Impeaching The President



IT could easily pass for another legislative hysteria, one that may soon step down the political headlines of the national dailies for more prominent news. It could also be some thing to take our time and divert our attention from the endemic problems of corruption that face our nation and the security challenges that shake the foundation of our nationhood.

Many Nigerians believe and rightly so that the most recent resolution of the House of Representatives to commence impeachment proceedings against the nation’s president if by September he does not attain a full-percentage compliance of the budget implementation is mere grandstanding. Former President Olusegun Obasanjo had a better way to explain this as he described the impeachment exercise against him in 2002 a “joke carried too far.” Could this be another legislative “joke being carried too far”?

Nigeria has never impeached a president. But governors and deputy governors have been impeached albeit crudely and unconstitutionally. Indeed many of such impeachment proceedings have failed the test of judicial validity. The law reports are replete with such cases that embarrass the principles of democracy especially as it relates to the doctrine of separation of power. This point is better explained in light of the now locus classicus case of INAKOJU VS ADELEKE where it is reported as a fact that a governor was impeached by some minority members of a state house of assembly in the comfort of their hotel suite.

Impeachment proceedings in the world over, are, however, a more serious legislative business than what the Nigerian precedents offer. Impeachment proceedings are appreciated as the modus operandi for the function of the principle of checks and balances in the dynamics of interrelationship between the legislature and the executive in a democratic environment. It is a containment device for the excesses of the Executive, the exercise of this constitutional right of the Legislative arm of the government is intended to ensure the former functions within the realm of the constitution.

It is for this singular reason that one could not have carefully looked into the barrel of the Legislative threat and found it barren. Notwithstanding the motives of the lawmakers, some other things must be in this barrel of threat and this is why the Presidency has since the House resolution been suing for peace.

It is also for this undisputable consequence of this legislative power as provided under Section 143 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria that it becomes desirable to consider the law that provides for how the Legislature may carry their “joke very far” and by so doing turn same into a constitutional reality or failure.

Section 143(1) copiously provides that the President or Vice-President may be removed from office in accordance with the provisions of this section, whenever a notice of any allegation in writing signed by not less than one-third of the members of the National Assembly is presented to the President of the Senate; stating that the holder of the office of President or Vice-President is guilty of gross misconduct in the performance of the functions of his office.

Section 143 (11) further defines “gross misconduct” as a grave violation or breach of the provisions of the Constitution or a misconduct of such nature as amounts in “the opinion of the National Assembly to gross misconduct”.

It therefore stands valid and acceptable if in “the opinion” of the men in the lower chambers a less than 50% implementation of the budget constitutes a gross misconduct. What more, the Honourable members are strengthened by Section 143 (10) which strongly ousts the jurisdiction of the court to inquire into the grounds for the impeachment. One should not quickly forget that President Bill Clinton of the United States was impeached by that country’s House of Representatives although on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice which are but offshoots of his alleged secret affairs with some women while he was in office.

The American Senate ended up saving Bill Clinton as he was acquitted in the upper chambers of the charges. The Nigerian Senate has in like manner even before the House tests the strength of its threat distanced itself from the House resolution. And the Nigerian National Assembly which is modelled after the American Legislature does share some recognizable similarities especially in impeachment proceedings as constitutionally provided by the laws of both nations.

Statutes are interpreted literally. Section 143 without ambiguity provides that impeachment proceedings shall commence by presenting to the President of the Senate a notice of any allegation in writing signed by not less than one-third of the members of the National Assembly. The numerical strength of the House allows it to commence impeachment proceedings with mere 157 members out of the 409 federal legislators that make up the whole National Assembly. But just how far can the House go without the Senate?

The right to fair hearing presupposes that the president should not only be heard but the allegation against his office must be investigated and it is so provided in the impeachment proceedings. Section 143(4) however states that “a motion of the National Assembly that the allegation be investigated shall not be declared as having been passed, unless it is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds majority of all the members of EACH House of the National Assembly”. And this is where numerical strength fails the House and the vehicle of impeachment stays grounded. It does not move from here.

The phrase “each” connotes a respect for the independence of the two chambers. It literally means that even though the House of Representatives collect a two-thirds majority votes, such votes amount to an exercise in futility except two-third of the members of the Senate follow suit by voting in support of the investigation of the allegation against the president.

This also marks a degree of difference between what is obtainable in Nigeria and what is obtainable in the United States. The Nigeria Constitution by omission and without further ado halts the impeachment process at that preliminary point and there is no going forward. Unlike in the United States where the House could go on with impeachment proceedings against the president and even proceed to impeach him, while the Senate wait in sort of an appellate jurisdiction and superior capacity to either follow the resolution of the lower chamber and make effective the impeachment of the president or acquit him of wrongdoings and make his impeachment by the House of Representatives ineffective.

There is no hiding the fact that politics has a stake in every impeachment proceedings. It is a process of numbers; a process of votes. A process that mainly rests on the numbers of hands raised against or in support of the man that stands in the dock of impeachment. But you do not impeach or threat to impeach for every political reasons. The people and their attitude toward the exercise must be considered by their representatives.

Budget of course is a serious matter as it is the plank upon which all plans of government rests. It must be fully implemented. However in a situation where the misconduct of the holder of office does not seem gross in the public arena as it is this present case, it would do more good to the polity if the Executive and the Legislature could iron things out in a smooth manner without having recourse to commencing impeachment proceedings.

Nigeria in her present fragile state of ethnic, political and economic volatility may not survive the rigours of impeachment proceedings against her president. Only if a lawyer may warn.


http://thepointernewsonline.com/?p=9464

Nigeria are left with only one option

in this economic situation

use this process

Next