1. Was the IG part of the National Council of Defence meeting chaired by Mr President which agreed on the need to extend the State of Emergency in the troubled N.E States?
2. Was the Attorney General and Minister of Justice part of the meeting?
3. It is a constitutional requirement that the President forwards a request to both houses of the National Assembly through their Principal officers, the Senate President and the Speaker of the House. Was the IG aware that such letter had been forwarded to the National assembly?
4. In his oral submission to the House Committee on Police affairs on Wednesday 26th November 2014, the I.G refused to acknowledge Hon. Aminu Waziri Tambuwal as the speaker of the house, citing that there is a pending issue before the courts with respect to the Speakers eligibility and therefore he will not delve into a matter that is subjudice. The question here is, did he raise the issue during the National Defence Council meeting that recognising Hon Tambuwal as the Speaker of the house was wrong and gave a better suggestion?
5. Has the IG been served with a court order or ruling detailing that Hon. Aminu Waziri Tambuwal has lost his seat and that such order or ruling should be enforced?
6. Is the IG aware that Hon. Aminu Waziri Tambuwal received the letter from Mr President on behalf of the members of the House of Representatives?
7. If Mr President doesn't recognise Hon Tambuwal as Speaker, why would he write to the Speaker since the matter according to the IG is in the courts.
8. The Speaker reconvened the house from a recess so as to deliberate on Mr President's request for an extension of the SOE in the three N.E States. Was the IG aware that most members acknowledged and reconvened that day? These members cut across party lines and include principal officers.
9. Is the IG aware of any member of the HOR and by extension the Senate that does not recognise and acknowledge Hon. Tambuwal as the Speaker of the House?
10. Did the members of the HOR, irrespective of party affiliation attend the session despite not acknowledging Hon. Tambuwal as Speaker?
11. Is the IG aware that Hon. Tambuwal, along with other members of the HOR were denied entry into the Parliament by security forces for several hours, necessitating them to force themselves in?
12. Why did the security forces deny the Speaker and other members of Parliament that came along with him entry, even after submitting themselves for identification for several hours.
13. Why did the officer captured on the footage refused to acknowledge Tambuwal even after identifying himself(Tambuwal) but rather chose to disregard him (Tambuwal)?
14. In his submission to the House Committee on Police, the IG said that tear gas accidentally exploded when "thugs"crossed the gate and started to molest the policemen and that only one canister exploded. Has the IG studied the footage which shows tear gas were shot by his men in a deliberate manner?
15. The IG referred to the persons that crossed over the gate as thugs, why did his men not arrest them since they are breaching the law?
16. The spokesperson for the police force earlier gave the forces' reasons for barricading the Parliament as security reports received that thugs will invade the National Assembly. How many of the thugs came and how many were arrested?
17. The IG stated during the House Committee hearing that on the 19th of November 2015, members of a political party including their leadership, aspirants etc (obviously referring to the APC) barricaded the headquarters of the Nigeria Police Force and made threats to invade national Institutions which included the National Assembly. Why did the IG not order their arrest or invite them for questioning? Is the force not supposed to be proactive since they have intelligence at their disposal?
18. The argument presented by some of the I.G supporters make reference to section 68(1)(g) of the constitution of Nigeria which points that legislators that change parties loose their seats, unless there exist a division in their parties or the change is as a result of a merger. The section according to the supporters, is "self triggering", therefore, the IG is duty bound to uphold the law, hence the removal of Tambuwals' security and by extension, he (IG) not recognising Hon. Tambuwal as a member of the HOR. Is the IG hinging his action towards Tambuwal on this section of the constitution? If so, is the IG an enforcer or an interpreter of the Law?
19. If section 68(1)(g) is what the IG hinges his action on not recognising Hon. Tambuwal as the speaker as well as a legislator, why has he not extended same to other legislators both Federal and State, cutting across party divide that have switched political parties? Is the IG selective in enforcing the Law?
20. Does the Action of the police under the leadership of the IG, goes in line with the passion and zeal he stated earlier to have a police force that will imbibe the tenets of democratic principles and culture?
BabaZau Shettima is an advocate for Good Governance and has a deep rooted passion for an egalitarian society. He can be reached through e-mail, baazau@gmail.com or followed on twitter @baazau.
No comments:
Post a Comment