morning on GMS, the new spokesperson for the Conservatives Party in the absence of the Secretary of State. He was delighted with the deal that he got, which was a wee nudge in the ribs of the Chancellor while selling Scotland down the river to the tune of £2.9 billion. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I can say how delighted I am that Murdo Fraser is still annoyed that we reversed cuts to local government services in Scotland and cancelled the proposed tax cut to high earners. However, the UK Government deal, the Conservative DUP deal, is clearly a breach of trust with the principle that resources are allocated according to need. In that case, it is only the need of the Prime Minister for what she needs to cling on to her job. It undermines the ability of the UK Government to be an impartial party between the different sides in the debate in Northern Ireland about its devolution future. It undermines also its ability to treat fairly all devolved Parliament's assemblies and Governments within the islands. Does the Scottish Government agree that that must not, however, undermine the trust and solidarity between the people of Scotland and Northern Ireland, and that, just as the Scottish Government has agreed that same-sex couples are entitled to come here to convert civil partnerships into marriage, we should also ensure that women who need to access abortion from Northern Ireland are able to access the NHS on the same basis as any other citizen? I will be generous to Patrick Harvie. He is clearly a better negotiator than all 13 Tory MPs put together. However, I agree with that very sensible point. I happen to think that the peace process is also a very serious matter, and that is why I made the point that we do not begrudge Northern Ireland a penny. We just want fairness and financial justice for every part of the UK and, of course, Scotland. In terms of that process, we wish them well. We hope that the interventions can be taken in the light of a constructive engagement. I say again that this is about fairness and applying the rules that we have established, not trying to disadvantage any part of the UK. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to ensure that inpatient paediatric services are permanently available at St John's hospital in Livingston. Cabinet Secretary Shona Robison Due to concerns over maintaining a safe and sustainable rotor for the paediatric service at St John's hospital, NHS Lothian has reluctantly taken a decision based on a risk management assessment to implement a temporary model of service, which means that, from 7 July, its paediatric inpatient ward will open between 8 am and 8 pm Monday to Friday. The board considers that staffing levels are fragile and remain at risk, such as there may be no backup available should a member of the medical staff be absent at short notice, for example if they fall ill. NHS Lothian has engaged with clinicians on building resilience into the rotor. However, the board's position is that there is a risk of unplanned closure of the ward at short notice, causing confusion for parents and staff and possible delays to emergency care. The board chief executive, supported by the medical director, have reiterated the decision to implement the temporary model that was taken in the best interest and safety of children and their families. NHS Lothian has confirmed that its aim is to return to a full service as soon as possible after the summer. Alison Johnstone Thank you. Although NHS Lothian is committed to reinstating the service as soon as possible over the summer, it is not acceptable for patients and their families to be faced with an indefinite period of closure—a closure that results in increased accommodation costs, increased travel costs and additional stress. What assessment has been made of the needs of those patients and their families? What assessment has been made of the impact on the Royal hospital for sick kids in Edinburgh? Around 1,000 pediatrics patients are admitted to St John's every year, and that closure will put pressure on staff in Edinburgh, too. Alison Johnstone makes important points. The action by the board over the coming weeks includes further engagement with the Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health to ensure that we can get the service back up into a sustainable model. The involvement of staff both at St John's and indeed at the sick kids is going to be very important as that work is taking forward. The medical director has confirmed that St John's consultants are going to have a central role in the consideration of possible solutions arrangements that are in hand to start the dialogue as soon as possible. We will also, in the Scottish Government, continue to support NHS Lothian to ensure that the services on offer at the inpatient pediatric ward remain safe and sustainable in the long-term, and communication with the public and the parents who are using the service is going to be a critical part of that. Alison Johnstone, I am concerned—I am sure that we all are—that we are not seeing increases to whole-time equivalent pediatric consultant numbers. Between March 2016 and March this year, there has been a 4.2 per cent decrease in whole-time equivalent pediatric consultants. Can the cabinet secretary tell us when the Scottish Government intends to publish its national health and social care workforce plan? We have been promised this. We were expecting a draft national health care workforce plan by the end of 2016, with plans published this year. So far, all we have had is a discussion document, and I think that this issue is key to the need for such progress in this matter. I can tell Alison Johnstone that the workforce plan will be published tomorrow, and I am happy to have further engagement with her and other members around that. I should also tell Alison Johnstone that the model that was based on the model agreed with the Royal College of Pediatricians and Children's Health has seen a total of six applicants have been accepted to those posts. Five are now post-working between the sick kids and St John's, because those were joint appointments. Progress has been made in moving forward with those appointments, but that does not take away from the fragility of the rotas over the summer, and that means that safety has to come first in taking this decision.


You're still watching Waze, as you already know, we'll just go right into the conversation around the labor crisis, the labor party crisis that is going on and how we can rise above the challenges. Of course, we've seen so many things happening and how do I even explain it? There's a fraction, there's another fraction, there's so many things happening. So we want to ask ourselves, first of all, what the problem is, would there be an inauguration and if there would be any inauguration, what would it look like given that there is a pending case in court? So I think that's about it. According to a news source, the Labor Party Chairman, LaMedia Papa and the Director General of Peter Obis Presidential Campaign Council, Akin Oshun Tokon, clashed at the appeal court on Wednesday and the Labor Party has been immersed in leadership torso with Papa getting a court ruling last week as acting chairman pending the determination of the party's leadership lawsuit by a federal high court. Now, immediately after the ruling, Papa directed the party lawyers at the election tribunal to report to him. Now, Papa issued this directive on Friday while he also said that he is now in charge of Labor Party because the court affirmed his position as the acting chairman on the same day. Now, with inauguration just a few days away, we're asking the impact it will have on the tribunal and of course on the inauguration as well. Now, please, let's hear what you have to say. Remember, you can join the conversation, send us an SMS or WhatsApp to ZOE 1, 803-4663, and also to the others at Weshaw Afqa on the hashtag Weshaw. So Noma and Dil, I'm going to bring in David in a minute. I just want to hear your thoughts because Mia, in all fairness, I've been seeing the drama. I just got, I think I'm like one of those many ideas that I'm really tired because first of all, I really don't trust the, what's it called, the judicial system in this country. I don't even know what is going on so I may be wary to even follow up on what is happening. All of a sudden there's a fraction, there's this, there's that. I just feel like it's just too many things going on. So I just, you know, just keep my sanity. I just, you know, took myself out of that.  Are you guys monitoring? What are your thoughts on it? Noma, are you there? Okay, so if... Oh, that is going first. Okay. I thought I was talking to myself. Go ahead. Okay, no. I'm with you all the way.  I mean, it's just some drama. Every day comes with a new drama, but I mean, you mentioned something about will an inauguration happen, you know, with all the tribunal issues and all that going on. I remember that in one of the episodes, as part of what's enough is enough is doing, you know, we had spoken about, you know, the court's ruling within 180 days. So, I mean, with all of this, it just goes to... I mean, it goes to show that there is still a time gap of 180 days. And within 180 days, a lot of things can happen. Does this mean that... I mean, until the court gives the verdict, I'm not sure that anyone can stop the inauguration from happening, especially because I'm not sure that there's a provision for a lacuna, you know, in the government. It's not constitutional to have an interim government, you know. So, either way, they will probably still swear the inauguration will probably still happen, except, you know, something happens between now and Friday, you know, before the inauguration. And again, this is Nigeria where anybody, anything happens. You just wake up and you hear one news or the other. You wake up at 3 a.m. and they've announced to Electoral results. You know, this is Nigeria. Absolutely. I'm not really... Today, I mean, I just thought the news and I was just like, OK, what's it again? OK, whatever. You know. OK, let me hear your thoughts on what they are bringing, David. Nigeria, Nigeria, my country, Nigeria. It's been drama after drama after drama. And for me, I think I will speak from the perspective of the Nigerian citizens who are already tired. There is a crisis of confidence that it's even where we saw some level of hope. It's seeming like chaos has even come into that situation as well. So it's like you're moving from... It's like we're between the devil and the deep blue sea. And you can't help but wonder if truly there is a way forward for us as a country if we cannot put aside our selfish interests as opposed to looking at the greater good of the Nigerian citizens. So all of this has been... I mean, it's making Nigerians to really lose confidence in the country being able to move forward. And there's a huge cause for concern for the future because if this rank continues, then it seems like even the inauguration might be under some form of threat. And it's also putting us in a very bad position as a nation towards the world. At the end of the day, anything can happen when there's a certain level of uncertainty that continues to proceed over the affairs of our country. And it's something that we need to tackle as quickly as possible before we find ourselves in even worse state. Okay, so let me bring in David. David is a friend of the house, right? And he's an investigative journalist and the 2023 Distinguished James Curry Fellow at the University of Cambridge Centre of African Studies. He's a broadcaster whose work has appeared on CNN, the Africa Report, AI Al Jazeera, and the Washington Post. His work as a satireist on the other news, Nigeria's Answer to Daily Show has featured in the New Yorker magazine and in Netflix documentary Larry Chow's Dangerous World of Comedy. Now, he's joined us via Zoom. Thank you so much, David, for joining us this evening. Thank you for having me. All right, David, you see this matai? As I am like this, I am tired, I am drained and I believe that I am like many, amongst many Nigerians. You know, when the issues around the elections came up and they say go to court, I think a lot of us just lost hope. And it seems like with all the drama happening, it's just playing out what exactly our affairs were as, you know, when it was announced at the first instant that, okay, they will take all the matters to court. Now, two things are playing out in my head. There's an inauguration coming up on the 29th of May, right? And there's one kind of an ending crisis that just erupted from nowhere in the Labour Party. You know, how would this plan out? How would it affect anything if at all, if there's going to be any, like, maybe impact? What would it look like? The Labour crisis, the Labour Party crisis is happening, you know, and, you know, Jack, suppose that with the inauguration that is happening or put it along that. What's the updates? So, first of all, I think I need to clear up the impression that there is a quote-unquote crisis going on in the Labour Party. There is no crisis going on in the Labour Party. What is happening is an externally instigated attempt to distract the people who are pushing the petition cases at the various tribunals because it's not just the presidential election tribunal, they're also governorship tribunals such as the one in Lagos. So, it's an externally instigated attempt to distract the attention of the principal officers of the party, especially the presidential candidates and the party chairman from carrying out their functions. And with the verdicts from the high courts, I think it was today's Wednesday. Monday. Monday, sorry. With the verdict last week, I think that should have been cleared up. So, that's as far as that goes. The entire idea that there was a crisis was a completely contrived external idea and it's important that people understand that if the Nigerian youth, as we like to call them, were trying to take on a deeply entrenched system which has existed for decades and which has never really been challenged to this extent before, there was always going to be something like this. The system was never really just going to sit down and fold its hands and watch you basically take this sort of unheard of no-name party from total no-hopper, total rank outsider to front-runner in the space of nine months and not try to do something to derail it. This was always going to happen. So, for the fact that the Labour Party has actually withstood these attempts for the most part to try and scatter these things, I mean, I guess that tells the story on its own. Yes, they have been the so-called, I think it was the high court in Kano that supposedly issued some kangaroo judgment, supposedly sacking all Labour Party candidates in the elections. And what people need to understand is that when you are dealing with the Nigerian judicial system, people can shop for verdicts, people can shop for orders. From any part of the state, yes, around this country. People do that. So, it doesn't mean that it's valid, it doesn't mean that it's going to stand. The simple thing that's going to happen is somebody simply going to appeal and say, you don't have jurisdiction and that's what's going to happen. So, people shop for friendly judges and friendly jurisdictions across Nigeria all the time to get all sorts of kangaroo judgements. It's a thing. So, people don't need to sort of take that to the head. It doesn't really mean anything. Now, regarding the petition itself or the extant cases, because it's not just the petitions, there are several cases that I know of at least five other individual cases which are in front of the high courts, the appeal courts and supreme courts. What I believe is, one of the earlier panelists said something about it being unconstitutional for there to be an interim government. Yes, but the constitution also makes a provision for what should happen in a case like this, assuming a supposed president elect is actually not sworn in. The constitution makes it clear that the person who is next in line to be sworn in is a senate president. So, there is a constitutional allowance for that. So, then obviously, either fresh elections would need to be held or the tribunal or the supreme courts would have to declare a winner and then that person would then assume office. But for the time being, the senate president would be sworn in as head of state if such a situation were to happen. So, it's not as if there's a complete constitutional vacuum there. There is some provision that has been made. So, I think it's important to make these points because some people from the ruling party are trying to sell the narrative that somehow if Bola Mehtimu is not sworn in next week then Nigeria is going to descend into chaos. That's completely nonsense. That's not true. Nigeria has existed long before Bola Mehtimu was alive and she'll be around long after he has gone. Okay, you know what? Let's just go out on a very short break when we come back from the break. I'd like to discuss this now because I saw a post. I don't know who now, who gave up, but I think it's either the army or something.  I want to understand what is going on. Is there a planned protest or whatever that is happening? But we'll take that after the break. Stay with us. Alright, thanks for staying with us. Now, if you just tuned in, we're discussing the tribunals slash the Labour Party crisis even though David says it's not a crisis and its impact on the inauguration that is going to happen on the 29th of May and we have with us David Houdain. Now, please let's hear what you have to say. Remember, you can join the conversation, send us an SMS or WhatsApp to<PHONE_NUMBER>. We see that we have a lot of viewers on YouTube. You can also leave your message there. We'll take your messages. So, David, before I went on a break I just mentioned two things. I saw a communique, like a WhatsApp message that was forwarded from a very reliable source talking about a protest in Abuja. And of course, again, I saw the... I think it's the military chief of staff or something that said something around do not come into Abuja if you have no business in Abuja and all of that almost like threatening people that if you come there whatever you see, you take it like that. Do you know anything about that? Is there really a planned protest coming up? So, the person you're referring to who put out that statement is actually Bashir Ahmad who happens to be a presidential spokesperson. And what I would say to that is look, anybody can put out any statement saying anything but at the end of the day Nigeria is ruled by a constitution not by individuals. So, regardless of what anyone's opinion or what anyone's express position is on anything what is important is what does the constitution say? Whether people are planning to have a protest on the 29th of May or not is completely beside the points because the real point of the matter is constitutionally, you literally cannot forbid people from coming out to do anything. It is stated very clearly in the constitution that one of the fundamental the constitutionally guaranteed rights that are available to Nigerian citizens freedom of movement, freedom of association. So, if people decide as far as I know there hasn't been any sort of concrete plan to do any such thing yet but if people were to so decide of their own volition to come out en masse and carry out some sort of protest action on the 29th of May well, the Nigerian constitution guarantees their right to do so so I don't think what Bashir Ahmad has to say outweighs what the Nigerian constitution has to say so I think at this point it's important to start facing some of these people down because I think they've got away with such things for eight years like you know that thing that we used to call government by decree during the military era and somebody just wakes up and just issues a statement and that statement just sort of becomes a de facto law you know by government fiat that's not how democracy works we're not on that military dictatorship here we're supposedly ruled by democratic constitution we're supposedly an electoral democracy there are institutions, there's separation of powers there are levels and tiers of government so even if for maybe for some security reasons or something you know it wasn't going to be desirable for there to be some mass gathering or whatever it's not Bashir Ahmad who's going to come out and tell anybody that his job is not his place he doesn't have the power to say such a thing okay ladies wow maybe some of the things that you're saying I mean it's quite interesting but it's yet to be seen in the reality of the Nigeria that we live in today where you know there are people who have come to protest that we're still coming to terms with the happenings during the ensars and things like that so we're yet to see that Nigeria where we actually see the constitution come through for the Nigerian citizens we're yet to see decisions made in that regard so my question would be this crisis of confidence is there any possibility that we can see it turn around in favour as in there to be a peaceful outcome from all of this and how can that happen? well so as far as anybody knows right now what is happening is a judicial process it's a constitutionally prescribed process for hearing grievances so nobody is in the streets of Abuja firing guns there's no Sudan situation there's nobody saying we're swearing in a parallel government you know in 2015 in Kenya there was a similar situation and it was very different to this way it was handled the then opposition candidate Rila Odinga got some judge from somewhere took his supporters to some stadium somewhere and then got the judge to swear him in as something called the people's president and it caused the constitutional crisis there so if that's what was happening then I would get why people would be worried about maybe there being the threat to peace or whatever but so far that has not been the case both opposition candidates have simply followed the prescribed process laid out under Nigerian law so I guess the what is happening is that the ruling party which happens to not really have any case worth defending in court I mean if you taking even a cursory look at the cases to be very clear that the only play that the ruling party has is to try and drag this out and force the the swearing in to take place and they try and use presidential power to scatter the whole thing because if it's heard in a court of law under normal circumstances even in Nigerian judge cannot issue a favorable verdict to them that's the extent to which they simply do not have a case so what they are doing in the interim is then feeding the narrative that somehow the opposition candidates and the opposition parties are doing something they are heating up the polity which is the favorite cliche of theirs that somehow something is being done to threaten Nigeria's peace or whatever there is no such thing happening there is absolutely no such thing happening all that is happening is that people are in court which is what they are supposed to do if there was an election that was held and you believe that the result that was announced but actually took place during the election what Nigerian law, what the Electoral Amendment Act says is you go to the post-election tribunal you go to court, that's what both candidates have done so you would then have to ask the question why on earth is the ruling party so terrified about what should be an open even if you actually won the election it shouldn't be terrified of record case so what are they so scared of that they are now trying to feed everyone that narrative that oh my god something is happening but everything is going to be just fine and if the case is heard fairly and it so happens that the supposed president-elect is removed by the court because it turns out that he did not in fact win the election or wasn't even qualified to run for the election in the first place this guy is not going to fall down nothing is going to happen so I think the statement that I saw was from the chief of defense staff if I'm not mistaken but Jela, let me come to you okay so I was going to well more like an observation not really a question more like that it almost seems like this whole tribunal issue is between Labor Party and of course the APC, the candidates that won that's a schedule I met of course for Artico and although they have different their petitions were based on different reasons so let's imagine that the courts now sit and all that although by right says that well he has the majority of the legal votes again Artico says that he has the what's it called by right he is invoking the margin of lead principle to assert that he should be declared winner what are your thoughts on that what do you think is going to happen because I hear you when you say in the event that anything happens it probably falls to the senate president to be sworn in as president but now let's imagine that okay Aswajah Metin was taken out of the race and then it's left between would be an article what do you think is going to happen at the tribunals so if you read the petitions if you repeat of the petitions specifically what is actually asked is basically for the elections to be held again because essentially what that petition is saying is that the entire process by which the election was conducted itself was fundamentally full and that at least one of the candidates running in the election should not have been on the ballot so the election itself is invalid so that's actually what that petition is looking at for so probably Artico using as you said his own strategy is a bit different his own strategy is since I'm in second place I should by right assume the demand so if the person who supposedly came in first place is taken out but both petitions are asking for two different things I think my place to to make a judgment here about which petition I think has more it's valid but that's what both have presented and ultimately it's up to the court to decide which of them it's going to side with interesting so how will all of this pan out David if you were to give like based on the truth is if you study Nigeria there's a pattern it's very likely that you can have various outcomes in terms of if you do this you do this you do that these are likely outcomes but I just want to quickly touch on what Jela said you know is it possible for us to have a rerun when the person that is probably strongest in like fighting this thing through the courts came third because that's the argument that everybody I'm tired of hearing that argument you didn't even come close you came third and you had the one making a lot of noise but let's keep that aside if you study the Nigerian pattern how would you say all this will pan out would there still be an inauguration how would it just play out from what you have seen and the patterns that is currently happening so that's a very difficult question to answer because to an extent we're also in transit territory to an extent there are ultimately it boils down to the fact that this is not the first time the Nigerian election has been contested or has been contentious but this is the first time when there has been so much evidence in the public domain that even the the thoughts of swearing in the person announced by INEC is raising people's hackles it's genuinely a bone of contention now that should not be swung that hasn't certainly since 1999 in the Fourth Republic that hasn't really happened before and even though we've had severely flawed elections in the past such as 2003 elections but as far as I'm aware this is quite possibly the candidates for possibly the the worst regarded Nigerian election of all time at least in in the Fourth Republic certainly so I've been giving these unprecedented circumstances even the judiciary is also in uncharted territory so this is one of those very rare occasions where instead of using precedent to sort of project what is going to happen this time around it's very likely that there's going to be a genuinely new outcome that is basically impossible to predict I mean the very outcome of the election itself should tell you that we are in uncharted territory it has never happened before in Nigeria's history that we went into an election and a candidate that was viewed by the entire political establishment as this irreturned outsider that has no realistic chance consistently written off that was told you'd be lucky to come for you know you know you should be competing with you know all those backhanded insults and everything you know some people some TV stations organize debates and wouldn't invite him because he said he's not there you know and all of that happened and even on the official results as contentious as they are even on the official results and asked by INEC which INEC's own data by the way contradicts right but even on those official results it still shows that this person from basically nowhere according to the official results was NEC and NEC with somebody that's running for president since around the time I was born right so that should tell you that we're pretty much in uncharted territory so I think the judges the courts are aware of this too certainly the international community is aware of this as well they are not necessarily intervening directly they are not actually doing anything but what they are doing is watching and they're watching very intently I know this because I've been in these rooms with them multiple times you know we have these conversations off the record I'm not really allowed to sort of state what is in these conversations but essentially they're just sort of waiting and watching because they themselves have never really seen the Nigerian electorates and the Nigerian electoral system behave in this manner in this manner so that's why they be scary too because again with all the things that has happened it's almost like we are still going you know NEC and NEC we are going to put it and do it whether you like it or not and that's why I'm even a bit afraid because I don't want any reoccurrence of maybe whatever that happened with answers you rightly put it clear it's uncharted waters but now let's come back because again even Deliparutimi had said in an interview when I was watching he said that the judicial the tribunal right they have the it's almost like having the yam and the knife they have the opportunity to make history in this country to go to the and come out you know just making sure that if they follow the facts the I mean they announce what's it called a verdict that it is based on evidence and everything which you know I mean people are somewhat confident that that evidence will tilt towards people of this favor right in terms of like numbers and all of that but hey judiciary do you think they have the willpower and again given that economically a lot of our guys in the judicial system right it's not like they have somebody can say David is sitting down chilling in London and is you know cooling off and all of that he can say whatever he likes but this is the reality I've always said that poverty has been weaponized it will continue to be a weapon in the hands of powerful politicians because again when they want you to do their bidding they would just you know throw you a fish and say okay yes go and do what I want you to do so do you think that we should even have a little faith in the judicial system well I don't I don't know about having faith in them but I think they are certainly intelligent enough to understand self interest but it has made it that far you need to be intelligent enough to understand what is your interest to do if you declare to them if you are not aware that it absolutely is in their interest to stand on the right side of history this time around now what the right side of history means they are acgebatic to interpret but what will definitely not be in their interest will be for them to act in a way that will put them in the crosshairs and when I say in the crosshairs I'm not even referring to public perception in Nigeria I'm referring to international action because I'm sure you saw I think it was last week was it the week before no it was last week when the US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken just put out this brief non-descript statement stating that the US has imposed visa bans on certain people yes who interfered with the electoral process the statement didn't say who but the timing of that statement which I thought was very important and a lot of people the timing of that statement was very disruptive now bear in mind that it is the typical custom that whenever a candidate wins an election anywhere in the world within a few days maximum a week the US president always issues a congratulatory statement so there's usually a statement on the White House website stating this is the call transcript between President Barack Obama, President Joe Biden, President Donald Trump so and so and so of so and so country following so and so election I did a thread about this on Twitter a few days back so I used several examples so Nigeria in 2011 and 2015 and Philippines in 2022 Brazil in 2022 Fiji you know there are several examples like that and in this case the US president this election held three months ago right it's been three months since presidential election held February 25 it's been three months and Joe Biden has not said a single word that silence is unprecedented and it's very loud it's very instructive so in as much as the US president has refused to offer political acknowledgement to the supposed president-elect and then the US Secretary of State has all but come out to say that we are imposing because we know who those visa bans were imposed on they were not imposed on people working for the Labour Party or people working for the Labour Party we know who those visa bans went to so the timing is very instructive it's very key so I believe that the judges whether or not they are good people whether or not they uphold the ethics of their profession whether or not they want to do the right thing I believe they want to read the writing on the wall to understand what is in their interests and what is not in their interests and I think I would look at that okay let's quickly take some comments number I have one here that says that Ubi is not known in the north he lost in the south west not east and not central how can you say he won the election then the second one is for God state you are better informed think this guy with somewhere in London whatever that means alright I have this one anonymous who says Ubi lost are just petty people that may have the heart or may have a heart attack when the judgement is announced and then another one that says if you know them I dare you to name them I think this was referring to David's last comment David you want to go ahead we have a minute or two so again at risk of getting you taken off the air I'm just not going to bother responding because you know what is the point of responding to such people okay so if you had one thing to say to Nigerians as the inauguration draws close what would that be what would you be saying to them and you know what your general thoughts are well my general thoughts are there are legal processes that are afoot specifically on the 26th of May which I believe is this coming Friday there is supposed to be a seminal Supreme Court judgement which would nullify the very candidacy of the Buhari Shetema ticket as I was informed this afternoon by an insider he is currently trying to put pressure on President Buhari to declare Friday public holiday so that the court would not sit as ridiculous as that sounds so what I would say is Nigerians need to use their voices to insist on the primacy of their legal processes if Nigeria is ever going to become a better place if Nigeria is ever going to grow Nigerians need to insist on the primacy of rules and the primacy of institutions over individuals and their self interests I would leave it at that David though you have thrown one inside so you have insidious for us that they want to declare Friday as public holiday that's what is tiring for me because all of these things is almost like using positions of power you know to add what I call it would I call it delay justice or to just completely stop I mean that's why well I'll keep hope alive I'll have faith in the system but thank you so much David you always come through for us we call you Baku that's why we call you Baku because we can't we can't stop talking about it but thank you so much for your time David thank you ladies thank you Norma and thank you Diola now before we go and show you follow us across all our social media handles at Weshaw Afqa you can interact with us further for comment and more importantly follow all our engagements on social media like and share and invite your families to watch and follow the conversation if you missed our quote for today here it is again we're turned to pieces by parties and animosity for my part I see no end to them I'm just hoping we're able to rise above all of these challenges that we're facing as a country and let justice prevail and let the right thing be done and let's have better leaders and better governance you know going forward we'll see you guys tomorrow at 8pm thanks for watching to your screen chat