The law and Buhari’s private visit

PRESIDENT Muhammadu Buhari is currently in London, United Kingdom, on what his aides termed ‘a private visit’ and a few days ago, a bill was taken to him to sign. The bill tagged ‘Amended Deep Offshore and Inland Basin Sharing Contract Bill’ was taken to the president by his Chief of Staff, Mr. Abba Kyari, and promptly signed into law.  This is patently a constitutional aberration. The president claims that he is on a private visit but he is attending to official duties.  Why did he not hand over to Vice-President Yemi Osinbajo, who could have attended to urgent matters, including the signing of this bill, in his absence?  The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) seeks to avoid incongruities like this by allowing for the office of vice-president. It is embarrassing to sign a Nigerian law in London. And the cost of doing that was clearly avoidable. No matter how minuscule the expenses may seem to the presidency, it was an addition to the intolerable cost of governance in the country. The constitution mandates the president to transmit a letter to the National Assembly in cases like this. Buhari ought to have transmitted power to his deputy as enshrined in the constitution.

Specifically, Section 145 (1) makes provisions for the transfer of powers to the vice-president whenever the president is proceeding on vacation or he is otherwise unable to discharge the functions of his office. All that he needs to do is to transmit a letter to the National Assembly in that regard.  This section of the constitution even had to be amended in 2010 by the National Assembly with the insertion of section 145(2) to obviate the constitutional conundrum  occasioned by  the late President Umaru Yar’Adua’s refusal to transmit powers to his then deputy, Dr. Goodluck Jonathan, when  he was unable to discharge the functions of his office. The impasse was addressed by the doctrine of necessity, an innovative and courageous mechanism crafted by the National Assembly to tackle a challenge which would have been needless if the then custodian of the constitution had not wilfully chosen to breach it. It is rather unfortunate that anyone would want to take the country through that route again. It is equally saddening that the provision in section 145(2) which mandates the National Assembly to intervene 21 days after the president has failed to hand over power to his deputy is being impishly interpreted by the president’s aides.

Buhari secretly pursuing third term agenda —Falana

For the avoidance of doubt, the total sum of section 145(2) is that if the president fails, refuses and or neglects to transmit power to his deputy, the National Assembly is mandated to pass a resolution empowering the vice-president to automatically start functioning as the acting president. That section does not provide  that it is only when the president spends more than 21 days outside the shores of the country that he will be required to hand over power to the vice president.  The 21-day provision is meant to specify the maximum period that the president will be allowed to be in breach of section 145(1), after which the National Assembly will come in to do what the president ought to have done in the first place by mandating the vice president to act in his place. It is therefore erroneous and mischievous to imply that the president need not transmit power to the vice-president if the duration of his vacation or private visit is within the province of the 21-day provision.

Similarly, section 142(1) of the constitution provides for a joint ticket of president and vice-president to ensure that no vacuum is created in governance in the absence of the president. Again, the constitution did not envisage a one-man presidency as section 5(1) states that the executive powers of the president can be exercised directly or through the vice president and ministers of the government of the federation or officers of the public service of the federation. The usual official refrain that the president can discharge the functions of his office from any part of the globe even if he is on vacation or ‘private visit’ is anomalous. And assuming but not conceding that the president can perform the duties of his office irrespective of his geographical location, what is so positive in this assumed liberty to brag about?

How many world leaders are known to conduct the business of government from world capitals other than their own? Where is the place of national pride and honour? The motivation for Buhari’s reluctance  to hand over power to the vice-president as the law dictates is unclear but it must be stressed that he is obligated under the law to act lawfully in his power relations  with his deputy. This is a matter of law, not discretion.

It is time citizens began to change the narrative that some unelected and amorphous cabals are influencing or hoodwinking the president to take controversial decisions that are capable of threatening national progress and social harmony. The blame should always be placed where it rightly belongs because it is the president that has a contract with the people, not his aides, whether they are altruistic or self-serving.  And the truth is that the buck stops at President Buhari’s table and he will be duly held accountable for his actions in the fullness of time, regardless of whoever who may have participated in the process behind the scenes.

Nigerian Tribune