Politics

Constitutional crisis reopens in APC-Government

Published

7 years ago

May 18, 2017

Olu Emmanuel

Spread The News

By SUNDAY ODIBASHI

The argument of Senator Mao Ohuabunwa at the Senate plenary, a fortnight ago, on the ambiguity of the letter by President Muhammadu Buhari notifying the Senate of his proceeding on medical vacation overseas, specifying that Vice President Yemi Osinbajo will coordinate activities of government is becoming rational. National Daily is of the view that the statement credited to Alhaji Lai Mohammed, Minister of Information and Culture, on the indecision over who signs the 2017 clearly reawakes the phobia of those who questioned the hazy constitutional status of Professor Osinbajo in the President’s letter.

Though, the Information Minster had raised alarm that he was misrepresented in the reports which claimed that he said “there is no decision yet on who will assent to the 2017 budget”, the statement admitted to have made that “when it is transmitted to the Presidency, the issue will be addressed,” still raises dust of constitutional crisis in the All Progressives Congress (APC)-Government at the mainstream body politic.

More so, Senior Special Assistant to President Muhammadu Buhari on National Assembly Matters, Ita Enang, in a media interaction on Channels Television last Wednesday, clearly said that President Buhari will assent to the 2017 budget while the Acting President Yemi Osinbajo will take it up from there.

“The 2017 budget will be transmitted to Mr. President and the President will assent to the budget. The President will assent to the budget, the Acting President is in office and when the budget is transmitted, it will go through the processes and all those other questions will answer itself,” Enang had said.

Apparently, by extrapolation, Enang had enunciated that President Buhari had proceeded on vacation with executive powers while transferring mere function to Osinbajo. Inadvertently, the fears of pessimists over the ambiguity of the President’s vacation letter is becoming real.

National Daily contends that the issue of signing the budget relates to exercise of powers; at the moment, those powers are vested in the Acting President, Professor Yemi Osinbajo, by the constitution; it is not an issue at the discretion of the Presidency or the Federal Executive Council (FEC).

Paradoxically, these are symptoms of internal disharmony of interests and intractable power tussle in the Presidency. There are indications that super humans are beginning to truncate the rudiments of public institutions.

This, perhaps, was why Ohuabunwa, raising a point of order that “there was no provisions in Section 145 of the 1999 constitution (as Amended) that says coordinating authority in the President’s absence;” had argued that “President Buhari, in his letter, would have been very clear in explaining the roles of who should take over by saying that Vice President Yemi Osinbajo should be in acting capacity and not the use of the word, coordinate.”

The Senator had declared inter alia: “Mr. President, I don’t think in our constitution, we have anything like coordinating president or coordinating vice president. Is either you are a vice president or you are acting president and any letter should be unambiguous and very clear.

“So… this letter really does not convey anything because coordinating has no space or any place in our constitution. We have been having letters like this, you tell us it is the acting president and we know who to deal with as a Senate. …So… this letter… is not right…”

Meanwhile, Laolu Akande, Media Aide to Acting President Osinbajo, has clarified that the Acting President will sign the Appropriation Act enacted by the National Assembly. “Just so we are clear, when the time comes, everything is clear and he is satisfied, Acting President Osinbajo will assent to the 2017 budget,” he had declared.

It will be recalled that President Buhari had on Sunday transmitted a letter, dated May7, 2017, to the Senate indicating: “In compliance with section 145 {1) of the 1999 constitution, as amended, I wish to inform the distinguished Senate that I will be away for a scheduled medical follow-up with my doctors in London. The length of my stay will be determined by the doctor’s advice. While I am away the vice president will coordinate the activities of the government. Please accept the assurances of my highest consideration.”

ALSO SEE: Constitutional crisis rages over Buhari’s medical vacation

The content of the letter generated controversies over the constitutional status of Osinbajo even though it showed that President Buhari duly complied with the constitution as required; which mandates the President to communicate his intention to proceed on vacation or otherwise; then, the constitution assigns roles.

Section 145 which President Buhari cited in compliance succinctly stipulates the circumstance there could be an “Acting President during temporary absence of President.” It prescribes that: “Whenever the President transmits to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives a written declaration that he is proceeding on vacation or that he is otherwise unable to discharge the functions of his office, until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such functions shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.”

National Daily had observed that all the President was required was to transmit his intention to the National Assembly, then, the constitution defines what happens to his role thereafter. It was argued that “As soon as the letter is transmitted; acknowledged by the President of the Senate and presented on the floor of the Senate, the Vice President does not need the permission of the President who is on vacation to assume the role the constitution has placed on him from that moment.”

National Daily also noted that President Buhari’s indication that the Vice President will coordinate activities of government is not out of place, adding that coordinating activities of government is applied science in governance.

Thus, Lai Mohammed, Minister of Information and Culture, and other members of the Federal

Executive Council were acknowledged to be right to say that the controversy was unnecessary distraction.

It was however, argued that such clarification was necessary because of certain precedents, emphasizing that one paradox may be that President Buhari may have transferred responsibilities without transferring executive powers to Vice President Osinbajo. Thus, while Professor Yemi Osinbajo could be coordinating the activities of government, he may not exceed the powers of the Vice President. “Hypothetically, President Buhari may have travelled to London with executive powers while Vice President Osinbajo may be coordinating activities of government with nominal powers,” it was contended. This seemingly reflects the statement attributed to the Information Minister about addressing who signs the budget when it is transmitted, thus, reopening constitutional crisis in the leadership of the federal government which reflected the argument of Senator Mao Ohuabunwa.

However, Senator Ahmed Lawan, Senate Majority Leader, had stated inter alia: “Mr. President … the point of order raised by my colleague and the explanation that subsequently followed shouldn’t have been and my reasons are simple.”

The Senate Majority Leader had declared, in part: “I still rely on the first paragraph of that letter which Mr. President wrote to this senate and read by the President of the Senate…” Having cited Section (145) of the constitution, Lawan declared: “Any other word in this letter or, indeed, anywhere else, is irrelevant. I, therefore, feel that Mr. President has done what the constitution requires him to do…”

Alhaji Lai Mohammed had subsequently substantiated Lawan’s argument when he remarked that the controversy was needless. He was cited to have stated” “It was needless controversy and just a distraction; the operating phrase is, ‘in compliance of Section 145(1),’ any other word used is not relevant.”

It has become apposite that APC leaders should consider the imperatives of tackling the unnecessary infighting disorganizing the Party-Government which has continued to cause distractions in governance.