Buhari’s good example

President Muhammadu Buhari set a good example on February 4, this year when he handed over presidential powers to Vice-President Yemi Osinbajo for five days while he went on vacation abroad. Buhari had undertaken visits to France and Britain and from the latter, he announced that Osinbajo would be the Acting President while he undertakes […]

President Muhammadu Buhari set a good example on February 4, this year when he handed over presidential powers to Vice-President Yemi Osinbajo for five days while he went on vacation abroad. Buhari had undertaken visits to France and Britain and from the latter, he announced that Osinbajo would be the Acting President while he undertakes a five-day vacation.
 In compliance with the provisions of Section 145(1) of the 1999 Constitution, Buhari transmitted a formal notice to the leadership of the National Assembly, informing them that he would go on vacation and that Vice President Osinbajo would exercise all presidential power in his absence.
Section 145(1) says, “Whenever the President is proceeding on vacation or is otherwise unable to discharge the functions of his office, he shall transmit a written declaration to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives to that effect, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, the Vice President shall perform the functions of the President as Acting President.”
Even though this constitutional provision is clear cut and its invocation should ordinarily not elicit much interest, it did attract attention here because of our history. This provision has existed in various forms in our constitution since we adopted the presidential system in 1979 but it has been observed more in the breach. A well known example of this violation occurred in 2008 during the regime of President Umaru Musa Yar’adua. In 2008 and 2009 the ailing Yar’adua flew abroad for medical attention. Before he left he failed to officially hand over power to the then Vice-President Goodluck Jonathan. This led to a serious constitutional crisis. The 2008 Supplementary Appropriation Act was signed in cloudy circumstances when it was said Yar’adua signed it on his Saudi Arabian sick bed.
Also in December 2009, Justice Idris Legbo Kutigi performed a role traditionally preserved for presidents when he swore-in his successor, Justice Aloysius Katsina-Alu, because Yar’adua was away but failed to handover presidential power to Jonathan. The ensuing political imbroglio dovetailed into the enactment of the ‘doctrine of necessity’ by the Senate in 2010, a decision that allowed Jonathan to become Acting President without a transmission of power.
State governors all over the country have often violated this section. Section 190(1) of the 1999 Constitution demands that governors handover executive power to their deputies when they go on vacation. However, in most cases, governors breach this rule.  For instance, between 2012 and 2013 a former Enugu State Governor, Mr. Sullivan Chime, travelled to the United Kingdom on medical grounds. He failed to formally handover State power to his deputy, Mr. Sunday Onyebuchi. Rather, he directed the affairs of the state from his hospital bed abroad.
Also, when he proceeded on leave in early 2015, a former Governor of Niger State, Dr. Mu’azu Babangida Aliyu, took an abnormal step when he sidetracked his deputy, Alhaji Ahmed Ibeto and handed over to the Speaker of the House of Assembly, Alhaji Adamu Usman.   There was also the case in Jigawa State from 2003 to 2007 when Governor Ibrahim Saminu Turaki ruled the state from other parts of the world by arguing that with modern Information and Communication Technology (ICT) the world had become a global village.
Of course, there are instances in which governors actually transmitted power to the deputies, but on conditions that tied such ‘acting governors’ hands. Following Buhari’s sterling example, it is now a challenge to Houses of Assembly to insist that deputy governors take charge of the state when governors are on vacation. Lawmakers must ensure that the meaning of the word “absence” is not abused. A governor should be deemed to be absent if he is physically away from his seat of power to attend to private matters. Our lawmakers should not buy into the argument that modern communication facilities give governors the semblance of being present simply because they can direct the affairs of the state through text messages, emails, teleconferences, voice calls, scanned signatures, or even podcast.