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.
Posted on: Sat, 01 Nov 2014 11:44:42 +0000