Our ‘converted democrat’ and the Constitution

Candidate Muhammadu Buhari’s most internationally acclaimed speech is the one he delivered six years ago at Chatham House in London. At the peak of his election campaign and amidst concerns about his past record of dictatorship, he assured the world that he had been born-again. “I cannot change the past. But I can change the […]

Candidate Muhammadu Buhari’s most internationally acclaimed speech is the one he delivered six years ago at Chatham House in London. At the peak of his election campaign and amidst concerns about his past record of dictatorship, he assured the world that he had been born-again. “I cannot change the past. But I can change the present and the future. So before you is a former military ruler and a converted democrat who is ready to operate under democratic norms…” Buhari repeated variants of this line several times before the election and upon being sworn-in as president.

By promising to “operate under democratic norms”, Buhari has committed to promoting and upholding the constitution and the law, and to shun abuse or misuse of the office and powers of the president. That was the tenor of his oath on the Noble Qur’an on the 29 May 2015 and four years later. In fact, most of those of us that not only voted for President Buhari in 2015, but also actively campaigned for him, did so because we were sick and tired of lawlessness, cronyism and ineptitude of Buhari’s predecessor.

That makes it distressing to see our “messiah” further entrench the abuses we thought we had ended. Since assuming office, Buhari has regarded provisions of the constitution and law as inconveniences to be circumvented. From his interference in the judicial functions and wanton disregard for court orders such as in the case of Col Sambo Dasuki, to his illegal expenditures like the release of $1 billion from the Excess Crude Account in April 2018 without the approval of the National Assembly, to turning a blind eye in the face of damning evidence of wrongdoing against his associates like Babachir David Lawal, to his appointment of unqualified associates to sensitive positions, he has governed solely in his own interest.

The president built on this pattern last week when he illegally extended the tenure of the Inspector General of Police (IGP). IGP Mohammed Adamu enlisted into the Nigerian police on 1 February 1986 and attained the mandatory maximum retirement age of 35 years in service on the first of this month. The IGP, according to law, ceased to be a police officer on that date. But rather than appointing a new IGP in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and Police Act, Buhari simply decided he had the power to extend Adamu’s tenure.

This isn’t just a violation of the law – but a violation of a law that Buhari signed just last year. In particular, it is a violation of Sections 7(6) (providing for the unextendible tenure of the IGP) and 18(8) (stipulating the maximum length of service for any police officer) of the Police Act 2020. These sections do not provide any political latitude for discretion: not for the president nor any person or authority inside or outside Nigeria. Thus, President Buhari is doubly wrong to have acted in the manner he did.

In a feeble attempt to justify the president’s out-and-out illegality, the Minister of Police Affairs said the extension was necessary to allow room for “a robust and efficient” process to ensure that the “the right officer is appointed” and for “a smooth handover”. This excuse is as laughable as it’s meaningless. How exactly will extending the IGP’s tenure ensure these when the IGP has no role in the selection itself? Why didn’t the presidency initiate the process months ago to avoid this situation? How is replacing an officer whose tenure was fixed by law four years ago an urgent necessity that would lead to an extension now? If the president and everyone at the presidency had forgotten that IGP Adamu’s was due to retire on  February 1, they had been reminded by news outlets that ran stories on the issue in the weeks and months leading up to the day. At its best, this can be seen as a self-imposed emergency situation brought about by people who are careless with their jobs. At the worst, it is an extra-legal activity designed to achieve some dishonest aim.

It is confusing why Buhari insists on breaking the law by by-passing the National Assembly even though majority of its members are from his party and they would rubber-stamp anything he sends them. Just last month, President Buhari violated the provisions of the Constitution and the Armed Forces Act by appointing new service chiefs without the National Assembly’s approval. The new service chiefs have since assumed their respective offices and have started leading our military, even though the National Assembly is yet to consider the president’s letter “proposing” their appointment.

Clearly, President Buhari didn’t learn anything from Mr Ibrahim Magu’s case. He defied a damning report against Magu by our intelligence officers and his dual rejection by the Senate to make him the acting chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission. After Magu had illegally served for almost five years at the president’s unconstitutional behest, the president saw for himself that the concerns raised against Magu were legitimate. Except that this only happened after Magu had done the damage that was feared. The president suspended Magu and caused him to be arrested. But, even at that, Buhari, in his usual character, never showed any remorse or apologised for his violation of the law. Other than Magu himself, only President Buhari is to blame for the damage done.

Buhari was right that he couldn’t change his history of military dictatorship. But he is today squandering the second (and third) chance(s) he begged for. Breaking the law when it is politically convenient may be satisfying for the moment, but it is setting a dangerous precedent for our country today and for generations yet unborn. We cannot build strong institutions that respect the rule of law and constitutionalism when our president is setting the opposite example. Those who benefit from impunity today will have themselves to blame when, not if, others use impunity against them. For those who live by the sword die by the sword.