Tambuwal has right to defect —Sagay 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. Copyright PUNCH.
Posted on: Sun, 02 Nov 2014 08:38:33 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015