Assistant Editor, DANIEL KANU, examines the gale of impeachments in the country and its abuse, pointing out that it has taken a dangerous dimension that calls for concern.
Recent developments in Government Houses across the country seem to be introducing new dimension into the exercise of the power of impeachment. It is obvious that since the nation’s return to civil rule, this theatre of the absurd has continued with alarming dimension, as many state governors, particularly those believed not to be loyal to the powers-that-be at the centre, have been disgraced out of office.
Essence of the impeachment clause
Every democratic society has mechanisms that check its leaders from becoming autocratic. This seems to be in consonance with the words of Lord Acton that “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Nigeria, like most democratic societies, has one of such mechanisms, which is the impeachment clause.
While section 143 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria states how a president or vice president may be removed from office, Section 188 states how a governor or deputy governor may be removed.
Unfortunately, this impeachment mechanism, to political observers, is becoming gravely abused.
Most intriguing is that in all these impeachment proceedings, there have been allegations of money changing hands; that the legislators receive financial inducement to set the machinery of impeachment in motion.
Misapplication
The constitutional intent of the process, namely the ultimate recourse to deal with errant executive officers who abuse their powers of incumbency, to political commentators, is being misdirected to achieve ulterior and entirely different ends, most of them political witch-hunt.
TheNiche investigation shows that the processes of impeachment seem to be driven by parochial considerations.
It has become a ready weapon in the hands of an overbearing president or governor, indeed any governor to be used as a blunt weapon at will.
In the camp of the opposition, as well as in the views of some political watchers, impeachment, perhaps, has gradually become the new political weapon in the hands of the ruling party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), to decimate its opponents.
From the impeachment of former Governor of old Kaduna state, Balarabe Musa, in the Second Republic to the recent impeachment, in July 15, of Adamawa State Governor, Murtala Nyako, as well as on August 26, of Enugu State Deputy Governor, Sunday Onyebuchi, the shameful exercise has continued.
Even more disturbing is that no governor, not to talk of deputy governor, has survived the axe except, perhaps, for now, Nasarawa governor, Tanko Al-Makura.
The governorship examples
Between 2005 and 2007, for instance, five governors were impeached by the Houses of Assembly in their states. The only common factor of these impeachments was that none could be said to have followed due process. They were all done without having regard to constitutional provisions.
In Ekiti State, Ayodele Fayose and his deputy, Mrs. Biodun Olujimi, were removed without following due procedure on October 15, 2006. Corruption charges had been lev elled against them. This eventually led to the declaration of a State of Emergency by the then President Olusegun Obasanjo. Before Fayose’s ouster, then Governor Rasheed Ladoja of Oyo State had, in January same year, been impeached by 18 members of the House of Assembly at D’Rovans Hotel, Ring Road, Ibadan. This was notwithstanding that the members were not up to the constitutional mandated two-thirds of the House. His deputy, Adebayo Alao-Akala, was sworn in the same day as governor. Joshua Dariye of Plateau State had his own share of the illegality perpetrated during the period, precisely November. He was removed by eight out of the 24 members of the Plateau House of Assembly.
Deputy governors’ cases
There seems to be no deputy governor that has survived the onslaught of the governor, if he desperately wants him or her out.
Kofoworola Bucknor-Akerele and Femi Pedro (Lagos), Jude Agbaso (Imo), Garba Gadi (Bauchi) Sunday Onyebuchi (Enugu State) among others never survived the impeachment intrigue.
The constitution prescribes in clear terms the status of deputy governors as statutory complements to governors, and not their ‘errand boys’. But what is witnessed as Bucknor-Akerele told TheNiche, is that “the failure of the deputy governor in most times to greet the wife of the governor could be termed gross misconduct and can lead to the impeachment of the deputy governor”.
The recent denigration of the office of the deputy governor as was exemplified in Enugu, to political observers, should not be allowed to grow into a regular feature, if responsive leadership is to be nurtured in the country, she added.
Political analyst and legal practitioner, Liborous Oshomo, is of the opinion that as a result of the nation’s imperfect impeachment process, which can always be manipulated, the governors would continue to be at the mercy of the president, just as the deputy governor is at the mercy of the governor.
He said a governor that moves to another political party without ensuring that the entire party structure and the House of Assembly are under his control may risk being impeached.
“It is wrong to say that a party is controlling a state, just because the governor defected to the party. If a governor defects, and the House of Assembly and the deputy do not join, you cannot say he is in control of the party structure, because he would be removed like a flash in the pan, if they chose to upstage him.
“You can see that the Governor of Kwara State, Abdulfatah Ahmed, moved with the entire house to the APC. You cannot move without ‘your insurance’; else you are gone,” he said.
Legal viewpoint
The 1999 Constitution, however, provides for a detailed and elaborate procedure to be followed before an executive can be impeached in sections 143 and 188. This procedure is sequential, and must be duly followed. It is a chain of events, which must not be broken at any stage. But in practice, that procedure is jettisoned.
The impeachment clause, no doubt, is a major weapon of checks and balance in the 1999 Constitution. It helps to check the abuse of enormous powers exercised and exercisable by elected functionaries of the executive arm of government –president, vice president, governors and deputy governor –, who are shielded from prosecution for criminal and/or civil charges (in their personal capacities) while in office as contained in the provisions of Section 308 of the constitution.
From legal statutory interpretation, it is instructive to note that the provisions of Section 308 is meant to protect the aforementioned office-holders from frivolous litigations that could otherwise distract them from focusing on proper governance. It is not and would not have been the intention of the framers of the constitution that the executive office-holders should hide under the immunity clause in Section 308 to commit crime against the citizenry and the state in any manner whatsoever. Neither would it have been the intention of the constitution to shield executive office-holders from legal repercussions where issues of gross misconduct tantamount to treason contrary to provisions of Section 1(2) of the constitution is involved.
As a check-and-balance against abuse of power in the normal course of governance, the legislature is empowered under Section 188 of the constitution (in case of governors/deputy governors) and section 143 (in case of president/vice president) to remove such an errant political office-holder covered by immunity against prosecution of any kind under Section 308.
It then follows prima facie that for the affected political office-holders to face prosecution, they would have to be first removed from office by the legislature (with a theoretically stringent two-thirds majority of all members of the legislature) in accordance with provisions of sections 188 or 143 of the constitution, as the case might be.
To give adequate power to the legislature to serve as proper check on the executive arm of government through the aforementioned constitutional provisions, sections 188 (10) and 143 (10) state that the legislative process leading to impeachment are not justiceable; that is, it is not within the competency of the court to intervene.
The provisions of sections 188 (11) and 143 (11) state further that what constitutes a gross misconduct warranting impeachment is a violation of the provisions of the constitution or whatever so amounts to gross misconduct in the opinion of the legislature.
Stakeholders react
Eze Onyekpere, political analyst, is of the view that a second look should be taken in addressing the issue constitutionally.
Said he: “It might have been reasonable to ask the National Assembly to take a second look at Section 191 of the constitution during the constitution amendment process. The suggestion is an amendment that if the office of the governor and deputy become vacant within six months to the expiry of the tenure, the Speaker of the House of Assembly should hold office until the expiry of the tenure or, alternatively, the winner of the election to be held within three months should start a new four-year tenure, and not merely serve the unexpired residue of the tenure of the impeached officer. This will save costs and prevent election fatigue and its implication for the treasury.
Also the National Vice President of the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC), Isa Aremu, has expressed doubts over the impeachment and threats of impeachment going on in the country, saying that the sanctity of tenure sustains the country’s democracy.
According to him, great danger lies ahead of the nation’s democracy, if recent storm of impeachment in the polity is targeted on the opposition All Progressives Congress (APC).
Aremu, who was a member of the recent national conference, had urged President Goodluck Jonathan not to give the impression of using his office to torment governors in opposition states.
His words: “It is true that our constitution makes provision for impeachment where there is gross misconduct or violation. But, for goodness sake, we must make sure that the process of impeachment is seen to be transparent and to reflect the true spirit of the constitution. The danger that we are having at hand is increasing. Impeachment clause is being politicised. The perception is that it is becoming a tool for continuation of politics through the other means.
“I want President Jonathan to use his office to re-direct our political discourse along the line of statesmanship. He has done it before and I think he can do it again. Several times, he was threatened with impeachment and Nigerians stood up to say no.
“I am not a fan of some of these governors. Some of them are known for recklessness, a lot of executive impunity. A good number of them engage in self-help for themselves, rather than public service for their people. Of course, there are some governors that have also performed who endeared themselves to the electorate in their respective states. But whatever the case may be, due process should be followed.
“What is obvious is that, Nigerians must begin to take elections into the legislative houses more seriously. The idea of legislators being persons of low integrity, with unending allegations of bribery, fighting in the legislative chamber, and the performance of duties in ways and manner not contemplated by the constitution calls for change.”