An expert in constitutional law, Prof. Itse Sagay, SAN, speaks on the contentious issue of whether the House of Representatives Speaker, Aminu Tambuwal, should resign following his defection from the Peoples Democratic Party to the All Progressives Congress, in this interview with TOBI AWORINDE

There has been some disagreement on whether or not the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Aminu Tambuwal, should resign his position, given his recent defection to the All Progressives Congress. What is your view on this?

I am strongly of the view that he is entitled to resign from the Peoples Democratic Party and join any party of his wish, in accordance with his constitutional rights; particularly since the provision for election of speaker does not have any party label. It does not say ‘Somebody belonging to the majority party, or somebody who was elected on a particular platform.’ It doesn’t say so. It is a free provision, which allows anybody in the House to be elected, provided he has the simple majority.


In March, a court dismissed a suit filed by some lawmakers who defected to the APC in defence of their action. Is this ruling applicable to him?

In my view, it doesn’t (apply to him) because the constitutional provision says that if there is a division within a particular party, any legislator in that party can resign and join another party. In my view, there was a major division within the PDP, which has not been resolved. Therefore, I think there is a constitutional basis for him to leave the PDP and join another party. In fact, I don’t agree with the judgment of the Federal High Court, although the judgment is valid until overruled. But that judgment does not apply to him because he wasn’t a party to the case, and I hope the matter might go to the Court of Appeal for a resolution because that judgment, in my view, was wrong by not recognising the separate declaration by a group of PDP people that they are the proper executives and officers of the PDP, as against the orthodox group. Not recognising that as a division within the party shows that that court did not quite understand the language of the constitution.

How does this piece of legislation compare with those of other countries?

I think, in that regard, we are probably very unique. In most other countries, particularly in the developed Western democratic world—this I can say confidently—anyone can change from one party to another without any problem. The famous Winston Churchill used to be a Liberal, before he became a Conservative. Later, he became a prime minister under the Conservatives. They don’t have this restriction that we have here. And frankly, I think the restriction is illegitimate, because it restricts a person’s right of association.

The argument has also been raised that elected officials represent their parties at the point of election and that it is, therefore, illegal for them to defect to other parties. Do you agree with this notion?

The party merely provides a platform for electoral contest, so we cannot say it was a party that was elected. It was the person who was elected on that party’s platform. I think it is the case against (Rivers State Governor, Rotimi) Amaechi that is being used. But even that is an incorrect application of the case, because what that case said was that the original person nominated by the party continues to be the valid nominee, regardless of who actually contested an election. So, we must not mix up things. A party is not elected; it is a person who is elected on a party platform, and that person has a right to change his mind. The only penalty he can suffer is for the original party, under which he was elected, to use it to campaign against him in the next election, to ensure that he is not re-elected. That is all.

But the Independent National Electoral Commission says they recognise only parties, rather than individuals. Does this position not further justify such a debate?

I am not sure in what context INEC says it recognises only parties. It recognises only parties for the purpose of contesting elections. In other words, if you want to contest elections, you must be a party member. You must belong to a party—that is the present law. Beyond that, when the person has been sponsored by the party, and the election has taken place, the party still has a moral hold over him, but certainly not a legal hold.

Will you then say the constitution is flawed, because, as you have noted, it doesn’t unequivocally assure everyone of their right to freedom of association?

In my view, the constitution should not have any restriction on the right of a person to cross from one party to the other. It is not a good thing, because it shows a lack of integrity; it shows opportunism and lack of principles. What happens in all other communities and political cultures in the world is that the act itself condemns the person and he becomes unacceptable in future. That is the punishment; you don’t need a law for that. You need political culture for that. In essence, we should jettison that law and expect our political culture and maturity to develop and it will take care of that problem.

http://www.punchng.com/feature/interview/tambuwal-has-right-to-defect-sagay/

Cc Barnista, Omenka, Ibnsultan, Obiagelli, egift, pendy79, Gbawe, Berem, Donphilopus, ayamlaykorn and all!

Very exact.Relieves a man from being a slave to evil and retrogression.

PDP has no legal backing to boot out Tambuwal, they are resulting to self-help, intimidation, using the Police and requesting for morality - all in a bid to dispose Tambuwal.

That will not happen.

Now a sensible lawyer has spoken. Agbakoba should go fix his brain. NBA should stripp off his SAN status from him and he should be demoted to a "charge and bail" lawyer inshort.

Nansense!

Seun, obinoscopy, market don come

A plausible fellow has spoken!

berem:
Now a sensible lawyer has spoken. Agbakoba should go fix his brain. NBA should stripp off his SAN status from him and he should be demoted to a "charge and bail" lawyer inshort.

Nansense!

What do you expect?

Agbakoba- A Maritime Lawyer!

Prof Itse Sagay- An Expert in Constitutional Law

Everyone has been down playing the division in the PDP, anyway i think tambowal should have resigned as speaker.

Obiagelli:
Everyone has been down playing the division in the PDP, anyway i think tambowal should have resigned as speaker.

On what basis?

NgeneUkwenu:


What do you expect?

Agbakoba- A Maritime Lawyer!

Prof Itse Sagay- An Expert in Constitutional Law

A maritime lawyer? No wonder.
I once met his wifey in my former place of work three years ago and she's a very nice woman. Dude really disappointed me with his foolish comments.

berem:
A maritime lawyer? No wonder.
I once met his wifey in my former place of work three years ago and she's a very nice woman. Dude really disappointed me with his foolish comments.

Yea he is an expert in Maritime Law. He doesn't know jack about constitutional Law, the reason he is hardly mentioned in Electoral case!

NgeneUkwenu:
Cc Barnista, Omenka, Ibnsultan, Obiagelli, egift, pendy79, Gbawe, Berem, Donphilopus, ayamlaykorn and all!

Tambuwal will remain as the speaker. Jonathanians can go to hell were the belong

Brilliant analysis from prof. Itse Sagay. A division occurs in a party once there is a parallel faction irrespective of whether inec recognises the faction or not. And I also support the idea of allowing political office holders to join whatever party that appeals to them. Their should be no legal restriction for an elected or unelected politician to move from one party to another. The people should be allowed to decide their case during election.

seunmsg:
Brilliant analysis from prof. Itse Sagay. A division occurs in a party once there is a parallel faction irrespective of whether inec recognises the faction or not. And I also support the idea of allowing political office holders to join whatever party that appeals to them. Their should be no legal restriction for an elected or unelected politician to move from one party to another. The people should be allowed to decide their case during election.

And the man na from Ijaw!

NgeneUkwenu:


On what basis?

On moral grounds, i like the fayemi example, there are incidents not worthy of a fight.

berem:
Now a sensible lawyer has spoken. Agbakoba should go fix his brain. NBA should stripp off his SAN status from him and he should be demoted to a "charge and bail" lawyer inshort.

Nansense!

So many yeye SAN`s in Nigeria, _{those guys have no heaven or hell} ^{Oloshi Agbako abi agbakoba}

omenka:
Oya oo, Seun, Obinoscopy, in the spirit of fairness, can we have this sit right where it belongs, side by side this www.nairaland.com/1989334/tambuwal-should-go-agbakoba. ??

Don't be shy.

NL belongs to PDP

omenka:
Oya oo, Seun, Obinoscopy, in the spirit of fairness, can we have this sit right where it belongs, side by side this www.nairaland.com/1989334/tambuwal-should-go-agbakoba. ??

Don't be shy.

..dat got m cranked up! @ 'dnt be shy'..

Obiagelli:

You are right, he has every right to remain as speaker under the law, i just preferred he had left, he could have come off better in my opinion

Leaving would have been ideal in a saner climate but not this PDP-Rapped-Country, where the winner always takes all!

If he attempts to resign today! PDP would bar him from entering the house citing one yeye section of the constitution!

This is a pure constitutional matter. It would do the parties well if the court is allowed to settle this once and for all!

Olisah "Alakoba" should come and learn.

You can't be comparing a renowned lecturer and i think the only ACADEMIC HOLDER OF SAN, who got not.by practice but by teaching and research.

Comparing ITSE SAGAY AND AGBAKOGBA on.constitutional matters is like putting BUHARI.AND JONATAN in the context of governance and efficiency of their ruling when they both had power.

pendy79:
You can't be comparing a renowned lecturer and i think the only ACADEMIC HOLDER OF SAN, who got not.by practice but by teaching and research.

Comparing ITSE SAGAY AND AGBAKOGBA on.constitutional matters is like putting BUHARI.AND JONATAN in the context of governance and efficiency of their ruling when they both had power.

Very apt!

seun

Sound and erudite contribution by a learned person. Not some roadside Agbakoba being granted an interview based on his status as a lawyer; but telling us trash that we should leave law aside and reason sentimentally with him. Nonsense I must say. As if it's not the law that guides our actions and inactions.

This myopically as learned man. In uk if an elected member of the house defects to another party,his/her position automatically becomes vacant and subject to a quick by election that involves all participating patties. I'm sure a similar thing happens in America too.

Sometimes we forget that the the sleeping electorates are supposedly the ones that sent the representing thieves to the thieving houses under different party banners and "ideaoloots " and that if by any reason their chosen thief switch sides,the same people should be given the chance to choose another person of their choice based on party affiliations and ideaoloots.

redsun:
This myopically as learned man. In uk if an elected member of the house defects to another party,his/her position automatically becomes vacant and subject to a quick by election that involves all participating patties. I'm sure a similar thing happens in America too.

Sometimes we forget that the the sleeping electorates are supposedly the ones that sent the representing thieves to the thieving houses under different party banners and "ideaoloots " and that if by any reason their chosen thief switch sides,the same people should be given the chance to choose another person of their choice based on party affiliations and ideaoloots.

Are u sure that is the position of the UK law or that some defectors resigned on personal convictions??

redsun:
This myopically as learned man. In uk if an elected member of the house defects to another party,his/her position automatically becomes vacant and subject to a quick by election that involves all participating patties. I'm sure a similar thing happens in America too.

Sometimes we forget that the the sleeping electorates are supposedly the ones that sent the representing thieves to the thieving houses under different party banners and "ideaoloots " and that if by any reason their chosen thief switch sides,the same people should be given the chance to choose another person of their choice based on party affiliations and ideaoloots.

With reference to your assertion about the US. You seem to be wrong. This is a Wikipedia excerpt:

United States

Main article: Party switching in the United States
In the United States' political landscape, dominated by its two-party system, switches generally occur between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, although a number of notable switches to and from third parties (and even between different third parties) have occurred. Since 2004, in a reversal of a trend that had seen predominantly Democratic office-holders switching labels, a number of Republican elected officials in states throughout the country have opted to become Democrats.[who?][when?][citation needed] One other notable "switch" took place in 2001 when Senator Jim Jeffords defected from the Republican Party to become a political independent, which placed the Senate in Democratic control. Use of the term party switch often connotes a transfer of held power from one party to another. The majority of party-switchers in the modern era have switched from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party. This behavior has occurred mostly in the South, due to the gains of the Republican Party since 1950 and has proven somewhat beneficial to the Democrats overall, resulting in increasing the ideological coherence of the Democratic Party as Southern conservative Democrats left the party.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_switching

This is another reference for you from Reuters

Reuters - James Jeffords, a soft-spoken Vermonter whose defection from the Republican Party in 2001 created an unprecedented power shift in the U.S. Senate and gave Democrats control of the chamber for 18 months, has died at age 80, U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy said on Monday.

The statement from Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont, did not offer any details about the circumstances of Jeffords' death.

Jeffords was a New England moderate who found himself out of step with his increasingly conservative colleagues when he rocked American politics on May 24, 2001, by announcing he was leaving President George W. Bush's Republican Party, tipping the divided Senate.

He declared himself independent, but his decision to caucus with Democrats gave them 51 votes in the chamber that had been split 50-50, with Vice President Richard Cheney's tie-breaking vote putting Republicans in charge.

With his single-handed tipping of the balance of power on Capitol Hill, Jeffords drew the wrath of Republicans and the embrace of Democrats, who were then able to block much of Bush's conservative agenda - from bigger tax cuts to a long list of anti-abortion judicial nominees.

"None whatsoever," Jeffords told Reuters a year later when asked if he had any regrets about his decision. "I'm now working with people I agree with rather than trying to compromise with people I disagree with," he said. "It is a lot easier."

Jeffords, from a progressive state and regarded as one of the most liberal Republicans in Congress, said his disaffection with the party had grown over the years. A feud with the White House over Bush's plan for massive tax cuts was the last straw.

Jeffords said he would vote for the full $1.6 trillion of tax cuts Bush sought only if the White House agreed to spend more on public education for children with disabilities, a program the senator championed.

He and the White House did not come to terms, leaving Republicans one vote short to pass the full tax cut. The Senate eventually passed a $1.3 trillion tax cut.

Jeffords' shift marked the first time control of the Senate changed as result of a defection rather than an election. Then-Senate Republican leader Trent Lott of Mississippi angrily called his action "a coup of one."

JEEZUM JIM

Many former fellow Republicans barely spoke to Jeffords after his defection. But the Vermont lawmaker shrugged off their bitterness, saying his decision allowed him to sleep better and to again enjoy his work in Congress.

Republicans won back control of the Senate in the November 2002 elections. In early 2005, citing his wife's fight against cancer, Jeffords announced he would not run for a third Senate term in 2006. His wife, Elizabeth, died in 2007. They had two children.

Reared in Rutland, Vermont, Jeffords, the son of a state chief justice, went to Yale, served in the Navy and graduated from Harvard Law School.

He served as Vermont attorney general and in the state legislature before being first elected to the House of Representatives in 1974. He was elected to the Senate 14 years later...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/18/us-usa-politcs-jefords-idUSKBN0GI1J620140818