I read with much unease the press statement of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) on the withdrawal of the security personnel attached to the former Speaker of the House of Representatives following his defection from the PDP to the APC. In the said statement, the NBA, through its national president, Augustine Alegeh, SAN passed judgment on the action of the police, declaring it unconstitutional.

The plank of the NBA’s position - and this reflects the views of some respected lawyers - is that the Nigerian Police lacks the power and competence to interpret provisions of the constitution as only the judiciary can play that role. I agree. Sadly, that’s about all that I am in agreement with the NBA in their statement.

In the first place, the NBA appears to confuse enforcement of the law with interpretation of the law. The word ‘interpret’ means ‘to explain the meaning of information or actions’. Synonyms include, explain, elucidate, expound, explicate, clarify, make clear, make plain. On the other hand the word ‘enforce’ means ‘to compel observance of or compliance with a law, rule or obligation. Synonyms include, to impose, apply, carry out, administer, Implement, bring to bear, etc.

It is not in dispute that the judiciary has the constitutional role to interpret laws, including the constitution. It is also not in dispute that it is the Nigeria Police Force that has the constitutional mandate to enforce laws, including the constitution. The crucial question then is whether the actions of the police in withdrawing the former speaker’s security amounts to an interpretation of section 68(1)(g) or an enforcement of the section. The NBA sees it as an interpretation of the provision. I disagree.

I am of the firm view that the police simply enforced the relevant provision of the constitution and they are entitled to so do. Section 68(1) (g) of the Constitution provides that ‘a member of the Senate or of the House of Representatives shall vacate his seat in the House of which he is a member if - being a person whose election to the House was sponsored by a political party, he becomes a member of another political party before the expiration of the period for which that House was elected."

This provision, written in clear and unmistakable terms, means that any member of the legislative arm of government that defects while being a member of the house is deemed, in law, to have vacated his seat. Indeed, in Attorney-General of the Federation v Abubakar (2007) 10 NWLR Pt 1041 page 1 at page 178 (Judgment delivered on 20th April 2007), the Supreme Court, had this to say about section 68(1)(g) of the Constitution:

“Applying the well-known principles of interpretation to the above provision of the Constitution, I have no doubt in my mind that the legislators have made it manifest that if any of these elective members after winning an election on the platform of a political party, later, on being a member of the Senate or of the House of Representatives, defects to another political party he is deemed, in law, to have automatically vacated his seat in the House of which he is a member. No other interpretation can be given to the above provision. (Italics added) – Pius Olayiwola Aderemi , J.S.C

In view of the clear and unmistakable provision of section 68(1)(g) of the constitution, and the views expressed by the Supreme Court in AGF v Atiku, one does not need to be a lawyer to know that upon announcing his defection, Rt. Hon. Aminu Tambuwal ‘is deemed, in law, to have automatically vacated his seat’ in the House of Representatives, therefore losing an essential requirement to be a Speaker. The Nigerian Police Force, being a law enforcement agency, is therefore under a legal duty to enforce the provision.

The suggestions that the police should seek judicial interpretation before enforcing the provision is not only absurd but also an invitation to chaos and disorder. Are we saying the police should also seek judicial interpretation before withdrawing security from a Governor who has vacated his seat following an impeachment? For example, should the police have gone to court to seek judicial interpretation on the provisions relating to impeachment before withdrawing the security personal attached to Murtala Nyako, the impeached governor of Adamawa State? Point is: if the constitution stipulates a penalty for an act, it is the duty of the police to enforce such a penalty upon the occurrence of such act. They do not require any judicial interpretation before acting.

Of course I am aware that by virtue of section 68(2) of the constitution, the Speaker, being the presiding office of the House, is to give effect to the provision of 68(1)(g). In other words, he is the one constitutionally empowered to confirm the vacancy of the seat of a defecting member. In the instant case, however, the Speaker is the one defecting. Upon defection, he did not vacate his seat but rather adjourned the House to 3rd December 2014. In the circumstances, the onus must shift to the executive to enforce the law. This is because by virtue of section 5(1) (b), the executive powers of the President “extend to the execution and maintenance of the constitution, all laws, made by the National Assembly and to all matters with respect of which the National Assembly has, for the time being, power to make laws.” In other words, the President has a constitutional duty to ensure the execution and maintenance of the constitution. He can therefore, acting through the police, take steps to fulfil this duty.

I am also not unaware that there is a proviso to section 68(1)(g) to the effect that the member of the House may not vacate his seat if the defection is because of a division or merger of his former party. It is however trite law, that where a person claims to come under an exception, exemption or proviso of a law, the burden of proof is on that person. It is therefore the responsibility of the former Speaker to go to court to prove that he falls within the proviso. It is NOT the responsibility of the police and the police needs not to wait for the former Speaker to seek judicial interpretation before acting. Of course, if the former Speaker had filed a suit before defecting, as some of his colleagues did, the matter would have been sub judice and the police must await the pronouncement of the court before acting. He didn’t do so. There was nothing stopping the police from acting as at the time they did.

Before concluding, it is important to add that contrary to the views expressed by the NBA, the issue of whether the former Speaker can still retain his seat, is, strictly speaking, not an issue of interpretation of the constitution. Rather, it is a question of fact. i.e. is there a division in the PDP to bring the former Speaker within the proviso? That said, I listened to the speech made by the former Speaker. If my ears did not fail me, nowhere did he mention division or merger in his party as the reason for his defection. Rather, he said he was defecting ‘pursuant to the extant provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and having regards to development in my home State of Sokoto” whatever that means.

In conclusion, it is my firm view that the police acted lawfully by withdrawing the security personnel attached to the former Speaker. By virtue of section 68(1)(g), the former Speaker is deemed in law, to have automatically vacated his seat upon his defection from the party that sponsored him. Their action was simply to enforce a provision of the constitution that does not allow for any other interpretation.

Source: http://naijalawandpolitics..com/2014/11/re-nbas-position-on-withdrawal-of.html

hmmmm

Good piece, sound reasoning! The police only enforced the law and enforce they will, at the next house sitting. Tambuwal remains an ordinary citizen just like you and I. On the question of whether his removal was right or wrong - that is what Tambuwal's lawyers will have to argue in court from mid November. Right now, we have a power vacuum; the speaker's seat is empty and a new speaker needs to be elected. Based on the above, the house needs to reconvene asap.

tokunboh:
Good piece, sound reasoning! The police only enforced the law and enforce they will, at the next house sitting. Tambuwal remains an ordinary citizen just like you and I. On the question of whether his removal was right or wrong - that is what Tambuwal's lawyers will have to argue in court from mid November. Right now, we have a power vacuum; the speaker's seat is empty and a new speaker needs to be elected. Based on the above, the house needs to reconvene asap.

Thought a court has said "he remains Speaker" for now and he can't be removed till December after reconvening!

Why not go to court, get a proper interpretation THEN enforce whatever that is? This "lawless" method where everyone says what he wants and enforces such,is weakening democracy in Nigeia and while it can bite the opposition this time, next time it may bite PDP or even the President

nuclearboy:


Thought a court has said "he remains Speaker" for now and he can't be removed till December after reconvening!

Why not go to court, get a proper interpretation THEN enforce whatever that is? This "lawless" method where everyone says what he wants and enforces such,is weakening democracy in Nigeia and while it can bite the opposition this time, next time it may bite PDP or even the President

First of all, the court did not say he remains Speaker until December. The court merely ruled that the status quo be maintained. Question is: what is the status quo? For Tambuwal and his lawyers, status quo is that he remains Speaker. For the police, status means he's no longer Speaker and his security aides will remain withdrawn ( since they were withdrawn before he went to court).

Having said that, I guess you did not read the decision of the Supreme Court to the effect that section 68(1) (g) has NO OTHER INTERPRETATION apart from meaning that the defecting member is'DEEMED IN LAW TO HAVE AUTOMATICALLY VACATED HIS SEAT'

so far this case is not an issue of withdrawing him from the house. only the house can vote to unsit him as the speaker. The IG is very fast forward on this matter

jojomario:
so far this case is not an issue of withdrawing him from the house. only the house can vote to unsit him as the speaker. The IG is very fast forward on this matter

Yes, only the house can vote to unseat him as a Speaker. At the same time however, only a member of the house can be a Speaker. Since the Speaker is deemed in law to have automatically vacated his seat, how can he remain a Speaker?

muami:


First of all, the court did not say he remains Speaker until December. The court merely ruled that the status quo be maintained. Question is: what is the status quo? For Tambuwal and his lawyers, status quo is that he remains Speaker. For the police, status means he's no longer Speaker and his security aides will remain withdrawn ( since they were withdrawn before he went to court).

Having said that, I guess you did not read the decision of the Supreme Court to the effect that section 68(1) (g) has NO OTHER INTERPRETATION apart from meaning that the defecting member is'DEEMED IN LAW TO HAVE AUTOMATICALLY VACATED HIS SEAT'

We are dubious in this country! The court said "you cannor reconvene (because the adjournment was done rightly by elected members) and if you wish to do so, you must come defend it! Since court sees adjournment by Tambuwal as rightly done, he is clearly still Speaker! Else come and show otherwise!

In December (or when you present a suit and win), this can change!

I detest Nigerian politicians and see them as tricksters always trying to upstage the law. I also see what Tambuwal did as "below the belt"! However, the law should run its cause in this case and that is why PDP isn't making noise now! Rather, they are (and should) seeking how to challenge in court!

that is the right thing if we don't want anarchy! You have the power to fasttrack cases - do so but remember, a knife doesn't know if it is in your hands or your enemies - it can also cut PDP if we all start to intepret in our bedrooms especially based on our preferences

The fact remains: The IG of Police has no authority bestow on himself the responsibility of interpreting the Law - that is the sole duty of the court. The Speaker has neither been impeached nor prohibited by the Court.

Even if you are accused of any crime, the duty of the Police is to take you to court for judgement. It is sad that for some political expediencies, some folks are supporting illegality, impunity and abuse of power. It is wrong.

What the Legislative arm of Government do in the House remains in the Green Chamber. PDP are looking to how to clamp down on the Legislative Arm of Government and detect its activities from outside.

For 15yrs PDP have been sowing evil at all level of government that will take Generations to uproot. There are 3 Arms of Government that are Equal within the context of their privileges as provided by the constitution. Jonathan is just trying to make the House subjective to its illegalities.

egift:
The fact remains: The IG of Police has no authority bestow on himself the responsibility of interpreting the Law - that is the sole duty of the court. The Speaker has neither been impeached nor prohibited by the Court.

Even if you are accused of any crime, the duty of the Police is to take you to court for judgement. It is sad that for some political expediencies, some folks are supporting illegality, impunity and abuse of power. It is wrong.

Obviously, you didn't read the OP otherwise yo wouldn't be arguing with yourself an emboldening a fact that is not in dispute. No one is arguing that the IGP has power to interpret laws. He does not. However, the police has powers to enforce the role. There is a difference between enforcement or laws and interpretation of laws. When a Governor leaves office by impeachment, do the police need the court to interpret the impeachment laws before withdrawing security? When a Governor's tenure comes to an end by effluxion of time, do the police need to interpret the laws on tenure before withdrawing security? When a legislator tenure comes to an end after four years, do the police need a court to interpret the laws on tenure before de-recognizing? If your answers to the above question is all NO, how come we now expect the police to go to court to interpret the law on defection when a legislator vacates his seat by defecting?

That said, I can see you are shying away from law and making over-simplistic emotional arguments. I quoted law, I even cited a Supreme Court case that says when a member of the house defects, 'HE IS DEEMED IN LAW TO HAVE AUTOMATICALLY VACATED HIS SEAT'. In fact, the court went further to state clearly that 'NO OTHER INTERPRETATION can be given to section 68(1) (g). Can we therefore challenge these points with law (i.e quote laws and judicial decisions to support you point) rather than emotions?

@egift, for ease of reference, I have reproduced the Supreme Court's views on the legal implication of defection? Can you please stop being emotional and address the LAW?

"I have no doubt in my mind that the legislators have made it manifest that if any of these elective members after winning an election on the platform of a political party, later, on being a member of the Senate or of the House of Representatives, defects to another political party he is deemed, in law, to have automatically vacated his seat in the House of which he is a member. No other interpretation can be given to the above provision". – Pius Olayiwola Aderemi , J.S.C in Attorney-General of the Federation v Abubakar (2007) 10 NWLR Pt 1041 page 1 at page 178 (Judgment delivered on 20th April 2007)

egift:
What the Legislative arm of Government do in the House remains in the Green Chamber. PDP are looking to how to clamp down on the Legislative Arm of Government and detect its activities from outside.

For 15yrs PDP have been sowing evil at all level of government that will take Generations to uproot. There are 3 Arms of Government that are Equal within the context of their privileges as provided by the constitution. Jonathan is just trying to make the House subjective to its illegalities.

muami:
Obviously, you didn't read the OP otherwise yo wouldn't be arguing with yourself an emboldening a fact that is not in dispute. No one is arguing that the IGP has power to interpret laws. He does not. However, the police has powers to enforce the role. There is a difference between enforcement or laws and interpretation of laws. When a Governor leaves office by impeachment, do the police need the court to interpret the impeachment laws before withdrawing security? When a Governor's tenure comes to an end by effluxion of time, do the police need to interpret the laws on tenure before withdrawing security? When a legislator tenure comes to an end after four years, do the police need a court to interpret the laws on tenure before de-recognizing? If your answers to the above question is all NO, how come we now expect the police to go to court to interpret the law on defection when a legislator vacates his seat by defecting?

That said, I can see you are shying away from law and making over-simplistic emotional arguments. I quoted law, I even cited a Supreme Court case that says when a member of the house defects, 'HE IS DEEMED IN LAW TO HAVE AUTOMATICALLY VACATED HIS SEAT'. In fact, the court went further to state clearly that 'NO OTHER INTERPRETATION can be given to section 68(1) (g). Can we therefore challenge these points with law (i.e quote laws and judicial decisions to support you point) rather than emotions?

I read the piece and like him you are placing the cart before the horse. The fact remains that he is yet to loose his Speakership Position, which can be achieved on the floor of the house and in the Court. It is also run to preempt the process.

E.G: When someone is seen red-handed stealing, when the police get him the will not send him to jail directly because everyone saw the guy - he will be taken to the court for judgment.

What have in the current crisis is that PDP do not have the required Votes to pursue the legal process involved, so they are using impunity to muscle their intentions.

I repeat, the IG has no power to decide if Tambuwal is a Speaker of Nigeria's House of Representatives or Not. It is not in place to decide for the House who is Speaker and Who is not - Members of the House and the Court have that responsibility.

PDP is seeking Self-Help, it is very wrong and threatens our Democracy.

muami:
@egift, for ease of reference, I have reproduced the Supreme Court's views on the legal implication of defection? Can you please stop being emotional and address the LAW?

Until the cases of defection of the 5 Governors and that of the PDP Law-makers that left for APC is decided by the Court, the IG has no power to decide Tambuwal Speakership Position. Stop placing the cart before the horse.

PDP is exploring everything they can pull to intimidate Tambuwal. In fact PDP plan is to see if they can get him off as a lawmaker.

Tambuwal destination is Sokoto State Government House. PDP is fighting irrelevant battle.

egift:


I read the piece and like him you are placing the cart before the horse. The fact remains that he is yet to loose his Speakership Position, which can be achieved on the floor of the house and in the Court. It is also run to preempt the process.

E.G: When someone is seen red-handed stealing, when the police get him the will not send him to jail directly because everyone saw the guy - he will be taken to the court for judgment.

What have in the current crisis is that PDP do not have the required Votes to pursue the legal process involved, so they are using impunity to muscle their intentions.

I repeat, the IG has no power to decide if Tambuwal is a Speaker of Nigeria's House of Representatives or Not. It is not in place to decide for the House who is Speaker and Who is not - Members of the House and the Court have that responsibility.

PDP is seeking Self-Help, it is very wrong and threatens our Democracy.

Constitutional issues and criminal law are tow different. Where a constitution stipulates that someone should vacate his office following the occurrence of an act, the the police must enforce the law when that act occurs. If the relevant officer feels aggrieve or has any reason why he should not vacate office, the onus is on him to go to court to show cause. If he is able to do so, then he can regain his office.

Are you not aware that we have had many faulty impeachments in beer parlours and hotel rooms this country including Ngige, Joshua Dariye and Co., Did the police have to go to court to interpret the impeachment laws before acting? Didn't they simply enforce it pending when the releant party proves his case in court. More recently, Bala Ngilari was purported to have submitted a resignation letter to the House of Assembly. Even though it was faulty, didn't the police enforce it until he proved his case in court before returning as Governor? Why then should Tambuwal's matter be different. He defected. Constitution says when you defect you vacate the seat and this has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean that the person 'AUTOMATICALLY' vacates his seat upon defection. And you say the police should go to the same court for interpretation before enforcing the law. Haba!

egift:


Until the cases of defection of the 5 Governors and that of the PDP Law-makers that left for APC is decided by the Court, the IG has no power to decide Tambuwal Speakership Position. Stop placing the cart before the horse.

PDP is exploring everything they can pull to intimidate Tambuwal. In fact PDP plan is to see if they can get him off as a lawmaker.

Tambuwal destination is Sokoto State Government House. PDP is fighting irrelevant battle.

Isn't that the more reason why he should have honourably announced the vacation of his seat by himself and go and focus on his gubernatorial ambition. Our hypocrisy in this country is not helping us. We applaud people without honour yet we want other people to be honourable. How does that work?

I remember when Sanusi was running his mouth. Some of us said it was more honourable for him to resign so he can run his mouth from outside. You guys said: " PDP is trying to intimidate Sanusi', "GEJ has no power to suspend Sanusi' bla bla bla. Where is Sanusi now? After all the shouting, his lawyers didn't even know the proper court to file the case! Sentiments and law are two different things! Let's await the judgement of the court.

muami:
Constitutional issues and criminal law are tow different. Where a constitution stipulates that someone should vacate his office following the occurrence of an act, the the police must enforce the law when that act occurs. If the relevant officer feels aggrieve or has any reason why he should not vacate office, the onus is on him to go to court to show cause. If he is able to do so, then he can regain his office.

@Bold:
When the same portion of the constitution clearly stated that "in case of a division in the party he is decamping from" - how then can the Police bestow on itself the responsibility to Interpret the constitution, ignore the second paragraph and execute the agenda of the President that has been having midnight meeting with the PDP lawmakers the previous night threatening the Speaker.

It Nigerian Police and not PDP Police. I have no problem with Tambuwal losing his position, but the fact is that like many other decisions of Jonathan, this is abuse of power. Trying to muscle through PDP Self-Help is a bad precedence.

egift:

I read the piece and like him you are placing the cart before the horse. The fact remains that he is yet to loose his Speakership Position, which can be achieved on the floor of the house and in the Court. It is also run to preempt the process.
E.G: When someone is seen red-handed stealing, when the police get him the will not send him to jail directly because everyone saw the guy - he will be taken to the court for judgment.
What have in the current crisis is that PDP do not have the required Votes to pursue the legal process involved, so they are using impunity to muscle their intentions.
I repeat, the IG has no power to decide if Tambuwal is a Speaker of Nigeria's House of Representatives or Not. It is not in place to decide for the House who is Speaker and Who is not - Members of the House and the Court have that responsibility.
PDP is seeking Self-Help, it is very wrong and threatens our Democracy.

The ONLY reason why police cannot send somebody to jail directly when the person is caught stealing is that the constitution EXPRESSLY states that you must go take a person to court and get in convicted and sentences before you can deprive the person of his freedom. (See section 35 (1) (a) reproduced below). You can be rest assured that if there was no such constitutional protection, the police can jail any body committing an offence without recourse to court.

Flowing from the above, if your E.G. is to have any relevance to the issue at stake, then you need to show us the part of the constitutional that says that the police must go to court before enforcing the law against a defecting member. I am waiting.

35. (1) Every person shall be entitled to his personal liberty and no person shall be deprived of such liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure permitted by law -

(a) in execution of the sentence or order of a court in respect of a criminal offence of which he has been found guilty

egift:


@Bold:
When the same portion of the constitution clearly stated that "in case of a division in the party he is decamping from" - how then can the Police bestow on itself the responsibility to Interpret the constitution, ignore the second paragraph and execute the agenda of the President that has been having midnight meeting with the PDP lawmakers the previous night threatening the Speaker.

It Nigerian Police and not PDP Police. I have no problem with Tambuwal losing his position, but the fact is that like many other decisions of Jonathan, this is abuse of power. Trying to muscle through PDP Self-Help is a bad precedence.

I think you are still missing the point. As I said before, the police cannot interpret the law. As such, it is not their business whether the proviso .i.e. 'division or merger of party', is applicable to the former Speaker. By law, the BURDEN OF PROOF is on the person claiming to come under an exception (in this case the former Speaker) to go to court (as he has now done) and prove his case. If he wins, he may then return. For example, the constitution states clearly that a resignation letter of a deputy governor must be submitted to the governor. However, when the Assembly announced his resignation, the police wasn't interested in whether it was legal or not. That is the business of the court and the onus was on Ngilari to claim his 'right'. He went to court, proved his case and is back. Simple.

By law, if Tambuwal wanted to claim the exception without losing his seat, he should have filed a suit in court before decamping just as his colleagues did. He failed to do that. As such, there was nothing stopping the police from acting.

muami:
I think you are still missing the point. As I said before, the onus cannot interpret the law. As such, it is not their business whether the proviso

So theirs is to selectively push whatever they want, if you do not like it Go To Court.

Let me tell you those that own the strategy - PDP - They rig every election and ask you to Go To Court, if you don't like.

As you can see, it is placing the cart before the Horse and doing all they can to justify the PDP Self Help on this issue.

Before the Author started looking for way to justify PDP illegality, here is what he wrote:

...the Nigerian Police lacks the power and competence to interpret provisions of the constitution as only the judiciary can play that role. I agree.

muami:


Obviously, you didn't read the OP otherwise yo wouldn't be arguing with yourself an emboldening a fact that is not in dispute. No one is arguing that the IGP has power to interpret laws. He does not. However, the police has powers to enforce the role. There is a difference between enforcement or laws and interpretation of laws. When a Governor leaves office by impeachment, do the police need the court to interpret the impeachment laws before withdrawing security? When a Governor's tenure comes to an end by effluxion of time, do the police need to interpret the laws on tenure before withdrawing security? When a legislator tenure comes to an end after four years, do the police need a court to interpret the laws on tenure before de-recognizing? If your answers to the above question is all NO, how come we now expect the police to go to court to interpret the law on defection when a legislator vacates his seat by defecting?

That said, I can see you are shying away from law and making over-simplistic emotional arguments. I quoted law, I even cited a Supreme Court case that says when a member of the house defects, 'HE IS DEEMED IN LAW TO HAVE AUTOMATICALLY VACATED HIS SEAT'. In fact, the court went further to state clearly that 'NO OTHER INTERPRETATION can be given to section 68(1) (g). Can we therefore challenge these points with law (i.e quote laws and judicial decisions to support you point) rather than emotions?

I wonder what type of education and level of reasoning most of your ppl blindly defending illegality because of love to GEJ or PDP. If a Governor time expires or was impeached he vacant the government house and the security details in government house will never be withdrawn. The security details is for the position of number four citizen of FRN and not to the personality of Tambuwal.

On the issue of Police enforcing the law, maybe you can give candid answers to this and relate it with your stand
1. Why will NPF arraigned arm robbers/kidnappers/murders (even when caught red-handed with many witnesses) before the court when the laws are very clear on the setence to be melt on them?
2. If NPF will seek Court judgement on those cases why not seek/wait for court judgement before enforcing.
3. And if by your logic EFCC and co shouldnt be going to court before sending indicted ppl to prison.
4. Oh you want to respond that those cases are different from Tambuwal case?

In clear term, it is the duty of the Court to determine if a person/entity/group of ppl has/have breach any section(s) of the Constitution/Laws and Police to enforce it. The rules is, in any crime be civil/criminal the Police Investigate, obtain evidences/witnesses and prosecute through court of law and the Court makes a pronounceent/ruling on its conformity/un-comformity with relevance section(s) of laws, then NPF and other related agencies like Prison Service enforce the law. Even in rape cases when professionals (Doctors) confirm that a girl was rape and the semen analysis result is the same with the accused couple with confirming witnesses and evidences, they can't just imprison the man without charging him to Court . That is what the law demanded from them, hope you got it?

I knw by now tambuwal will b sweating, regreting n perspiring over his action. He'll b like if I knew I would have left dis minority otuoke man to b even tho my tribe hate him.

thegreatman4ww:


On the issue of Police enforcing the law, maybe you can give candid answers to this and relate it with your stand
1. Why will NPF arraigned arm robbers/kidnappers/murders (even when caught red-handed with many witnesses) before the court when the laws are very clear on the setence to be melt on them?
2. If NPF will seek Court judgement on those cases why not seek/wait for court judgement before enforcing.
3. And if by your logic EFCC and co shouldnt be going to court before sending indicted ppl to prison.
4. Oh you want to respond that those cases are different from Tambuwal case?

Because the constitution states as follows:

Section "35. (1) Every person shall be entitled to his personal liberty and no person shall be deprived of such liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure permitted by law -

(a) in execution of the sentence or order of a court in respect of a criminal offence of which he has been found guilty."

In other word the police are ENFORCING section 35(1) of the constitution when they take people to court. Now can you the part of our laws that says the police must take a defecting member to court? I'm waiting.

OP with due respect, The Police are not interpreters of the Law but enforcers.
The Police will only act when:
1. The Court ruled against Tambawal and declares his seat vacant or

2. 2/3rd Members of House of Reps Move to impeach Tambawal. OR

3. Tambawa Resign his Speakership.

By the above act, the constitutional requirement for a Speaker's vacation of his seat have been met. This is where the Police is to carryout its enforcement.

Your argument is as good as a piece of document in the thrash can

Thank You!!

muami:


Because the constitution states as follows:

Section "35. (1) Every person shall be entitled to his personal liberty and no person shall be deprived of such liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure permitted by law -

(a) in execution of the sentence or order of a court in respect of a criminal offence of which he has been found guilty."

In other word the police are ENFORCING section 35(1) of the constitution when they take people to court. Now can you the part of our laws that says the police must take a defecting member to court? I'm waiting.

I already knew it, hence my number four statement.
Now to Tambuwal issue, fine, the constitution says an elected person vacant his/her elected position immediately he/she left the party in which he/she was elected except.....there is a division in his/her party.
May I ask, was it the duty of the Police i.e. IG/AIG of Police or Presidency to determine if actually that was division or not.
Remember that Tambuwal cited two types of divisions (Sokoto his home state and the last National division seeing the exit of five governors/some Reps), as at the time of Tambuwal defection, there is no substantial court ruling(s) (remember substantial clasue because I know that you may want tosay one ruling has say this or that) on whether there is indeed division in PDP national level or Sokoto chapter or not.
So for any law abiding citizen/govt arms to declare Tambuwal seat (as HoR member, which was the case you ppl are advocating) vacant he/she/they should apply to compentent Court of Law with right juridistion or mobilize the HoR members to declare a session to determine if the reasons Tambuwal gave can be prove beyond reasonable doubt that his defection was in according with the defection clause in the constitution or not.

If you still stand by your earlier position, I will not be disappointed because your master with his Phd has a very low reasoning ability and IQ when compared with First school leavers.

nuclearboy:


Thought a court has said "he remains Speaker" for now and he can't be removed till December after reconvening!

Why not go to court, get a proper interpretation THEN enforce whatever that is? This "lawless" method where everyone says what he wants and enforces such,is weakening democracy in Nigeia and while it can bite the opposition this time, next time it may bite PDP or even the President

You should start reading news content and not misleading headlines you see on NL. Tambuwal is not challenging his removal as speaker rather he wants the court to stop the house from reconvening and also want his police escorts restored. That funny Alhaji is busy playing to the gallery.

It's even more funny that you have said the police should go to court before they could enforce the law. I bow to you o. The fact still remains Tambuwal is not even a member of the house of reps.

nuclearboy:


Thought a court has said "he remains Speaker" for now and he can't be removed till December after reconvening!

Why not go to court, get a proper interpretation THEN enforce whatever that is? This "lawless" method where everyone says what he wants and enforces such,is weakening democracy in Nigeia and while it can bite the opposition this time, next time it may bite PDP or even the President

If I say a man will bite a dog soon



....some guys will be asking for my scalp"!!!!²

[quote author[b]=tokunboh post=27723877]

You should start reading news content and not misleading headlines you see on[/b] NL. Tambuwal is not challenging his removal as speaker rather he wants the court to stop the house from reconvening and also want his police escorts restored. That funny Alhaji is busy playing to the gallery.

It's even more funny that you have said the police should go to court before they could enforce the law. I bow to you o. The fact still remains Tambuwal is not even a member of the house of reps.[/quote]

Don't mind him. Reading headlines and arguing emotionally on a legal issue.