This name need no further introduction into Nigeria politics circle.
I am sure we should encourage him with our support.
Let's Support the Man!!!
D voice of the masses!
A man with solution to Nigeria's problem!
A politician with a clean record! A freedom fighter. Support Aminu Waziri Tambuwal
Our Messiah who will guide us to cannan Land come 2015!
https://m.facebook.com/Aminutambuwal2015

He is a traitor

[s]

denko:
He is a traitor

[/s]

He is the man of the moment for APC.

denko:
He is a traitor

Did he betray your father?

denko:
He is a traitor

You call a Man with choice a 'traitor'.....interesting. Am sure you are of no concern for the future of this nation.

He is selfish, a traitor, he cannot rule nigeria even if he wins all the state of the federation. what will you make of somebody that manulated himself to be speaker and as if that was not enough, he dump the party that made him speaker and selfishly still want to ratain his speakership.

denko:
He is selfish, a traitor, he cannot rule nigeria even if he wins all the state of the federation. what will you make of somebody that manulated himself to be speaker and as if that was not enough, he dump the party that made him speaker and selfishly still want to ratain his speakership.

Wonderful......u mean, na now you remember say he manipulated his way to become speaker

Tambuwal is a traitor he is not a politician he was a PDP in the day and APC in the night that is treachery

Sokoto Government House, here we come

I dont ave problems wit ppl dumping any political party, i only ave a problem wen dey actually fail to abide by d constitution. Tambuwal would ave been an honorable man if he had decamped and resigned. He has been speaker for a body dat is meant to make laws for dis country and he cant obey just one clause of the book he amends. adds and remove things from. It is a shame dat we dont have honorable men in dis country.

That guy is a back stabber

egift:
Sokoto Government House, here we come

Aso rock hw want

Haha,i know apc=janjawe.ed,but i do know they not that too stuppid to field that thief tambowal for any important position...u know,based on his porting_arsseability..na na,they wudnt do that..tambo,u on a goddamm long thing n oyo.

Ryder306:
This name need no further introduction into Nigeria politics circle.
I am sure we should encourage him with our support.
Let's Support the Man!!!
D voice of the masses!
A man with solution to Nigeria's problem!
A politician with a clean record! A freedom fighter. Support Aminu Waziri Tambuwal
Our Messiah who will guide us to cannan Land come 2015!
https://m.facebook.com/Aminutambuwal2015

I hope u're not thinking of him as a presidential candidate?

Better not. He won't even extrude thru the primaries.

By Bisi Lawrence

Aminu Tambuwal is not a traitor. He is an honourable man, deserving of that title as a member of the House of Representatives, and its highly respected Speaker to boot. His activities in that position in the past three years have bequeathed an aura of decency to the conduct and disposition of the august assembly to a degree unequalled by his predecessors, some of whom were swept out of office in unpleasant circumstances. He remained a member of the PDP in every way honourable at every turn of the road, protecting and defending .the Constitution in the gentlemanly discharge of his office according to its provisions.
Leaving a political party for another has been a feature of political movement for ages, even before Nigerian politics was born. The great Winston Churchill of Great Britain is on record as having moved from the Liberals to the Conservatives before becoming one of the most successful Prime Ministers of his nation. “Crossing the carpet” did not make him a traitor.
Here in Nigeria, one recalls that the formation of the first government of the defunct Western Region was as a consequence of a massive defection from the NCNC to the Action Group. In fact, changing one’s membership of one political party for another, could be described as a time-honoured feature of healthy politics. Even political parties, not just their members, are known to have discarded one policy for a new one. And so, people who were formerly elected into such parties may then be open to a choice, especially if the change occurred at the level of their constituency. In Nigeria where party politics is not unusually aligned to the leanings of a particular leading figure, whole States have been known to change with the fancy of their leaders.
It is uncharitable, to say the least, to characterize defection—to use the slightly derogatory term of switching from one party to the other—as treachery. There is no “high principle” involved in calling quits to an association which has gone sour. It is, in fact, rife in our body politic. We have seen politicians who left a party as back­benchers in one organization to emerge as cabinet members in the government formed by another party. There have been politicians who stood for two different parties as the presidential flag-bearers on different occasions. The ceremony, accompanied by sheer delight with which a man, or woman, who changes from one political party to another is received in the new party shows that what one party has lost, the other has gained. End of story.
No one is a PDP man, or an APC man … or whatever… .for longer than he says he is. The basis of his or her membership is at the constituency identity. That is the essence of the power of recall from the home ground. In all the defection that was spread all over the nation of recent, we have not experienced the exercise of that machinery of recall till now. Surely, the electorates know their rights? The party organization could have educated them more about the situation if it sees any headway there. But each affected political party has sought for redress from the law courts, though with very little success so far. For me, that indicates that very few organizations have any confidence in the alignment of their policies with those of their grassroots elements.
That then brings up the important rider in the conditions under which the Constitution permits a legislator to change from one party to another without losing his or her seat. It has become the most quoted part of the 1999 Constitution in recent days. It is Section 68 (c) and runs thus:
“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 he 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: provided that his membership of the latter political party is not as a result of division in the political party of which he was previously a member or of a merger of two or more political parties or factions by which he was previously sponsored.”
That means that while the movement of one’s membership of a party is frowned upon, it is permitted if there is a dissension within the party or in the case of a merger with another party. It does not lead to an automatic termination of one’s membership of the house. It is for Tambuwal to prove that there was what could be described as a division, or accepted as a division, in his former party, the PDP, prior to his movement. That description may be considered at the level of the House or his constituency, depending on whatever interpretation is favoured in view of the impact which either location did have on the Speaker.
One should also remark that it is patently jejune to speak of the identity of the Speaker as belonging to a party stripe. A PDP man is voted into office as a House Speaker—not as a PDP speaker. Whilst his party affiliation may colour his activities, he is expected, in the main, to be fair to the motivations and deliberations originated by all the members of the House, irrespective of their party. This has to be no less so in the case of Tambuwal who was, in fact, elected with the help of the entire House membership.
It cannot have been forgotten that the Speaker earned his office through the collaboration of the ADC. He was not the official candidate of his party. The PDP sponsored a lady member, Mulikat Akande, but members of the ACN, the erstwhile opposition, joined some dissidents from the PDP to install Tambuwal. That made the gentleman a veritable Speaker of no particular party, but a true servant of all parties—and that was what Tambuwal truly has been. The House had never enjoyed such openness, such smooth control. It is therefore false to categorize him as having been elected “under” the PDP platform, or to misconstrue his even-handed direction of the House affairs as “shenanigans designed to frustrate the express will of the Nigerian electorate”.
The support of the opposition for Tambuwal was pure politics. The claim that Mulikat Akande was proposed by the PDP in order to placate the Southwest’s desire for a share of the “national cake” is no more than a convenient excuse. But it would have served to fulfil their putative pattern of “zoning”. Since the President had come from the South-south, the Vice-President from the North Central and the Head of the Senate from the North East, it would have fitted admirably for the fourth place to have been claimed by the Southwest. It would demonstrate the country-wide expanse of the PDP. But it would also have established an outpost of influence for the party within a stronghold zone of the opposition. That was what the ACN rejected when it supported someone from another area against an indigene of their own soil. That is politics and to suggest that it would not have worked out if the situation had been reversed only declares a pathetic ignorance of political manoeuvres. The PDP, of course, would have gleefully reacted precisely in like manner if they were in the same position as the opposition at that time.
It has been painful for the “greatest”, (or is it “largest”?) political party in Africa.
The police was made to withdraw the security to which Tambuwal is entitled as a speaker, thus ensuring that a law-enforcement agency would become a law-breaking agent. The chief hack-writers of the PDP, whose pages now drip with tears as well as vitriol, support this “bush” tactics and even invoke more of the “nuisance value” which the government is capable of adding to any politician’s existence. But all that will not change the truth. Tambuwal is NOT a traitor. He has betrayed no one.[b]By Bisi Lawrence
.Aminu Tambuwal is not a traitor. He is an honourable man, deserving of that title as a member of the House of Representatives, and its highly respected Speaker to boot. His activities in that position in the past three years have bequeathed an aura of decency to the conduct and disposition of the august assembly to a degree unequalled by his predecessors, some of whom were swept out of office in unpleasant circumstances. He remained a member of the PDP in every way honourable at every turn of the road, protecting and defending .the Constitution in the gentlemanly discharge of his office according to its provisions.
Leaving a political party for another has been a feature of political movement for ages, even before Nigerian politics was born. The great Winston Churchill of Great Britain is on record as having moved from the Liberals to the Conservatives before becoming one of the most successful Prime Ministers of his nation. “Crossing the carpet” did not make him a traitor.
Here in Nigeria, one recalls that the formation of the first government of the defunct Western Region was as a consequence of a massive defection from the NCNC to the Action Group. In fact, changing one’s membership of one political party for another, could be described as a time-honoured feature of healthy politics. Even political parties, not just their members, are known to have discarded one policy for a new one. And so, people who were formerly elected into such parties may then be open to a choice, especially if the change occurred at the level of their constituency. In Nigeria where party politics is not unusually aligned to the leanings of a particular leading figure, whole States have been known to change with the fancy of their leaders.
It is uncharitable, to say the least, to characterize defection—to use the slightly derogatory term of switching from one party to the other—as treachery. There is no “high principle” involved in calling quits to an association which has gone sour. It is, in fact, rife in our body politic. We have seen politicians who left a party as back­benchers in one organization to emerge as cabinet members in the government formed by another party. There have been politicians who stood for two different parties as the presidential flag-bearers on different occasions. The ceremony, accompanied by sheer delight with which a man, or woman, who changes from one political party to another is received in the new party shows that what one party has lost, the other has gained. End of story.
No one is a PDP man, or an APC man … or whatever… .for longer than he says he is. The basis of his or her membership is at the constituency identity. That is the essence of the power of recall from the home ground. In all the defection that was spread all over the nation of recent, we have not experienced the exercise of that machinery of recall till now. Surely, the electorates know their rights? The party organization could have educated them more about the situation if it sees any headway there. But each affected political party has sought for redress from the law courts, though with very little success so far. For me, that indicates that very few organizations have any confidence in the alignment of their policies with those of their grassroots elements.
That then brings up the important rider in the conditions under which the Constitution permits a legislator to change from one party to another without losing his or her seat. It has become the most quoted part of the 1999 Constitution in recent days. It is Section 68 (c) and runs thus:
“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 he 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: provided that his membership of the latter political party is not as a result of division in the political party of which he was previously a member or of a merger of two or more political parties or factions by which he was previously sponsored.”
That means that while the movement of one’s membership of a party is frowned upon, it is permitted if there is a dissension within the party or in the case of a merger with another party. It does not lead to an automatic termination of one’s membership of the house. It is for Tambuwal to prove that there was what could be described as a division, or accepted as a division, in his former party, the PDP, prior to his movement. That description may be considered at the level of the House or his constituency, depending on whatever interpretation is favoured in view of the impact which either location did have on the Speaker.
One should also remark that it is patently jejune to speak of the identity of the Speaker as belonging to a party stripe. A PDP man is voted into office as a House Speaker—not as a PDP speaker. Whilst his party affiliation may colour his activities, he is expected, in the main, to be fair to the motivations and deliberations originated by all the members of the House, irrespective of their party. This has to be no less so in the case of Tambuwal who was, in fact, elected with the help of the entire House membership.
It cannot have been forgotten that the Speaker earned his office through the collaboration of the ADC. He was not the official candidate of his party. The PDP sponsored a lady member, Mulikat Akande, but members of the ACN, the erstwhile opposition, joined some dissidents from the PDP to install Tambuwal. That made the gentleman a veritable Speaker of no particular party, but a true servant of all parties—and that was what Tambuwal truly has been. The House had never enjoyed such openness, such smooth control. It is therefore false to categorize him as having been elected “under” the PDP platform, or to misconstrue his even-handed direction of the House affairs as “shenanigans designed to frustrate the express will of the Nigerian electorate”.
The support of the opposition for Tambuwal was pure politics. The claim that Mulikat Akande was proposed by the PDP in order to placate the Southwest’s desire for a share of the “national cake” is no more than a convenient excuse. But it would have served to fulfil their putative pattern of “zoning”. Since the President had come from the South-south, the Vice-President from the North Central and the Head of the Senate from the North East, it would have fitted admirably for the fourth place to have been claimed by the Southwest. It would demonstrate the country-wide expanse of the PDP. But it would also have established an outpost of influence for the party within a stronghold zone of the opposition. That was what the ACN rejected when it supported someone from another area against an indigene of their own soil. That is politics and to suggest that it would not have worked out if the situation had been reversed only declares a pathetic ignorance of political manoeuvres. The PDP, of course, would have gleefully reacted precisely in like manner if they were in the same position as the opposition at that time.
It has been painful for the “greatest”, (or is it “largest”?) political party in Africa.
The police was made to withdraw the security to which Tambuwal is entitled as a speaker, thus ensuring that a law-enforcement agency would become a law-breaking agent. The chief hack-writers of the PDP, whose pages now drip with tears as well as vitriol, support this “bush” tactics and even invoke more of the “nuisance value” which the government is capable of adding to any politician’s existence. But all that will not change the truth. Tambuwal is NOT a traitor. He has betrayed no one.[/b]By Bisi Lawrence
.Aminu Tambuwal is not a traitor. He is an honourable man, deserving of that title as a member of the House of Representatives, and its highly respected Speaker to boot. His activities in that position in the past three years have bequeathed an aura of decency to the conduct and disposition of the august assembly to a degree unequalled by his predecessors, some of whom were swept out of office in unpleasant circumstances. He remained a member of the PDP in every way honourable at every turn of the road, protecting and defending .the Constitution in the gentlemanly discharge of his office according to its provisions.
Leaving a political party for another has been a feature of political movement for ages, even before Nigerian politics was born. The great Winston Churchill of Great Britain is on record as having moved from the Liberals to the Conservatives before becoming one of the most successful Prime Ministers of his nation. “Crossing the carpet” did not make him a traitor.
Here in Nigeria, one recalls that the formation of the first government of the defunct Western Region was as a consequence of a massive defection from the NCNC to the Action Group. In fact, changing one’s membership of one political party for another, could be described as a time-honoured feature of healthy politics. Even political parties, not just their members, are known to have discarded one policy for a new one. And so, people who were formerly elected into such parties may then be open to a choice, especially if the change occurred at the level of their constituency. In Nigeria where party politics is not unusually aligned to the leanings of a particular leading figure, whole States have been known to change with the fancy of their leaders.
It is uncharitable, to say the least, to characterize defection—to use the slightly derogatory term of switching from one party to the other—as treachery. There is no “high principle” involved in calling quits to an association which has gone sour. It is, in fact, rife in our body politic. We have seen politicians who left a party as back­benchers in one organization to emerge as cabinet members in the government formed by another party. There have been politicians who stood for two different parties as the presidential flag-bearers on different occasions. The ceremony, accompanied by sheer delight with which a man, or woman, who changes from one political party to another is received in the new party shows that what one party has lost, the other has gained. End of story.
No one is a PDP man, or an APC man … or whatever… .for longer than he says he is. The basis of his or her membership is at the constituency identity. That is the essence of the power of recall from the home ground. In all the defection that was spread all over the nation of recent, we have not experienced the exercise of that machinery of recall till now. Surely, the electorates know their rights? The party organization could have educated them more about the situation if it sees any headway there. But each affected political party has sought for redress from the law courts, though with very little success so far. For me, that indicates that very few organizations have any confidence in the alignment of their policies with those of their grassroots elements.
That then brings up the important rider in the conditions under which the Constitution permits a legislator to change from one party to another without losing his or her seat. It has become the most quoted part of the 1999 Constitution in recent days. It is Section 68 (c) and runs thus:

“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 he 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: provided that his membership of the latter political party is not as a result of division in the political party of which he was previously a member or of a merger of two or more political parties or factions by which he was previously sponsored.”
That means that while the movement of one’s membership of a party is frowned upon, it is permitted if there is a dissension within the party or in the case of a merger with another party. It does not lead to an automatic termination of one’s membership of the house. It is for Tambuwal to prove that there was what could be described as a division, or accepted as a division, in his former party, the PDP, prior to his movement. That description may be considered at the level of the House or his constituency, depending on whatever interpretation is favoured in view of the impact which either location did have on the Speaker.
One should also remark that it is patently jejune to speak of the identity of the Speaker as belonging to a party stripe. A PDP man is voted into office as a House Speaker—not as a PDP speaker. Whilst his party affiliation may colour his activities, he is expected, in the main, to be fair to the motivations and deliberations originated by all the members of the House, irrespective of their party. This has to be no less so in the case of Tambuwal who was, in fact, elected with the help of the entire House membership.
It cannot have been forgotten that the Speaker earned his office through the collaboration of the ADC. He was not the official candidate of his party. The PDP sponsored a lady member, Mulikat Akande, but members of the ACN, the erstwhile opposition, joined some dissidents from the PDP to install Tambuwal. That made the gentleman a veritable Speaker of no particular party, but a true servant of all parties—and that was what Tambuwal truly has been. The House had never enjoyed such openness, such smooth control. It is therefore false to categorize him as having been elected “under” the PDP platform, or to misconstrue his even-handed direction of the House affairs as “shenanigans designed to frustrate the express will of the Nigerian electorate”.
.The support of the opposition for Tambuwal was pure politics. The claim that Mulikat Akande was proposed by the PDP in order to placate the Southwest’s desire for a share of the “national cake” is no more than a convenient excuse. But it would have served to fulfil their putative pattern of “zoning”. Since the President had come from the South-south, the Vice-President from the North Central and the Head of the Senate from the North East, it would have fitted admirably for the fourth place to have been claimed by the Southwest. It would demonstrate the country-wide expanse of the PDP. But it would also have established an outpost of influence for the party within a stronghold zone of the opposition. That was what the ACN rejected when it supported someone from another area against an indigene of their own soil. That is politics and to suggest that it would not have worked out if the situation had been reversed only declares a pathetic ignorance of political manoeuvres. The PDP, of course, would have gleefully reacted precisely in like manner if they were in the same position as the opposition at that time.
It has been painful for the “greatest”, (or is it “largest”?) political party in Africa.
The police was made to withdraw the security to which Tambuwal is entitled as a speaker, thus ensuring that a law-enforcement agency would become a law-breaking agent. The chief hack-writers of the PDP, whose pages now drip with tears as well as vitriol, support this “bush” tactics and even invoke more of the “nuisance value” which the government is capable of adding to any politician’s existence. But all that will not change the truth. Tambuwal is NOT a traitor. He has betrayed no one.