Aminu Tambuwal, the Speaker of the Federal House of Representatives, has won ’round one’ in what promises to be a long-drawn legal battle.
A Federal High Court on Monday, November 3rd, 2014, ordered that concerning his defection, the status-quo should be maintained, and Tambuwal still effectively remains the Speaker of the House.
It should be recalled that barely a week after the Speaker’s defection, his security detail was withdrawn on the order of the IG of Police. This was met by a groundswell of opposition and criticism by a cross section of the populace who felt the Police was exhibiting double-standards to favour the PDP.
Many argued that since the security detail of the Ondo State governor, Olusegun Mimiko, wasn’t withdrawn after he defected to the PDP, Tambuwal’s security aides should also be restored.
Meanwhile, divergent views have continued to trail his defection from the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC) on Tuesday, October 28th, 2014.
The Northern politician had been seen to be hobnobbing with chieftains of the APC for the past one year, before eventually cross-carpeting, thus clearing the cloud of speculations and suspense that have hung over his political career over the past one year.
This is even as the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) has condemned the withdrawal of Tambuwal’s security detail.
The NLC in a statement said, “We at the Nigeria Labour Congress are appalled by the withdrawal of security details of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Alhaji Aminu Tambuwal ostensibly because he had decamped to the All Progressives Congress (APC). The act is shameful, distasteful, unconstitutional and demonstrates our parochial sense of power and very little knowledge of history. No part of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria says the Speaker of the House of Representatives should come from the majority party.”
Meanwhile, the immediate past Minister of State for Defence and Lagos State gubernatorial aspirant, Sen. Musiliu Obanikoro has said that Tambuwal cannot eat his cake and have it.
In an interview on Channels Television and monitored by E24-7 MAGAZINE, Obanikoro said, “I believe that the most honourable thing for him to have done is to resign and then cross over to the other side and remain there. You don’t have to be a speaker to function in the National Assembly…the rule is very clear; you cannot be in a minority in the House of Representatives and become the presiding officer,” he stated.
Obanikoro also hinted that the PDP was aware of Tambuwal’s clandestine move to join the APC. He said, “There is no surprise in that. We knew he was going to go; it was just a question of when and we needed for him to officially stand up and own up to the fact that his body is somewhere else and the body is just with us (PDP) and we (are) glad that finally, he has let the cat out of the bag,” he said.
However, in his own reaction, foremost lawyer, Mr. Robert Clarke (SAN), also in an interview with Channels Television condemned the withdrawal of Tambuwal’s security apparatus, arguing that only members of the House have the right to impeach the Speaker. He said, “It is only the members of the House of Representatives that can impeach the Speaker. The police erred by stripping the number four citizen of the country of his security apparatus.”
He continued, saying, “There are five very important citizens in Nigeria, starting from the President, the Vice President, the Senate President, the Speaker of the House and the Chief Justice of the Federation; these five posts are security posts; the individuals do not matter, it is the position they are holding that matters. Therefore, the country, under the constitution, is enjoined to give them security at all time. The governor of his state has decamped to the APC, many of his commissioners have decamped from PDP to APC and many party members have decamped from PDP to APC in Sokoto, so there is a division within the PDP in Sokoto State. In all civilised countries, police officers have to keep the law in the land and enforce the law. There is no constitutional provision which allows a policeman or the head of the police to determine what the law is. So when the police came and said under Section 68 (1), they are withdrawing the security apparatus; they don’t have that constitutional right,” he said.
