They argued that Tambuwal had ceased to be a member of
the House and its Speaker having defected from the Peoples
Democratic Party, which in 2011 sponsored his election into
the House of Representatives, to the All Progressives
Congress.
They maintained that Tambuwal had now become an
ordinary citizen, who was no longer entitled to the privileges
attached to the office of the Speaker of the House of
Representatives.
These are the contentions canvassed by both the Inspector-
General of Police and Adoke in a joint counter-affidavit
which they filed before Justice Ahmed Mohammed of the
Federal High Court, Abuja, in response to the suit by
Tambuwal and the APC.
The IGP and the AGF are the 5th and 7th defendants in the
suit respectively.
The plaintiffs filed the suit to challenge the withdrawal of his
security details, alleged threat by the PDP to declare his seat
vacant and remove him as Speaker.
The lawyer, who represented the IGP and the AGF, Ade
Okeaya-Inneh (SAN), argued that the police authorities could
not be accused of breaching the Constitution by withdrawing
Tambuwal's security details, since he (Tambuwal) had lost
his seat as House member and Speaker.
The counter affidavit which was deposed to on behalf of the
AGF and IGP by one of their lawyers, Nnamdi Ekwem, read
in part, "The 1st plaintiff (Tambuwal) vacated his seat in the
House of Representatives as a member of that House, when
he became a member of the 2nd plaintiff (All Progressives
Congress) in October 2014, having been elected in 2011 on
the platform of the 1st defendant (PDP).
"The seat of the 1st plaintiff in the House of Representatives
became automatically vacant by virtue of his defection to
the 2nd plaintiff (APC) and consequently ceased to be the
Speaker of the 3rd defendant (the House of
Representatives).
"The first plaintiff is not constitutionally entitled to security
details and as such, the 5th defendant did not contravene
any law by its withdrawal of the 1st plaintiff's security
details. The withdrawal of the security details of the 1st
plaintiff was necessitated by the fact the he had vacated his
office as a member of the House of Representatives and
consequently ceased to be the Speaker of the 3rd defendant.
"The 1st plaintiff is no longer a member of the House of
Representatives and as such not entitled to any right or
privilege attached to the office of the Speaker of the 3rd
defendant. That, the 1st plaintiff, as an ordinary citizen of
Nigeria, was not exposed to any danger of bodily harm
because of the withdrawal of his security details."
.
0 Comments: