Rein in the first lady, don’t abolish the office

This, coming from him, must have been after deep and sober reflections, considering the shenanigans of some spouses of Presidents which have attracted negative press coverage to the office.Candidate Muhammadu Buhari is not given to frivolous utterances. In any case he can claim the distinction of running the Presidency without an office of the First […]

This, coming from him, must have been after deep and sober reflections, considering the shenanigans of some spouses of Presidents which have attracted negative press coverage to the office.
Candidate Muhammadu Buhari is not given to frivolous utterances. In any case he can claim the distinction of running the Presidency without an office of the First Lady in his first outing as head of government in 1984. Added to this is the fact that in the constitution of this land the office of the First Lady is nowhere listed.  But this is not surprising, because I doubt it if any country that has adopted the presidential system of government has the office of the First Lady listed in its constitution.
The office of the First Lady has had a turbulent history all over the world. In the United States of America, from where Nigeria and other over 60 countries of the world adopted the Presidential system, the office of the First Lady has never been mentioned in the constitution. It merely evolved over the years, and has today become part and parcel of the US President’s office. In the 19th century, the wives of  US Presidents were designated variously – Mrs. President, Mrs. Presidentress, First Lady of the land, First Lady of the White House – until finally Harriet Lane, niece of the bachelor President James Buchanan (in office 1857-1861), superintending the White House was addressed formally, for the first time,  as First Lady. In recent times, Rosalynn, consort of President Carter (in office 1977-1981), was the first to have what is now called office of the First Lady, situated in the East Wing of the White House. She is credited with the dubious pedigree of being the first to sit, though never spoke, at cabinet meetings. Subsequent US First Ladies merely upped the ante. President Clinton’s First Lady, Hillary, had offices in the West Wing (the President’ side) of the White House and is reputed to have chaired a crucial cabinet committee during his tenure, albeit in controversial circumstances. After her husband’s tenure she run successfully for Senate and when the Democrats returned to power in the White House became Secretary of State (Minister of) Foreign Affairs in President Obama’s first term. She is now   bracing up to stand for election as a presidential candidate.
The First Lady, as the resident consort is usually assumed to be the human side of the president. She takes up roles that would not normally be associated with the president, who is usually seen to be attending to such masculine matters as cabinet meetings, commissioning projects, presiding at national army meetings surrounded by glowering, sour-faced, heavily medaled generals, etc. When the First Lady hugs babies at hospitals, hobnobs with school-going children at New Year and other events, meets with fellow ladies to confer on health matters, dances at cultural events, it balances the picture and adds value to the president. First Ladies even go side by side with their spouses to campaign during elections.
However, the First Ladies who deviate from these acceptable tasks risk attracting odium to their consorts, thus greatly affecting their popularity. Where the First Ladies openly interfere in the appointment and deployment of government staff or are seen to be benefiting from contracts and other largess, the public tend to have a negative view of the spouses. Part of the problems encountered by President Clinton’s Healthcare bill in 1993, was the unusual appointment of his First Lady, Hillary, to chair the taskforce that was to prepare the bill and see it through congress. The bill never succeeded, despite the fact that President Clinton’s party had the majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Many observers then opined that Hillary Clinton had no business chairing a committee stacked with Ministers and other high ranking government officials. Simone Gbagbo, the embattled former Ivory Coast First Lady, who was known to be the interfering type, is today facing charges in an Abidjan court for ‘attempting to undermine the security of the state’ in the events leading to the bloody 2010-11 crises in the country that left thousands dead. There is also a subsisting warrant from the International Criminal Court to arrest her for similar offence.
I was surprised to hear President Jonathan while campaigning in Ibadan saying that the First Lady does not spend government money. With due respect to my President, I dare say that the First Ladies all over the Federation spend government money. All the parties they hold, all the gifts they routinely dish out to their visitors, all the movements to occasions, local and international, are supported by public funds. In situations where First Ladies get their hands mudded by involvement in sundry purchases for items meant for the upkeep of their spouses, it puts a lot of pressure on auditors when they demand routine accountability.
It is this kind of interference in government affairs by First Ladies who cannot be held accountable, which makes the public to demand for abolishing the office. However, I believe that the office of the first lady cannot be wished away or easily abolished. It is too entrenched in the psyche of the public in the countries practising the presidential system of government. What should be done by whoever emerges winner in the elections is to make efforts to rein in the First Lady so as to utilize the office to add value to the Presidency. The office must not be allowed to be on autopilot. The chief of staff who is ultimately accountable to the President on state house affairs must be properly empowered by the president to have a tight leash on the office of the First Lady. He must be allowed to staff the office with people who will be accountable to him. In the long run, the chief of staff must keep keen eyes on particularly the scheduling and spending aspects in the office of the First Lady.
In any case, the ultimate responsibility for the First Lady’s good behaviour in her spouse’s house lies directly at the feet of the president. If President Jonathan wins, I expect him to do more on the office of the first lady. There have been too many low moments in that office in the last few years. The First Lady’s skirmishes with elected officials in Rivers and Bayelsa states are well reported and need not be repeated here. To me her intervention during the abducted Chibok Girls saga, where she was seen to be making vain attempts to browbeat elected and appointed state officials, was probably the lowest moment. The president must ensure that sanity returns to that office, if it will add any value to the Presidency.
If, on the other hand, candidate Muhammadu Buhari wins, I will implore him not to abolish the office of the First Lady, but to restructure it to serve the purpose for which it was created, and that is, to add value to the presidency. In this regard, it will be necessary for candidate Buhari to lay the ground rules early in his mandate, for the smooth running of the First Lady’s office. She must be kept away from breathing down the necks of elected and appointed officials. More importantly, the First Lady must be insulated from financial dealings. Appointed officials in the State House whose functions are guided by rules and regulations and can be held accountable, should be allowed to carry out such mundane duties. There are many good causes to take up the time of the First Lady and her scheduling officers should pile her days with such.  
Gambo Dori,  <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>;>