“In view of the recent defection by the Right Honourable
Aminu Waziri Tanbuwal, CFR, the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria, from the People Democratic Party (PDP) to the All
Progressive Congress (APC), and having regard to the clear provision of section
68(1)(g) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as
amended, the Nigeria Police Force (NPF) has redeployed its personnel attached
to his office.”
The
above is how the Nigeria Police Force justified the decision of the Inspector
General of Police (IGP) to order the withdrawal of security personnel attached
to Mr Tambuwal, the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
While
the Nigerian Constitution frowns upon defection by legislators and specifies
they must lose their seats, it gives exception for such defection in certain
circumstances. Politicians have since the first legislature of the current
democratic rule, always tried to rely on that exception as justification for
their defections. Until a court of competent jurisdiction decides whether any
particular defection should receive the punishment, all other positions on the
issue are mere academic and at best, legal opinions. On that score, Tambuwal
cannot be seen as having lost his seat as member of the House of
Representatives.
Assuming,
but not admitting that the IGP is right to the interpretation above, the same
constitutional section has also stated in subsection 2, how a defecting member
can lose his/her seat in parliament. It gives power to the Speaker of the House
to “give effect to the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, so however
that the...Speaker of the House of Representatives or a member shall first present
evidence satisfactory to the House concerned that any of the provisions of that
subsection has become applicable in respect of that member. Clearly, the
decision not to recognise a person as member of the House lies within the
House.
Yet
another argument raised by those not happy with Tambuwal’s defection is that
since he no longer belongs to the majority party in the House, he cannot remain
the Speaker. That again is mere wishful thinking and opinion, not the law and
not the intendment of the Constitution. By Section 50(1)(b) of the
Constitution, there shall be a Speaker
of the House of Representatives, “who shall be elected by the members of that
House from among themselves”. Nowhere in the Constitution is there any
requirement that the Speaker must belong to the party with a majority in the
House or that the person must be nominated or sponsored to the position by a
political party. Interestingly, Tambuwal’s emergence as Speaker ran contrary to
the wishes of his party then, the PDP, which actually proposed another member
for the position. Tambuwal however won the position on his own merit, owing to
the trust he had with majority of the representatives.
That
said, the only lawful means to remove a speaker of the House is as provided by
the Constitution under Section 50(2)(c). And to do so, they require the votes
of “not less than two-thirds majority of the members of that House”, which is
241 members for the 360-member House of Representatives. Therefore, even if, for
the purpose of argument, it can be proved that the right to lead the House is
reserved for members of the party in majority or that Tambuwal no longer
commands the support of at least 241 members of the House, the only way to
prove and effect that is at a duly-constituted session of the House.
For
the police IGP to therefore purport not to recognise Tambuwal as Speaker and
proceed to withdraw security aides attached to his office is an abuse of power
and must be condemned. It is indeed a sad day and season for our country. Sad,
because the IGP has not only usurped the interpretative powers of the court
over the Constitution, but more because even in the interpretation, he is
clearly confusing the law with his opinion. The last time we saw such happen
was under Obasanjo when he and his cohorts created for themselves, the power to
interpret the Supreme Court judgment asking the Federal Government to release
funds meant for the local governments in Lagos State.
It
is sad because the IGP is the chief custodian of law and order but he seems to
have moved too fast to take a position which questions the neutrality of the organisation
he sits atop. It is sad because the IGP, either intentionally or
unintentionally has descended into the political playing field. And trust our politicos;
they will attack him on all sides. The APC will accuse him of working for PDP
and if he tries to reverse himself, he will be attacked by the PDP. And when
that happens he will have no one but himself to blame.
It
is a sad day and season because the IGP’s action is a sad reminder of the era
of IGP Sunday Adewusi (1981 to 1983), where the police were accused of working
in cahoots with the then ruling National Party of Nigeria (NPN) in the 1983
general elections. Such unholy alliance was part of what brought the Second
Republic of Nigeria to its disastrous end. Another general election season is
here, with elections expected in 2015 and here we are dancing to a similar ominous
dance. Is anyone thinking?
See also at: http://www.thenicheng.com/tambuwals-defection-polices-ominous-reaction/#sthash.MymYxqNQ.dpbs
No comments:
Post a Comment