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.

Sunnybobo3:


Ever heard of Professor Ilochi Okafor or Professor Ben Nwabueze?

pendy79:


EVER HEARD OF THE WORD " I THINK" and it's usage in a sentence.

Why is composition and comprehension an Herculean task to you?

NgeneUkwenu:


What do you expect?

Agbakoba- A Maritime Lawyer!

Prof Itse Sagay- An Expert in Constitutional Law

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.

NgeneUkwenu:


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!

NgeneUkwenu:
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/

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.

NgeneUkwenu:


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!

FarahAideed:


But today you are saying otherwise what a hypocrite

BeeBeeOoh:
Do you have anything to say concerning Saraki's defection?

egift:
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.

seunmsg:


You are the liar and hypocrite here. I never said anything contrary to my post that you quoted. Those that decamped have the right to decamp and i have nothing against their decisions. However, Saraki should resign as the senate president simply because APC as the party in majority owns the senate presidency seat. A member of the minority party cannot preside over the majority, it is a basic tenet in democracy all over the world.

seunmsg:


He should resign as the senate president since his party is not in majority. That is the honorable, moral and democratic decision that we should all urge him to take.

NgeneUkwenu:
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/

KINGOFTHEEAST:
was apc the majority then ?

KINGOFTHEEAST:
was apc the majority then ?

Ndonu101:
The memory of the APC may be short, but the internet never forgets!

haaryobhami:

hypocrite dog

seunmsg:


You are the liar and hypocrite here. I never said anything contrary to my post that you quoted. Those that decamped have the right to decamp and i have nothing against their decisions. However, Saraki should resign as the senate president simply because APC as the party in majority owns the senate presidency seat. A member of the minority party cannot preside over the majority, it is a basic tenet in democracy all over the world.

freeze001:

freeze001:


A divided and confused APC with parallel factions owns the seat? Did u not read Sagay's analysis that the seat of speaker or president has no party label? Why so u bow claim that d seat belongs to APC? What has changed? If it was OK for Tambuwal to defect to a then minority APC and retain hos seat what's d difference in d Senate?

buhariguy:
read the 2-3 paragraph again slowing .written in red paragraph.

seunmsg:


He should resign as the senate president since his party is not in majority. That is the honorable, moral and democratic decision that we should all urge him to take.

NgeneUkwenu:
Ishilove can this also be at the Frontpage for fairness?

freeze001:


Was APC majority when Tambuwal defected from PDP to APC?

freeze001:


A divided and confused APC with parallel factions owns the seat? Did u not read Sagay's analysis that the seat of speaker or president has no party label? Why do u now claim that d seat belongs to APC? What has changed? If it was OK for Tambuwal to defect to a then minority APC and retain his seat what's d difference in d Senate?