The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Tambuwal

  • Tambuwal, Buhari shun Council of State meeting

    House of Representatives Speaker Aminu Tambawal was absent yesterday at the Council of State meeting at the Presidential Villa, Abuja.

    Following his defection to the All Progressives Congress (APC) from the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) last week, Tambuwal’s security aides were withdrawn.

    Besides, there were moves to impeach him.

    Former Head of State Gen. Muhammadu Buhari and many of the All Progressives Congress (APC) governors were also absent when the meeting started at about 11.35 am.

    At the meeting were former presidents Olusegun Obasanjo and Shehu Shagari, former Head of State Gen. Yakubu Gowon and former Head of the Interim National Government Ernest Shonekan.

    Also at the meeting were the Senate President David Mark, former chief justices Idris Kutigi and Mohammadu Uwais as well as the National Security Adviser, Col. Sambo Dasuki (rtd).

    Present also were Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Anyim Pius Anyim and Attorney General of the Federation Mohammed Adoke.

    The governors at the meeting when it started included those from Abia, Ekiti, Enugu, Delta, Akwa Ibom, Ondo, Jigawa, Kaduna, Niger, Cross Rivers, Kogi and Ebonyi.

    Katsina deputy governor and Edo State Governor Adams Oshiomhole arrived after the meeting started.

    Also yesterday, the Police Council headed by President Goodluck Jonathan confirmed the appointment of Suleiman Abba as the substantive Inspector General of Police (IGP).

    He was confirmed at the meeting in the Presidential Villa and thereafter admitted into the council.

    Briefing State House correspondents at the end of the meeting, Oshiomhole said Abba was confirmed after his curriculum vitae was reviewed by the council.

    He said: “We reviewed his CV, his level of competence by those who have worked with him and the council was unanimous that the acting IGP be confirmed as a substantive IG and the President was accordingly advised and the President accepted the advice and appointed Mallam Abba as the substantive IG of Police.”

    “We also recognised that the police alone won’t be able to secure lives and properties. They will need the cooperation and collaboration of every  Nigerian and when it comes to the issues of security, all of us should be seen as activists – at the community level, state level, local level and of course at the national level.

    “We also agreed to do whatever we can to support the police to provide some resources to complement Federal effort to see that the police have all that they need to ensure effective policing of Nigeria, so that they can guarantee and ensure protection of lives and properties.”

    On the call for Abba’s sack, Oshiomhole said: “Well, I think the issue is not about the person of Mr. Abba. I think the issue you are referring to is the decision of the IGP to withdraw the security detail of the Speaker of the House of Representatives,  Aminu Tambuwal. I’m not aware before then that anybody had issues. It is the decision of police which shocked many of us, myself inclusive, that has led to those sentiments.

    “But, incidentally, this issue was not discussed at council because as the  President advised, the matter is in court and council could not discuss it.”

    Abba, who replaced former IGP Mohammed Abubakar who retired on July 31, said: “I must tell you it is a happy moment. But it is also a moment of sober reflection. Reflection on the responsibilities and expectations. Certainly, I have to work hard to ensure that I meet up with the expectations of the office.”

    “Truly, Nigerians and in fact all people in Nigeria deserve the best from us, so that we make the environment safer and secured. I assure you having reflected on all these, we will ensure that we manage all the resources of the police, to ensure they are used judiciously for the safety and security of Nigeria”.

    On the heavy criticism that trailed the withdrawal of the police aides of the Speaker and his alleged partisanship, Abba said: “Well, that is a matter before the court and it’s prejudice for me to comment on it. I wouldn’t want to have any problem with the judiciary”.

    Asked if he was concerned that the matter was heating up the polity, he said: “Well, it is still a matter before the court and I think whatever consequences it has on the polity we have to wait for the outcome.”

    Kogi State governor Idris Wada congratulated Abba.

    He said that the president directed Vice President, Namadi Sambo, to take advantage of the National Economic Council to ensure true and adequate security.

  • ‘We can reconvene House without Tambuwal’s consent’

    ‘We can reconvene House without Tambuwal’s consent’

    THE Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Caucus in the House of Representatives said yesterday that the House could reconvene without the approval of the Speaker, Aminu Waziri Tambuwal.

    The Deputy Leader of the House, Leo Ogor, made the declaration yesterday while reacting to the All Progressives Congress (APC) House caucus last Monday’s statement on the alleged plot by the PDP to reconvene the House before December 3.

    Ogor said Order 5, Rule 18 of the House Standing Orders bestows the power to reconvene the House on leaders of the political parties in the House.

    He added that “Tambuwal cannot be a judge in his own case.”

    The deputy leader, whose position was at variance with that of the APC caucus, cautioned that it was wrong for the APC caucus to assume that the PDP and APC are the only parties in the Green Chamber.

    The lawmaker said in accordance with House Rules, leaders of political parties in the House could request reopening of the House without Tambuwal’s agreement.

    He, however, stated that because the matter was before the court, the House members would wait until the case was concluded.

    The lawmaker, who said he has not been served the court order stopping the House from reopening, said: “We can reconvene the House if we so desire. I’ve not been served the court order. So, I’m not aware of it.

    Ogor however said the issue to be thrashed when the House reconvenes was not that of impeachment, but defection.

  • Tambuwal, Buhari, APC governors shun Council of State meeting

    Tambuwal, Buhari, APC governors shun Council of State meeting

    The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Aminu Tambawal, was absent at the Council of State meeting held on Tuesday at the Presidential Villa, Abuja.

    Following his defection to the All Progressives Congress (APC) from the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) last week, Tambuwal’s security aides have been withdrawn with alleged underground moves to impeach him.

    The former Head of State, Muhammadu Buhari and all the All Progressives Congress (APC) governors were also absent when the meeting started by 11.35am.

    Those at the meeting included former Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo, Shehu Shagari, former Head of State, Gen. Yakubu Gowon, and former Head of Interim National Government, Ernest Shonekan.

    Also at the meeting are the Senate President, David Mark, former Chief Justices of Nigeria, Idris Kutigi, Mohammadu Uwais, National Security Adviser, Sambo Dasuki, Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Anyim Pius Anyim and the Attorney General of the Federation, Mohammed Adoke.

    The governors at the meeting when it started are that of Abia, Ekiti, Enugu, Delta, Akwa Ibom, Ondo, Jigawa, Kaduna, Niger, Cross Rivers, Kogi, and Ebonyi States.

    Katsina Deputy Governor also attended the meeting.

  • ‘Tambuwal a bridge builder’

    ‘Tambuwal a bridge builder’

    The Leadership of the All Progressives Congress last night met  behind closed doors with the APC caucus in the House of Representatives.

    Speaker Aminu Tambuwal led members of the APC caucus to the meeting which took place at the National secretariat of the party.

    Speaking before they went into the closed session, party chair Chief John Odigie-Oyegun said the Nigerian nation was in dire need of salvation, adding that the APC was the vehicle for that salvation.

    He described the Speaker as an exceptional bridge builder who is gradually becoming the most popular speaker the nation has ever produced.

    “I want to say that I am very surprised at the reception you have received from your own colleagues. If is the measure of a man when your own colleagues received you. When they treat you like this, it shows the love they have for you.

    “You are are an exceptional bridge-builder because within days of being a member of the House, You were able to construct a coalition that made you one of the most stable  and one of the most popular speaker this nation has produced.”

  • Peterside faults police chief for withdrawing Tambuwal’s security

    Peterside faults police chief for withdrawing Tambuwal’s security

    The Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Petroleum Resources (Downstream), Dr Dakuku Peterside, has said the withdrawal of the security detail of House of Representatives Speaker Aminu Tambuwal by Acting Inspector General of Police (IGP) Suleiman Abba is crass partisanship and a subversion of the constitution.

    The lawmaker spoke yesterday on Kakaki, a breakfast television programme on Africa Independent Television (AIT).

    Peterside, who was a guest on the programme, described the police chief’s action as an act of impunity and an invitation to anarchy.

    The member representing Andoni/Opobo-Nkoro in Rivers State urged Nigerians to reflect on this sad turn of events and be dispassionate in apportioning blame.

    He blamed the Goodluck Jonathan administration under the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) of promoting impunity.

    Peterside said: “Impunity is fast becoming the nature of the PDP-led Federal Government. The withdrawal of Tambuwal’s security detail has no basis in law. It is a crass abuse of office by the IGP. We must not desecrate our high offices because of politics. It is Tambuwal today. How about tomorrow? Therefore, we must all condemn this threat, not just to our democracy but also to our stability and survival as a nation. It is tragic that the police are an accomplice.”

    The lawmaker warned Nigerians to be vigilant as another election year approaches.

    He said: “Nobody is more Nigerian. We are all equal stakeholders and we must ensure that our country survives these difficult times. That, for me, should be the focus, not the cheap politics of withdrawing security detail from such an important office.”

    Peterside, who also expressed worry about the dictatorial tendencies in the PDP, cautioned against the lure of absolute power because of its consequences.

    The lawmaker advised parties to be fair to every aspirant, adding that his party, the All Progressives Congress (APC), guaranteed a level-playing field for political office seekers.

    He urged other parties to follow APC’s example.

     

  • Tambuwal and the integrity question

    Ripples‘ candid view: Aminu Tambuwal, Speaker of the House of Representatives, should have resigned his speakership.

    From the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) camp, now busy shopping for sympathy, and howling “betrayal”, that view would be “balanced and objective”; or even “patriotic”.

    From the All Progressives Congress (APC), celebrating a big political catch, Ripples would be guilty of “empty idealism” and perhaps culpable ignorance of the realpolitik.

    But both views would amount to cant.  Principles are constant.  But cant is the chameleon that changes with the season, even if it has to risk high unreason, bordering on patent absurdity.

    By convention, the party with the majority provides the Speaker — democracy is, after all, majority rule.  So, Alhaji Tambuwal ought to have stepped down because it is decent, because it is honourable, because it is fair.

    But which of the opposing sides plays by decency, plays by honour, plays by fairness?  And if overwhelming bad faith is the grundnorm, why would a partisan play by good faith — to commit partisan suicide?

    To the emotive and non-introspective, therefore, the Tambuwal affair is a PDP vs. APC tango.  In a way, it is — to the extent that the one got a net-loss and the other, a net-gain.  But dig deeper, and what you see is the unconscionable face of Nigerian politics, and its rotten, smelly core!  That ought to impress the perceptive, much more than partisan gains or losses.

    Take the PDP that now screams blue murder.  What moral right has it to do so: because it boasts better morality when similar situations are to its own rogue advantage?

    Mulikat Adeolu-Akande, the House Leader, was quoted as saying that the with Ondo Governor, Olusegun Mimiko’s defection to PDP, all eight Labour Party (LP) members of the House of Representatives “automatically” (and Ripples adds, seamlessly) become PDP members — just like that?  And there was even no split in LP!

    Now, if the House Leader is so sloppy in her sense of proprietary, why should others be more scrupulous — because the majority is now the victim?  Or because PDP can ripple its majority muscles to threaten others, or corral illicit orders from the Police high command to impose its will?

    That, of course, brings the debate to the purported withdrawal of security from the office of Speaker — not because he has been deposed as Speaker, but because he has defected from the majority party.

    To start with, there is an eerie similarity between Sulaiman Abba, acting Inspector-General of Police (IGP) and his commander-in-chief, President Goodluck Jonathan, in the so-called withdrawal of the Speaker’s security details.

    The one wants to be confirmed IGP at all cost; the other wants to win in 2015 at all cost.  So, it is meet that the subversive order — subversive of the law — emanated from the Concert of the Desperate, into which the duo fits pat!  Whenever desperation is sighted, bad judgement is never far away.

    Besides, it is tribute to Jonathan’s presidential focus that even as Boko Haram swooped over Mubi in Adamawa, the commander-in-chief was swooping over a presidential nomination form for a job he has clearly proved his inability; and was also gracelessly settling partisan scores with the Speaker.

    On what basis was the IGP giving that illegal order?  That Alhaji Tambuwal is no longer Speaker?  That definitely is not true, for no parliamentary session has deposed him.  And if he is still Speaker, does the IGP, even if the president gives him an illegal order, have the right to summarily strip the No. 4 citizen of his security, his right by law?

    If that were so, then it would be dangerous indeed: for maybe some day, someone, somewhere could “order” the IGP to summarily withdraw the president’s security details too!  And by pure logic, why not?  If a mere policeman can deny the No. 4 citizen his legally guaranteed security, on some phantom law he lacks the capacity to correctly interpret, he could also as well deny the No. 1, citizen, the president, of his too!

    Outrageous?  That is the risk you take when, by reflex but unreflective actions, you try to undermine the institutions of state.

    But back to the basic argument: ought Speaker Tambuwal have remained Speaker, after defecting from his majority party?  On moral grounds, Ripples thinks not.  But the legality or otherwise of it is much more complex, all the more complicated by the mala fide all round.

    To start with, by Section 50(1)(b) of the 1999 Constitution, the Speaker is the exclusive business of the House.  So, is the IGP (or even the president) a member of the House?  So, how come both have convinced (more of colluded with) themselves the Speaker has been removed, and so should forfeit his right to official security by law, if both don’t suffer from grand executive delusion?

    Then even the law the IGP glibly quoted: Section 68(1)(g), which says a House member loses his seat if he left his party for another, provided there was no division in the party or merger with another party.

    Now, where was our IGP when Labour Party MPs defected to PDP, even with no division in their party?  The same law he brandished with a flourish at the Speaker died then, just because the president was pleased with the defection to his own party?  So, it is some Animal Farm, where some animals are more equal than others?

    Of course, partisan opinion is divided on whether a division exists in the PDP.  The ruling party hierarchs love to flaunt a court verdict that there was nothing like “New PDP”.  They follow that up to kid themselves there was no division in the party.  But if there was no division, how come five governors (Sokoto, Rivers, Kano, Kwara and Adamawa — now reclaimed by gunboat impeachment) left the party for APC?

    The opposition APC has even upped the ante, pushing forth two Federal High Court judgments:  Justice Faji, in Ilorin, that held there were indeed factions in the PDP; and Justice Aikawa, in Sokoto, which not only affirmed that there was a division but also held that the resulting faction merged with APC.

    So, if these judgments are real, where stands the PDP position that factions never existed simply because of the legal sophistry that no “New PDP existed”?  And where stands the IGP precipitate order to strip the Speaker of his security, simply because Mr. President is boiling?

    Let President Jonathan and fellow PDP hierarchs boil all they want.  They are only a victim of their own impunity.  The rich also cry!

    But let them be wary of, as Jonathan always does when he appears trapped, rushing to wield power, without recourse to the law that created that power.  That would reinforce the ultimate futility of impunity and doom them to crises like the Tambuwal affair, if not the eventual collapse of the democratic project.

    As for APC, let them too be wary of playing the politics of cant, and play more of the politics of principle.  It is such penchant to play in the PDP sewers that fuels the rising opinion that APC differs from PDP as six differs from half-a-dozen.

    APC, if it really wants to deliver change, cannot afford such conceptual putdown.

     

    Quote: “Let President Jonathan and fellow PDP hierarchs boil all they want.  They are only a victim of their own impunity.”

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • Tambuwal’s security withdrawal sparks anger

    Tambuwal’s security withdrawal sparks anger

    It all began with an announcement by House of Representatives Speaker, Aminu Tambuwal last Tuesday that he was no longer a member of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).  Citing the development in his home state, Sokoto, as well his people’s yearnings, he told his colleagues that he had joined the All Progressives Congress (APC). He also attended APC’s convention in Abuja.

    Rattled by the development, President Goodluck Jonathan was said to have held an emergency meeting with Deputy Speaker Emeka Ihedioha and others. Barely 24 hours after the convention, the acting Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Suleiman Abba withdrew Tambuwal’s security details saying that  he acted on the basis of Section 68(1)(g) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

    The action, expectedly generated reactions, with lawyers unanimously condemning it. The IGP, they said, cannot interpret the Constitution; only a court can do so. Analysts accused the police  of usurping the judiciary’s powers.

    Observers have argued that the IGP was not in the position to interpret the Constitution, and that he could only act on the basis of a court order. Many believe Abba was simply acting out the script of the PDP-led Federal Government

     Election and removal of Speaker

    Some analysts have seen the withdrawl of Tambuwal’s security as an admission that it may not be easy to remove him from office. Under Section 50(2)(c) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the senate president or Speaker of the House of Represenhtatives can only be removed by “two-thirds” of all the members of the house, which is 240. Presently, the PDP has 206 members; APC, 151; Accord Party, two and Labour Party one, making a total of 360.

    The section states: “The President or Deputy President of the Senate or the Speaker or Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives shall vacate his office (a)   where he ceases to be a member of the House while the House has not been dissolved; or (b) where the House of which he was a member first sits after any dissolution; or  (c) if he is removed from office by a resolution of the Senate or of the House of Representatives, as the case may be, by the votes of not less than two-thirds majority of the members of that House.”

    According to Section 50(1)(a)(b): “There shall be: (a) a President and a Deputy President of the Senate, who shall be elected by the members of that House from among themselves; and (b) a Speaker and a Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, who shall be elected by the members of that House from among themselves,” without stating whether the Speaker must come from the majority party.

    The Constitution is not ambiguous on defection of legislators from the platforms they won elections on to another. It expressly gives conditions for legislators to cross-carpet in Section 68(1) and 109(1) for National and State Houses of Assembly.

    Section 68(1)(a-g) state the conditions for which a lawmaker ceases to be a member of the National Assembly. Subsection (g) of 68(1) states that  a defecting member shall not lose his membership if he proves that the reason for his defection is due to divisions in his former political party or if it merges with any other party.

    Currently, PDP’s division is still a subject of litigation. A ‘new PDP’ was at one point created out of the main party, with many lawmakers defecting to APC on that basis.  Several elected officials including some lawmakers in Kogi, Ondo, Ekiti, Anambra and Edo States recently left the parties on whose platforms they were elected into the various state Houses of Assembly and the National Assembly to other parties without losing their seats.

    Legislators, including Ehigie Uzamere (ACN), Uche Ekwunife (APGA), the late Wahab Dosunmu, Adeseye Ogunlewe, Musuliu Obanikoro and Iyiola Omisore all of (AD); Chief Arthur Nzeribe, John Nwanunu and Dr. Usman Kadir of the (ANPP), as well as Satti Godwin (AC) all jumped ship to the PDP and the Federal Government never moved against them. Recently, Ondo State governor, Olusegun Mimiko defected to the PDP and there was not a fuss.

    Tambuwal’s situation has raised the issue of double-standards by state agencies, who, instead of showing loyalty to the people who are their real employers, have resorted to partisan politics and impunity.

     

    Tambuwal’s position

    Challenging the withdrawal of his security details, the Speaker has approached a Federal High Court in Abuja seeking an order of mandamus against the IGP reinstating his security aides.

    He also wants a perpetual injunction restraining the PDP and its National Chairman, Adamu Muazu; the House of Representatives; the Deputy Speaker of the House; the acting IGP; the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) from taking steps to remove him as Speaker before the expiration of his tenure on June 5, next year.

    Tambuwal stated that he had been a member of the ‘New PDP’ when the party became factionalised, adding that his faction of the PDP merged with the APC on November 26, last year. He said by virtue of the merger he became a member of the APC.

    “I know as a fact that all efforts to harmonise the factions of the PDP in my home state in Sokoto has failed as there are still factions in the state. I informed the members of the 3rd defendant (House of Reps) whilst announcing my decision to join the New PDP faction, which merged with the 2nd plaintiff (APC) that my membership of the 2nd plaintiff was based on the circumstances in my home state,” he said.

    He stated that he was aware that the court had in two deferent cases, held that the seats of other former members of the New PDP, who are now members of the APC cannot be declared vacant, citing the case of the PDP and  other vs. Honourable Rasak Atunwa and 20 others, in suit No: FHC/IL/CS/6/2014 delivered on June 26; as well as the case of Ibrahim Magaji Gusau and two others vs Honourable Lawal Mohammed Zyyana and 20 others, in suit No: FHC/S/CS/4/2014 delivered on July 3.

     

    Lawyers’ speak

    The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) was among groups and individuals who condemned the IGP’s action.

    Its President, Augustine Alegeh (SAN), in a statement  insisted that the police lacked the competence to determine whether or not a provision of the Constitution has been violated.

    ‘That is a function reserved for the courts of law exclusively. The NBA outrightly condemns this action as it is a breach of the constitutional duty of the police to provide police escort and security details to the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Tambuwal still remains the Speaker of the House of Representatives and he is entitled to the full paraphernalia of his office including all his Police escort and security details.

    “We must state that the mere fact that Tambuwal defected from one party to the other whilst being the Speaker of the House of Representatives, does not automatically strip him of his position as Speaker and the attendant protection by the Police. The Speaker is not elected by any one political party, but by a majority of members of the House of Representatives,” said NBA.

    Former NBA President, Olisah Agbakoba (SAN) said the decision  to redeploy police personnel attached to the Speaker as a result of his defection is not legal.

    Agbakoba said it is honourable for Tambuwal to resign after defecting to another party, failure to which other affected parties can approach the court demanding same.

    He said: “What the police has done is to interpret and enforce Section 68(1)(g) on its own. This is unconstitutional because it is the duty of the Court to interpret the constitution, not the police. The duty of the police is to enforce the law.”

    Lagos-based lawyer, George Oguntade (SAN) said the IGP misapplied the law in withdrawing Tambuwal’s security, since Abba is not obligated to interpret the constitution on his own volition.

    Oguntade said: “I have no doubt  in my mind that the action of the Acting IG of Police is wrong and certainly cannot be predicated upon the provisions of Section 68(1) (g) of the Constitution as he purports to do.

    “As a preface, it is important to restate that the police institution should detach itself from any involvement in partisan politics. Its constitutional role and functions are clearly delineated. Section 68(1) (g) is quite clear and imposes no duty or obligation whatsoever on the IG of Police.

    “In the event that the Speaker does not vacate his seat as the constitution clearly enjoins him to do, the necessary legal machinery will then be invoked to enforce the provisions of the Constitution.

    “It is only when he has been lawfully removed by an order of court that he would no longer be entitled to security details and then the acting IG will be entitled to act. By acting now, the acting IG has acted prematurely and unconstitutional. In my mind, this kind of action does not augur well for the upcoming general elections,” said Oguntade.

    To a former General Secretary NBA, Olumuyiwa Akinboro, the IGP by his action constituted himself not only as a court, but also as an executive.

    He said: “What the IGP has done is to suo  moto pose to himself the scenarios whether there is division in the PDP or a merger, answered his own questions and executed his belief thereby constituting himself not only to be the court, but also the executive.

    “Was it not in the news that the chairman of the BOT of PDP was in Sokoto about a week back, with other party heavyweights to reconcile faction? Do you reconcile when there are no division? These are some of the questions.

    “The action of the IGP is unconstitutional, undemocratic, autocratic as he lacks not only the constitutional powers, but also the ability and capability to determine the vacancy or otherwise of the seat of the Speaker.”

    Former Lagos State House of Assembly member Babatunde Ogala called it an act of impunity.

    “This is impunity for the Police to take the laws into its hands and withdraw the security details of the Speaker, which the law prescribes for his office under some spurious interpretation of the Constitution.

    “The police and presidency have no role in this.  And it is for the House members to determine that he would no longer be their Speaker by removing him. Neither the presidency nor the police have such powers in law.”

    Lagos lawyer and rights’ activist Mr Theophilus Akanwa, said there is nowhere in the Constitution where the IGP is empowered to withdraw the security details of an elected officer not constitutionally removed from office.

    “The IGP’s action is in  fact,  a breach and contravention of the Speaker’s fundamental rights as provided in Chapter IV of the Constitution as it affects his freedom of association. It is only when the Speaker ceases to hold office that his security can be withdrawn. The IGP should be reminded that the security attached to that office is not solely for Tambuwal as a person, but for that exalted office funded by tax-payers’ money. The Speaker’s security should be restored immediately in the interest of our nascent democracy.”

    Mr Stephen Azubuike said there is nothing in the law which expressly empowers the IGP to withdraw the security details of any senior government official.

    “It is worthy of note that the courts have the exclusive powers to interpret the Constitution and other laws in exercise of the judicial powers  conferred by Section 6 of the1999 Constitution. Hence, any controversy as to the position of Tambuwal as the Speaker may be channeled to the court by any concerned person or authority.

    “So long as no competent court of law has ordered Tambuwal to vacate office, he remains the Speaker and is absolutely entitled to security details.”

    A Lagos lawyer, Mr Chijioke Emeka, said it is all politics, adding: “When did the IGP become a Court to decide when a seat is vacant? This may be a Freudian Slip admitting PDP’s lack of confidence in its ability to wield its majority to unseat Tambuwal. The PDP has consistently shown that its centre cannot hold against the wind of centrifugal forces from its internal contradictions.”

     

     

  • Tambuwal: Court summons Mua’zu, Adoke, Ihedioha, IGP, others

    Tambuwal: Court summons Mua’zu, Adoke, Ihedioha, IGP, others

    A Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday summoned the Chairman of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), Adamu Mua’zu, the Acting Inspector General of Police (IGP), Suleiman Abba, Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Emeka Ihedioha and four others following a complaint by the House of Representatives Speaker, Aminu Tambuwal, that they were plotting to unlawfully reconvene the House before its December 3 adjourned date.

    Also summoned are the Attorney General of the Federation, (AGF), Mohammed Adoke (SAN), the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), and the House of Representatives (who are all listed as respondents in the motion.

    They are to appear before the court on Friday.

    Justice Armed Ramat Mohammed, in a ruling, ordered parties in an ex-parte application filed on Mondayby Tambuwal to maintain status quo pending the hearing and determination of the motion.

    The judge also ordered that an enrolled order of the court, accompanied with a copy of the ex-parte motion be served on the defendants for them to appear in court on Friday and show reasons why the reliefs contained in the ex-parte application should not be granted.

    Justice Mohammed gave the ruling after listening to Jibrin Okutepa and Sunday Ameh (both Senior Advocates of Nigeria) arguments on the motion ex-parte.

    “Having listened to applicant’s counsel and read the processes filed in court, I am of the view that the defendants should be given notice. An exhibit attached to the motion ex-parte shows that there is an urgent need for an order to preserve the res,” the judge held.

    Okutepa (SAN) had, while moving the motion, told the court that “the defendants have concluded plans to summon the House for the purpose of removing Tambuwal as Speaker.”

     

  • PDP, Mua’zu, Ihedioha plotting to reconvene House – Tambuwal

    PDP, Mua’zu, Ihedioha plotting to reconvene House – Tambuwal

    The House of Representatives’ Speaker, Aminu Tambuwal, has alleged that the Peoples Democratic Party, its Chairman, Adamu Mua’zu and three others were plotting to reconvene the sitting of the House before December 3 to which it lawfully adjourned.

    Tambuwal stated that the planned reconvening of the House sitting was part of the plot by his former party and its leadership to forcefully remove him from office as Speaker and member of the House of Reps.

    He accused the PDP and Mu’azu of working with the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Deputy Speaker, Emeka Ihedioha, to carry out this plot

    These were contained in an affidavit supporting a motion ex-parte filed by Tambuwal before the Federal High Court, Abuja, in addition to the suit he and his new party, the All Progressives Congress (APC), filed on Friday.

    Respondents in the motion marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/800/2014, are the PDP, Mu’azu, House of Representatives, Ihedioha, Inspector General of Police (IGP), Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the AGF.

    “The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 7th defendants (PDP, Muazu, House of Reps, Deputy Speaker and the AGF) are planning to illegally and unconstitutionally reconvene the sitting of the 3rd defendant (House of Reps) before December 3, 2014, the date the sitting of the 3rd defendant was lawfully adjourned to, without following due process, for the sole purpose of discussing and perfecting the forceful removal of the 1st plaintiff before the case of the plaintiff is heard and determined,” Tambuwal said in the supporting affidavit deposed to on his behalf by one of his lawyers, Ejura Patience Ochimana.

    The Speaker also stated that the withdrawal of his security details on October 30 by the IGP was upon the prompting of the 1st to 4th respondents (PDP, Mu’azu, House of Representatives and Ihedioha).

     

  • Tambuwal: House rejects plan to reconvene plenary

    Tambuwal: House rejects plan to reconvene plenary

    Mu’azu, others mount pressure on PDP Reps 

    Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) leaders have embarked on some desperate measures to seize the House from Speaker Aminu Tambuwal.

    Party Chairman Adamu Mu’azu is set to meet today the party’s caucus in the House — in a move to get members’ support for a plot to impeach Tambuwal, who defected to the All Progressives Congress (APC).

    Besides, Deputy Speaker Emeka Ihedioha is under pressure to reconvene plenary, which Tambuwal suspended till December 3.

    But the House warned yesterday that such a plan was illegal.

    In a statement, House  spokesman Zakari Mohammed said the rule book is clear on reconvening the House.

    According to him, only the Speaker is empowered to reconvene the House after it has been adjourned for one reason or the other.

    The statement reads: “The House of Representatives adjourned sitting of its plenary on 28th of October to 3rd December 2014 to allow members of the House carry out pre Pre- Budget oversight activities in preparation for the 2015 Budget and also to meet the political calendar of all the political parties.

    “This adjournment was unanimously approved by all the Principal Officers of the House without dissent and the motion was moved by Hon Mulikat- Adeola-Akande, the Majority Leader .The Speaker, Rt. Hon Aminu Waziri Tambuwal approved with the Gavel.

    “There has been intense media focus on this adjournment and media inquiries on the appropriate procedure for re- convening of the House of Representatives from its Recess , if it becomes necessary. The following clarification has become imperative.

    “The procedure for reconvening or Re-Assembly of the House is contained in the House Standing Orders made pursuant to Section 60 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which empowers the House to regulate its own procedure, including the procedure for Summoning and Recess of the House.

    “Order V, Rule 18(2) of the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives provides as follows;

    “Whenever the House stands adjourned either to a date fixed by Resolution or the Rules of the House, and it is represented by the Leaders of the Political Parties in the House to the Speaker that the public interest requires that the House should meet on an earlier or a later date or time than that on which it stands adjourned, the Speaker MAY give notice accordingly, and the House shall meet on the date and at the time stated in the notice.”

    “This means that the Leaders of all the political parties in the House, especially the Majority and Minority Leaders respectively, MUST consent before the representation is made to the Speaker who has a discretion to agree or not.

    “This briefing is for the information and guidance of all Nigerians”.

    PeoplesDemocratic Party (PDP) leaders are facing a tough task getting House of Representatives members to remove Speaker Aminu Tambuwal.

    The PDP has been mounting pressure on its members in the House to reconvene the House and remove the Speaker.

    Tambuwal’s security detail has been withdrawn by Inspector General of Police Sulaiman Abba – a move that has received widespread condemnation.

    The PDP leadership has slated a meeting for today with its lawmakers in the House.

    It was summoned by party Chairman Adamu Mu’azu. Ahead of today’s meeting the PDP house caucus met in Abuja on Saturday night.

    They have tabled three conditions before Muazu for the removal of Tambuwal.

    The conditions are: •automatic tickets for members who are governorship, senatorial and seeking a return to the House;

    •a bond to clip the wings of governors who have hijacked all the processes for free and fair primaries; and

    • freedom to elect whoever they prefer as Speaker instead of foisting House Leader Mulikat Akande-Adeola on them.

    The APC caucus in the House filed a case seeking an injunction to stop the PDP leaders from reconvening the House till December 3.

    Amid the looming war in the House, the Presidency was rattled by a statement from the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) declaring the withdrawal of Tambuwal’s security as illegal.

    It was also gathered that the Chairman of PDP Governors Forum, Akwa Ibom Governor Godswill Akpabio, confronted Deputy Speaker Emeka Ihedioha for allowing the PDP Caucus in the House to lose out.

    But Ihedioha reportedly fired back, asking a “dumbfounded” Akpabio what the forum had done to assist the caucus to consolidate its grip on the House.

    PDP Representatives met on Saturday in Abuja on the invitation of Mu’azu.

    A source at the session said: “We had a pre-meeting session since the agenda was obvious to all of us. Most of us were angry that it is only when the party wants to use us for selfish end that we are considered important.

    “We cannot remember when last Muazu and the NWC met us on policy issues, the development of the nation and the fortune of the party.

    “The party did not even deem it fit to put us into confidence on the modalities for the 2015 poll primaries and how to retain good hands among us. The party even had the gut to tell all House members from Bayelsa State to forget about second term ticket. Now, we are relevant because of plans to remove Tambuwal.”

    Another PDP Representative said: “We have come up with two conditions which the party must meet for the removal of the Speaker.

    “One, the party must give us automatic tikets irrespective of which office we are seeking.   Those aspiring to be governors, senators and second term in the House of Representatives should be given automatic chances.

    “We insisted that we won’t sign for the House to reconvene until the issue of automatic ticket is sorted out by the party.

    “Secondly, the party should check the governors who are deliberately frustrating the aspiration of most of our members in 2015. These governors must stop imposition of candidates; we want free and fair primaries.

    “We want freedom to choose whoever we want as Speaker after the removal of Tambuwal. We do not want the party to foist the House Leader on us.”

    As part of its counter-plot, the APC Caucus in the House will today head for court, seeking an injunction to restrain PDP members from reconvening the House.

    The Federal Government was on Saturday rattled by a statement from the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), which declared the withdrawal of Tambuwal’s security aides as illegal.

    Since the statement was issued, NBA President Augustine Alegeh (SAN) is said to have been under intense pressure from some Presidency officials.

    “But the NBA leadership stood by its position on Tambuwal and asked the government to allow the court to make a pronouncement,” another source said.

    The anti-Tambuwal project is, however, causing disaffection within the ranks and file of the party.

    It was learnt that at a meeting convened last Thursday at the Presidential Villa, Akpabio confronted Ihedioha.

    A PDP source added: “In the presence of President Goodluck Jonathan, Akpabio confronted the deputy speaker on why the PDP Caucus was being taken for granted by the opposition. Like a headmaster, Akpabio was shouting.

    “But Ihedioha fired back and asked Akpabio to explain what the PDP Governors Forum had done to support the PDP Caucus in the House.

    “Those at the session had to calm frayed nerves to restore normalcy.”