Adamawa: Between impunity and impeachment

Transparency in governance holds that the decisions and actions of those in government are open to public scrutiny and that the public has a right to access such information. Suffice it to say that accountability and transparency are essential ingredients towards attaining democratic good governance.Without accountability and transparency, there cannot be any meaningful progress or […]

Transparency in governance holds that the decisions and actions of those in government are open to public scrutiny and that the public has a right to access such information. Suffice it to say that accountability and transparency are essential ingredients towards attaining democratic good governance.
Without accountability and transparency, there cannot be any meaningful progress or development in a democracy. A democracy devoid of accountability and transparency is likely to become arbitrary and self-serving. Accountability also encompasses the principle of separation of powers, which is the principle that no branch of government may dominate another, and that each branch has the power to check fundamental excesses of the other branches.
However, the constitutional immunity from prosecution which the president and the state governors enjoy while holding office can constitute serious constraints to the effective exercise of the functions of legislative and judicial arms in checking some fundamental abuse of office of the executive arm. In view this fact or probability the constitution makes provisions for an alternative means that can see any person, who enjoys immunity from prosecution by virtue of his position, removed from office and prosecuted without necessarily waiting until his tenure of office expires. The 1999 Constitution, for example, gives the National Assembly and State Houses of Assembly the power to hold the president and the governors accountable for breaches of the public’s trust through impeachment. Impeachment is, therefore, an essential democratic mechanism for ensuring accountability and transparency in governance.
However, when impeachment is abused democracy is doomed because the strategic value of impeachment is abandoned. Similarly, impeachment is abused when it becomes a handy tool in the hands of desperate and self-serving politicians for political blackmail aimed at seeking political loyalty at the expense of good and accountable governance. Thus, the sudden manifestation of legislative rascality, motivated and amplified by vested interests, is an uninspiring approach to politics and governance, especially at a period when the country is grappling with internal instability due to general insecurity. If the rascality and propensity are not checked, the strategic value of impeachment would be reduced to mere political ladder for attainment of personal political ambitions.
In the recent case of the former Governor of Adamawa State, for example, it is indeed baffling when the legislators rolled out allegations against the governor, the allegations contained offences which the governor allegedly committed more than two years ago. How could the legislators work with the governor for more than three years without knowing that he is abusing his office or is engaging in corrupt practices? Why should they wait until few months to the end of the governor’s tenure before slamming allegation of corruption against him?
A single act of abuse of office or of corruption by the governor can constitute a valid ground to initiate impeachment proceedings. The constitution that gives the legislators the power to impeach the governor does not provide that the abuse of office or corrupt act(s) of the governor must be serial or cumulative before it can constitute a valid ground for impeachment. Neither does the provision of the constitution stipulate that a governor’s falling out of favour with the power that be constitutes an impeachable offence nor that the legislators should be gathering the impeachable offences committed by a governor until the governor has fallen out favour with the power that be or the legislators or the friends of the power that be before they can initiate impeachment proceedings.
The actions of the legislators only show that they are complacent and disconnected from their primary functions. They wake up from their complacency to check the excesses of the governors only when they are induced or compelled by opportunism and self-aggrandizement.
Furthermore, the desperation displayed by the legislators in the impeachment process raises many questions. I think one needs not be a conspiracy theorist before asking: why is it that only APC state governors are facing impeachment threats from PDP-dominated Houses of Assembly?
Would the impeachment of Adamawa State governor have been stopped and resolved as “a family affair” if the governor were to be a PDP member and a staunch loyalist of the president?  Would there have been any impeachment brouhaha in Nasarawa, Edo and Rivers States if the governors pose no threat to the 60-year ruling ambition of the governing party? Are we being coerced to accept and believe that belonging to a ruling party has become immunity against impunity and corruption charges? When did resolving corruption allegations through “family affair” become an acceptable Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanism in Nigeria? It defies all logic and makes no sense to fight corruption with corruption.

Ibrahim Mohammed, Nigerian Law School, Yola Campus, Adamawa State.