Tambuwal no longer entitled to security details – Adoke, IGP

9 years ago

Tambuwal no longer entitled to security details – Adoke, IGP

The Attorney General of the Federation, Mr. Mohammed Adoke, and the Inspector General of Police Mr. Suleiman Abba, have insisted that the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr. Aminu Tambuwal, is no longer entitled to security details.

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.
[ads4]
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.”