DEPUTIES to elective office-holders such as vice president, deputy chairmen of local government councils and, more significantly, deputy governors in Nigeria, are arguably the most endangered species amongst public officials. They are regarded as expendable, and sometimes described with derogatory sobriquets like ‘spare tyres” and treated as such by governors. In word and action, there are very few governors in the country who treat their deputies with the respect that their office demands. And in many cases, other cabinet members take a cue from the body language of their principals to treat deputy governors with disdain, oftentimes in demonstration of misguided loyalty to the governors. It seems that the deputy governor holds office at the pleasure of his boss but that is far from the intendment of the statute that created the office. It is so bad that the office of deputy governor has markedly reduced in significance, and many Nigerians are calling for its scrapping or alteration of the law that established it in order to make the office functional and relevant. Yet, if anyone is in doubt of the significance of the deputy governor to the office of the governor as joint ticket holders, the case of Bayelsa in the 2019 gubernatorial election should be instructive. In Bayelsa State, a governor-elect was removed a day to inauguration by the Supreme Court because his running mate was adjudged to have forged certificates. That underscores the importance of deputy governors to the electoral system.
Needless and avoidable imbroglio between governors and their deputies is not new in this clime. The unresolved political disagreement between Pa Adekunle Ajasin and his deputy, Chief Akin Omoboriowo, in Ondo State, in 1983, contributed in no small measure to the truncation of the Second Republic by the soldiers of fortune in 1983. Also, Senator Bola Ahmed Tinubu, when he was governor of Lagos State, worked with three deputies during his eight-year tenure. Perhaps the bitterest foes within the Nigerian political space today are Dr. Rabiu Musa Kwankwanso and Dr. Abdullahi Umar Ganduje, yet both were governor and deputy governor respectively, in the same government in Kano State for four years. Currently, in Edo, Ondo and other states, this issue has impacted governance negatively. For instance, in Ondo State, governance is literally in abeyance as the ailing governor of the state did not hand over, as required by law, to his deputy, who is expected, by law, to act in his stead while he is away on medical treatment. Instances are legion where political officeholders prioritise self-preservation and personal interests over and above public good. And it is rather surprising that many are ascribing the blame for the preponderance of cases of intolerance between governors and their deputies to the extant laws which they deem inadequate. However, the veritable issue verges more on human errors signposted by excesses, frailties and flawed character than inadequacy of the provisions in the relevant statutes.
The bitter truth is that there is nothing spectacularly wrong with the constitutional provisions with respect to the office and functions of the deputy governor (and other deputy positions) in Nigeria as those provisions largely mirror the practice in other democracies from where the Nigerian democratic system is copied. The real problem has to do with the virulent, if not toxic, human element that has come to define the way politicians behave in Nigeria. Indeed, there are enough checks and balances in the provisions to make it almost impossible for those in positions of responsibility not to work together for the promotion of public interests without the idea of lording it over one another. However, many public officeholders, especially the governors, act as if their powers are total and, over time, they have done so with absolute impunity, thereby creating a sense in them of master-servant relationship, not just between them and their deputies, but also with the rest of the citizens who employed them in the first place.
For instance, in theory, no governor should have the powers to have no deputy governor in the discharge of responsibilities without the connivance of the state House of Assembly that is expected to have oversight over executive functions. And the ordinary expectation is that the legislators will ensure that no impunity is tolerated with their oversight powers. But it is also the case that since the advent of civilian rule in 1999, the Houses of Assembly have been run, and largely functioned, as appendages to the governors, always at their (governors’) beck and call, doing only whatever the governors want. And that is why the extant checks and balances provisions do not work, with governors ( and presidents) becoming the be-all over governance. Evidently, this is not what is expected and governors behaving as if they are lords are simply betraying their personal inadequacies in not recognising that democracy does not give absolute powers, and that such sense of nonexistent absolute powers end up eroding the functionality and legitimacy of the system in the long run.
This veritable danger must be apprehended by politicians themselves in their own interest and that of the public. For starters, the emperor-like powers accorded to governors by political parties in their constitution or by convention once they clinch their parties’ tickets may have to be reviewed and scaled down substantially. It is usually the case that once an aspirant emerges as the governorship candidate of his party, especially if he is an incumbent seeking re-election, he becomes the leader of the party, virtually the sole financier of the party, and the determiner of nearly all elective and appointive public offices in the state. These are too many powers vested in one person. Pray, how will Houses of Assembly whose members were picked and financed by the governors during the electoral contests raise a red flag when their governors are breaching the law? That is a tall order. Besides, the governors also have their states’ tills to dip their hands into in order to placate the legislators to look the other way while they commit all manners of infractions, including undermining the authority of their deputies.
The cost of elections is also a critical issue. The humongous amount of money required to aspire to the office of governor in the country is such that the winner is likely to want to call the shots to the point of breaking the law. Again, when aspiration to political offices are motivated solely by the quest to serve rather than just having unchecked access to appropriate state powers for personal aggrandizement and pecuniary gain, friction among political officeholders, including governors and their deputies, will reduce. And the only way to achieve that is to ensure that political offices become as less attractive as possible. If coming into offices entails personal sacrifices by politicians, only those who are ready to serve will come forward, and cases of clashes of interest will decline.
It is also important to note that in few cases, the ambition of some deputy governors could be the reason for disagreement with their principals. There is nothing wrong with being ambitious, like deputies wanting to take over from their governors, but this is a project that involves a great deal of tact to execute in order to ensure that they do not undermine their bosses. For instance, a deputy governor that wishes to contest with his principal during the latter’s reelection bid without resigning from office, is within his rights, but it would not be out of place to see such a deputy as disloyal and nursing a vaulting ambition.
Truth be told, the provision of the constitution that mandates the deputy governor to step into the shoes of the governor whenever the latter is unavailable to perform the functions of his/her office is tricky. That provision tends to generate mutual suspicion between the duo. Such suspicion requires a great deal of maturity and tact to manage and, in any case, it is within the precincts of the virtues that governors and deputy governors are expected to possess. Ultimately, the governors and their deputies have to work together in the interest of their states. Though one office is under the other, the constitution which created the offices of the governors and their deputies does not envisage that the latter is superfluous, and anymore who treats the office in any way that suggests that it is surplus to requirements is in breach of the constitution. Therefore, it is important for Nigerian politicians, in their own interest and in the interest of the stability and worthwhile functioning of the country, to desist from not allowing the constitution to work smoothly through their acts of impunity.
READ ALSO FROM NIGERIAN TRIBUNE
and then