You’ve been arguing in bad faith from the start. Let me be abundantly clear, every point I’ve made is based on what’s in the public domain. You keep waving around “unknown specifics” to avoid addressing the clauses we do have. That’s a straw man, and you know it. All you bring to the table are political complaints and process gripes. None of that changes the legal realities I’ve been talking about from the beginning, and it certainly doesn’t alter the facts written into the agreement.
You keep repeating the same tired line as if saying it over and over will make it true. Your first lie is your statement that “nothing has been finalised” because there’s no PSA and therefore no specifics and that I lied about Turkey setting its own participating interest. When I walked you through Article 4 and showed you that Turkey can set its own stake, that all bonuses are waived, that Somalia’s royalty is capped at 5 %, and that Turkey gets 90 % cost recovery, you suddenly accepted the framework is binding but only addresses “broad principles” not specifics, purposely not addressing the specifics I just gave and not admiring you were wrong when I proved indeed I was correct in regard to Turkey unilaterally determining participating interest. Then you doubled back and said it’s not binding, it’s preliminary. Anyone can see the contradictions and mental gymnastics. You tried to say the deal was invalid because Parliament didn’t review it. Now you’re back to claiming it can’t be “pushed through” because some MPs complain they didn’t read it. You shift your story every time you’re cornered, because you never address the specific points I raise. Whenever I cite an article from the agreement, you ignore it and dodge the substance. That’s enough evidence of bad faith. You’re deliberately lying and misrepresenting. Do you get paid for defending a bad deal? The president just announced the oil is set to drill in December, do you think oil can be drilled without the agreement being legal? Do you think that Turkey was just exploring for nearly a year without the agreement being binding? Man your stupid or doing this on purpose.
Here’s a perfect example of your misrepresentation. You wrote: “The parliamentarians didn’t even review or even look at it or even discuss it. It cannot be pushed through without careful scrutiny and debate… So signing it without the consent of the parliament is a breach of the legal and constitutional framework of the govt.” That’s nonsense. Article 90(1)(q) of the Provisional Constitution states that the President shall “sign international treaties proposed by the Council of Ministers and approved by the House of the People of the Federal Parliament” . The parliamentary rules echo this: Article 110(3) requires the Council of Ministers to submit international treaties to the House for approval . That’s exactly what happened on February 21 2024. Even if some MPs now pretend they didn’t read it, they still voted for it. Complaining after the fact doesn’t change the outcome. Your claim that it was signed without consent just shows you don’t understand the basic process.
What really amazes me is that you still don’t grasp how treaties are handled. It’s the Council of Ministers that negotiates and drafts them. A minister can sign an agreement and then send it to Parliament for approval. The treaty isn’t binding until Parliament approves it, which is why the agreement explicitly states it is subject to parliamentary approval. That’s exactly how the constitution envisages it . Acting like a minister must wait for MPs to pore over every page before he signs is just wrong. That’s not how it works. No amount of spin about “it can’t be pushed through” will change the fact that Parliament ratified it and it’s now a binding treaty.
Stay in your lane, you are ignorantly to the legal side of things. You were literally arguing for the sake of arguing. Have some shame.
