TAMBUWAL'S DEFECTION SAGA: WHAT THE LAW SAYS

Following the defection of the Speaker of House of Representative, Hon. Aminu Tambuwal from PDP to APC and the ripples and up-roar it has generated in the political circuit, the latest being the stripping of the Hon. Speaker of his security details by the Inspector General of Police, it is expedient to bring to fore what the constitution says about positions of principal officers of the house and issues relating to defection

This is what the law says:
Section 50(1) (b) of the Constitution says: “There shall be a Speaker and a Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, who shall be elected by the members of that House among themselves.”
Order 1 Rule 2 and Order 2 Rule 3(1) only ask the House to regulate its conduct. It is silent on whether the Speaker should emerge from the ruling party or the opposition.
Order 1(2) says: “In all cases not provided for hereinafter, or by sessional or others, precedents or practices of the House, the House shall by resolution regulate its procedure.”
Order 3(1) says: “3(1) The election of Speaker shall take precedence over any other motion. No any other motion shall be accepted while it is proceeding and the House shall continue to meet if necessary beyond its ordinary daily time of adjournment, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order, until a Speaker declared elected.
 

Section 68(1)(g) of the Constitution says a member of the Senate or House of Representatives shall vacate his seat in the House of which he is a member if being a person whose election to the House was sponsored by a political party, he becomes a member of another political party before the expiration of the period for which that house was elected.
Provided that his membership of the latter political party is not as a result of a division in the political party of which he was previously a member or of a merger of two or more political parties or factions by one of which he was previously sponsored. 

From the fore going, I think what the ruling party should have contested in competent court of law is that whether there was enough ground for him to defect and not this act of brazen aberration and lawlessness by the IGP.