Skip to main content

IMPEACHABLE OFFENCES OF PRESIDENT YAR ADUA

January 1, 2010
The President and Commander in Chief of Nigerians armed forces has been away from the country for more than thirty days. It was initially reported by the presidential spokesman on November 23, 2009; that the President was taken to Saudi Arabia for medical treatment. However, recent media reports (Nigerian tribune-30/12/2009, Pointblanknews-31/12/2009) suggest that President Yar Adua may never have been admitted to or currently located at King Faisal Hospital, Saudi Arabia as previously speculated. The unexpected disappearance of Mr. President since November 23, 2009 poses constitutional as well as legal dilemma for the country. Legalistically, if Mr. President was never admitted to king Faisal Hospital as previously speculated, then it could very well be that Mr. President may have been "kidnapped" in the first instance. This situation may not be totally surprising for a country that has been ravaged by numerous kidnapping incidents in recent times. Alarmingly, the shroud of secrecy surrounding the president's disappearance and the belief that Mr. President may not have spoken to any of his cabinet members since his disappearance seem to underscore this danger. Peradventure Mr. President actually signed the 2009 supplementary budget into law, it may be logical to conclude that his Kidnappers may not be far-fetched from his "inner caucus" who may be holding Mr. President for political ransom. Besides the recent controversial swearing in of the new Chief Justice of the Federation reinforces this argument. I have been struggling to comprehend why Justice Katsina-Alu could not accompany the president's principal secretary to Saudi Arabia during the alleged budget signing ceremony so that Mr. President can inaugurate him officially; "killing two birds with one stone"; in the process. This could have made a lot of sense given the strong belief by the Attorney General of Nigeria that Mr. President could "rule from anywhere in the world". On the other hand, in the likely scenario that the President disappeared voluntarily from Nigeria, then there may be strong constitutional grounds to remove him from office as stipulated in the constitution. These grounds are as follows: In his conduct of office of the president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Alhaji Umar Yar Adua in violation of his constitutional sworn oath to discharge his duties to the best of his ability, faithfully and in accordance with the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the law, that he will not allow personal interest to influence his official conduct or his official decisions, that he will to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria has prevented, obstructed and impeded the administration of the constitution in that: 1. He has been "absent without official leave" (AWOL-typically defined in military terms as unauthorized absence for more than 30 days) as president and commander in chief of Nigerian Armed Forces. His unauthorized absence for more than 30 days seems to contravene section 145 of the Nigerian Constitution which clearly indicates how a president may proceed on vacation. It states as follows: "Whenever the President transmits to the president of the senate and the speaker of the House of Representatives a written declaration that he is proceeding on vacation or that he is otherwise unable to discharge the functions of his office, until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such functions shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President". In breach of Section 145, Mr. President did not follow constitutional provision for proceeding on vacation and thus, may have prevented, obstructed and impeded the administration of a constitutional provision that he swore to uphold. I find this especially troubling; given the indications by presidential cohorts that Mr. President is indeed in good state to watch football in Saudi Arabia or to sign supplementary Budget. This notion defeats any potential arguments that his health may have prevented him from writing any letters to the National Assembly. 2. Section 148 (2) of the constitution states that "the President shall hold regular meetings with the vice president and all the ministers of the Government of the Federation". Therefore the continual unconstitutional absences of Mr. President from such FEC meetings appear to violate the constitution. 3. Violation of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria amounts to "gross misconduct" as defined in section 143 (11); which states as follows: "Gross misconduct" means a grave violation or breach of the provisions of this constitution or a misconduct of such nature as amounts in the opinion of the National Assembly to gross misconduct". It is therefore my humble opinion that the continual violation of the constitution by Mr. President and his cohorts is a justifiable basis to invoke section 143 that addresses how Mr. President may be removed from office by the National Assembly.

googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('comments'); });

googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content1'); });

googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content2'); });

Topics
Politics