What however troubled me so much is the new insinuation some people are spreading that you cant bring morality into law and that morally, it is wrong for the VP to decamped and still hold the office, but constitutionally, he is allow to decamped and still hold the office. My annoyance is that, since when did morality not part of the law? or are we interpreting this particular morality to suit our political selfishness? As far as I am concern, anything that is morally wrong is cater for in the constitution, if the act of the VP is morally wrong, then the constitution needs to be amended to allow it.
While the world anxiously awaits the decision of the court on this very important and landmark judgment, I want to state clearly that it is a dangerous precedent on our political existence to allow the VP to continue in the office while he had already decamped from the party that brought him to power. Part of the outcome is what we had seen with the activities of the VP in recent times especially after his decamping, by condemning the government he was also part of for good 7 years. Ironically, he is asking for the electorates to vote for him as the new President and at the same time condemning all his efforts as the VP for 7 years. To me, I think he is unknowingly campaigning against himself by condemning the government he participated in for 7 years by telling us that he has nothing to offer us, because if all his 7 years effort as VP is what he is now condemning, then his sojourning as President is going to be nothing to write home about.
Ever ponder along this lines?