Tambuwal drags PDP, Mu’Azu, Ihedioha, IGP, INEC, AGF to court
Dissatisfied with the abrupt withdrawal of all his security aides barely 48 hours after he defected to the All Progressives Congress, APC, the embattled Speaker of the House of Representatives, Hon. Aminu Waziri Tambuwal, yesterday, dragged his former party, the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, before a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja.
The suit was also endorsed by the APC, which was cited as the 2nd plaintiff in the matter.
Joined as 2nd to 7th defendants in the legal action were the PDP Chairman, Alhaji Adamu Mu’Azu, the House of Representatives, the Deputy Speaker of the House, Hon. Emeka Ihedioha, the acting Inspector General of Police, Sulaiman Abba, the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, and the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mohammed Bello Adoke, SAN.
The plaintiffs, prayed the high court to compel the defendants to within 30 days of the service of the Originating Summons on them, appear to explain the rationale behind the sudden withdrawal of all the security details hitherto assigned to the Speaker.
Moreover, Tambuwal, who personally perfected the filing of the suit at the court registry around 1.30pm yesterday, also urged the court to go ahead and determine “Whether the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 7th defendants can declare the seat of the 1st plaintiff in the 3rd defendant (House) vacant and call upon the 6th defendant (INEC) to fill the seat of the 1st plaintiff when the 1st plaintiff has neither resigned nor withdrawn his membership of the 3rd defendant or when the 1st plaintiff has not been duly removed from the 3rd defendant in accordance with the provisions of the 1999 Constitution as amended.
“Whether upon a calm view and proper construction of the provisions of section 68 of the 1999 Constitution as amended and having regard to the decisions of this court in the cases of PDP and 1 Or. Vs Hon. Rasak Atunwa and 20 others, suit No FHC/IL/CS/6/2014, delivered on the 26th of June 2014 and the case of Ibrahim Magaji Gusau and 2 Others vs Hon Lawal Mohammed Zayyana and 30 others, Suit No FHC/S/CS/4/2014, delivered on the 3rd day of July 2014, can the seat of the 1st plaintiff become vacant upon his membership of the 2nd plaintiff (APC) for which the defendants can act to withdraw his rights and entitlements as member and speaker of the 3rd defendant”.
Upon determination of the questions, the plaintiffs, beseeched the court for eight separate reliefs, which are; “A declaration that the decisions or threatened decisions of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 7th defendants purporting to or planning and or attempting to declare the seat of the 1st plaintiff in the 3rd defendant vacant as a member and Hon. Speaker thereof, is unlawful, unconstitutional and ultra vires the powers of the said the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 7th defendants.
“A declaration that the 1st plaintiff remains a member and the Hon. Speaker of the 3rd defendant until the expiration of his current term of office on the 5th day of June, 2015, notwithstanding the membership of the 1st plaintiff in the 2nd plaintiff unless the 1st plaintiff is removed in accordance with the provisions of the 1999 Constitution as amended.
“A declaration that by virtue of the decisions of this Court in the case of PDP and 1 Or. Vs Hon. Rasak Atunwa and 20 others, suit No FHC/IL/CS/6/2014, delivered on the 26th of June 2014 and the case of Ibrahim Magaji Gusau and 2 Others vs Hon Lawal Mohammed Zayyana and 30 others, Suit No FHC/S/CS/4/2014, delivered on the 3rd day of July 2014, and the fact of the 1st plaintiffs membership of the New PDP that merged with the 2nd plaintiff, the membership of the 1st plaintiff in the 2nd plaintiff is legal and constitutional and within the purview of the provisions of the 1999 constitution as amended and afortiori the 1st plaintiff remains a member and the Hon Speaker of the 3rd defendant until the expiration of his current tenure of office on the 5th day of June 2015, unless the 1st is removed in accordance with the provisions of the 1999 Constitution as amended.
“A declaration that the withdrawal, threatened withdrawal or purported withdrawal of the security details of the 1st plaintiff at the instance, orders or prompting of the defendants when the 1st plaintiff has not been removed from office as the Hon. Speaker and member of the 3rd defendant is unlawful, illegal, unconstitutional, an act of self help and a flagrant violation of the 1st plaintiff’s constitutional rights to life and security and same constitutes a denial of the said rights as well as privileges, perquisites associated with and pertaining to his office as Hon. Speaker and member of the 3rd defendant.
“An Order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants herein either by themselves or agents, proxies or otherwise howsoever from taking any steps or further steps to abrogate or diminish or take away or interfere with or infringe the 1st plaintiff’s rights and privileges as the Hon Speaker and as a member of the 3rd defendant, before the expiration of his term of office on the 5th day of June, 2015.
“An order of injunction restraining the defendants whether by themselves, their agents, proxies or otherwise howsoever from taking steps to remove the 1st plaintiff from office s the Hon Speaker and member of the 3rd defendant or in any manner whatsoever taking any steps or further steps to abrogate or diminish the 1st plaintiff’s rights and privileges as the Hon Speaker and member of the 3rd defendant, before the expiration of his term of office on the 5th day of June, 2015.
“An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 6th defendant from accepting any nomination of candidates or otherwise organizing or conducting a bye-election for the purpose of replacing the 1st plaintiff or taking over his seat as the Hon Speaker and member of the 3rd defendant before the expiration of the 1st plaintiff’s current tenure of office which expires on the 5th day of June, 2015.
“An order of mandatory injunction compelling the 5th and 7th defendants to restore to the 1st plaintiff his security details and all other rights, benefits and privileges appurtenant to members of and the office of the Hon Speaker of the 3rd defendant”.
The suit which was entered on behalf of the plaintiffs by a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Mr. Jubril Okutepa yesterday, is yet to be assigned to any judge for hearing.
Meanwhile, in a 40-paragraphed affidavit that was personally deposed to by Tambuwal himself, he told the court that PDP had “in the course of time became factionalized and metamorphosed into the PDP and New PDP and has remained factionalized in my home state, that is Sokoto State”.
He maintained that he was not elected Speaker of the House of Reps on June 6, 2011, by reason of his membership to the PDP but as a member of the House, adding, “I was a member of the New PDP until it merged with the 2nd plaintiff; and by reason of the merger, I subsequently became a member of the 2nd plaintiff”.
Aside attaching a copy of his membership card of the New PDP as Exhibit DD, Tambuwal, said his decision to defect to the APC was based on prevailing circumstances in his home state.
He alleged that PDP, acting in concert with the IGP and other members of the PDP, have been threatening to cause the House of Reps to declare his seat vacant and withdraw all his rights and benefits “including my security details”.
“That I know that when I subsequently became a member of the 2nd plaintiff, the 1st, 2nd, 5th and the 7th defendants began to intimidate, harass, and use self help against me; and they purported to declare my seat vacant.
“That I know that in further demonstration of the unconstitutional conduct, the 5th defendant withdrew all my security details and thereafter issued a press statement justifying the said withdrawal by citing provisions of the constitution.
“That I know that in particular the 1st and 2nd defendants have been threatening to use their contacts to ensure that my seat in the 3rd defendants is declared vacant so that the 6th defendant would organize a bye-election to fill it.
“That I know that on 28th day of October 2014, the 1stband 2nd defendants threatened to forcibly remove me from office as the Speaker of the 3rd defendant. That on the 30th day of October 2014, the 3rd and 4th defendants began to strategize on how to unlawfully remove me from office as the Speaker of the 3rd defendant.
“That I know that on 30th day of October 2014, the 5th defendant at the behest of the 1st – 4th defendants withdrew my security details thereby exposing me to danger of bodily harm all in their bid to forcibly remove me from office.
“That in the circumstances, I have become apprehensive that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and the 7th defendants will use unlawful means to make good their threats if this Hon. Court does not intervene to stop them.
“That I make these depositions conscientiously and in good faith and in accordance with the Oaths Act”, he averred.
Although Tambuwal came to court yesterday with a convoy of APC members, no single security detail accompanied him.
In a written address he attached in support of the suit, Tambuwal, insisted that “membership of a political party that has majority is not a prerequisite for being the Speaker of the 3rd defendant”.
He argued that section 50(1) (b) simply provided that there shall be “a Speaker and a Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, who shall be elected by the members of the House from among themselves”. He further contended that section 50(2) provides that the Speaker or Deputy Speaker of the House shall vacate his office, “If he ceases to be a member of the House of Reps, otherwise than by reason of a dissolution of the House; When the House first sits after its dissolution; and if he is removed from office by a resolution of the House by the votes of not less than two-thirds majority of the members.
“We most humbly urge this court to find that none of the situations envisaged by section 50(2) of the 1999 constitution occurred”, he added.
In another development, a constitutional lawyer, Mr. Tunji Abayomi, yesterday, approached the high court with another suit challenging the legality of the action of the acting IGP in withdrawing security details attached to the Speaker.
Abayomi, in his suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/802/14, prayed the court to issue a temporary order directing the return/restoration of the security aides of the Speaker pending the determination of the substantive suit.
He is equally seeking an order of court, restraining the AGF and the IGP from interfering or further interfering howsoever, with the rights and privileges whatsoever attached to the office of the plaintiff as Speaker, pending the determination of his suit.
- See more at: http://www.vanguardngr.com/2014/11/tambuwal-drags-pdp-muazu-ihedioha-igp-inec-agf-court/#sthash.qqmUGO8S.dpufShare this post