Impeachment: Between Reps and the president

Abuja Deputy Bureau Chief, JACOB SEGUN-OLATUNJI, examines the recent move by the House of Representatives to simplify impeachment process of President through a proposed amendment of Section 143 of the 1999 Constitution as amended.

AT the Federal level, the 1999 Constitution as amended recognises three arms of government: Executive, Legislative and Judiciary. The legislative makes laws, controls public funds and serves as checks and balances to the executive. Executive powers are vested in the President, who exercises his power directly or through his ministers, while judicial powers are vested in courts established by the constitution or by any Act of the National Assembly.
Covertly, the executive seems to be the most powerful arm due to its being in charge of the economic power of government. But the power of checks and balances vested in the other arms of government seems to have placed a kind of caveat on the powers of the executive. However, there are already moves by the House of Representatives to clip the wings of the ‘almighty’ executive  when it passed for second reading a Bill seeking to grant absolute powers to the National Assembly to solely initiate and execute impeachment proceedings against a sitting President.
The Bill was intended to amend Section 143 of the Nigerian Constitution and was sponsored by Honourable Yakubu Dogara and Emmanuel Jime. The sponsors had maintained that the bill sought to remove ambiguities in the process of removal of the President and Vice President from office on allegations of gross misconduct and provide for more transparent and democratic procedure for impeachment.
Section 143 of the Nigerian Constitution clearly states procedures for the impeachment of the President and, or the Vice President. The sponsors of the bill in their respective arguments however claimed that there were some defects and ambiguities in the constitutional provision.  The duo, in their separate debates, also denied insinuations that the Bill was targeted at President Goodluck Jonathan. Specifically, Honourable Dogara said that in developed countries,  the powers to impeach a sitting President was exclusively with the parliament. On his part, Honourable Jime explained that bill was intended to address constitutional challenges that facing lawmakers in handling such a sensitive matter like impeachment. He faulted the provision of the constitution that states that the Chief Justice of the Federation should be the one to raise a panel to investigate the allegations of gross misconduct against the president or the vice president. Rhetorically he stated, “How can the Chief Justice, who himself is an appointee of the President, be the one to set up a panel to investigate the allegations?”
The Leader of the House, Honourable Mulikat Adeola-Akande in her contribution described the Bill as “totally undemocratic,” stressing that “Nigerian democracy is still too young to be compared with America’s.” The Deputy Leader of the House, Honourable Leo Ogor equally said that proposed amendment negated the principle of fair hearing as the House will become the judge in its own case rather than the arbiter.
The Minority Leader of the House, Honourable  Femi Gbajabiamila in his own argument maintained that the power to impeach the President or his Vice was already with the lawmakers, noting that impeachment processes were supposed to be rigorous, painstaking and a last resort and so, the need for safeguards. Though most of the lawmakers kicked against the bill, it was eventually passed for Second Reading when the Deputy Speaker, Honourable Emeka Ihedioha, who presided over the session, put the question through voice votes.
However, a number observers felt the bill was targeted at President Jonathan, Honourable Dogara, who is a member of the ruling Peoples Democratic Party [PDP] representing Tafawa-Balewa/Bogoro/Dass Federal Constituency of Bauchi State, noted that “I have heard arguments and even read newspaper editorials but unfortunately, most of the criticisms against the bill are borne out of ignorance. Some did not listen to the debate and have not even read the documents which I referred members to during the debate. The reason why four of us sat and made the proposal was because we looked at the culture of impunity in this country with several examples.
“For instance in the annual budget, laws are made to be implemented and in democracy if laws won’t be implemented, there are processes to get them repealed or amended. But in most cases, laws are not implemented in this country and nobody tells you why. The budget is a case in point. We have never had a situation where the National Assembly passed a budget and the executive refused to sign and we overrode the president. It has always been based on ‘envelope’ system. And at the end, it is only 25 to 30 percent of the budget that is implemented by the same people who have set standards for themselves without anybody making any explanation whatsoever. That is not democracy.
“Look at the case of the Public Procurement Act in Section 1 which talks about the National Council on Procurement which is the first thing the law establishes. But the executive abandoned that section and went to Part B of the law to set up the Bureau for Public Procurement, whereas is the council that is supposed to constitute that agency and employ the staff. The reason is that if it is set up; it deprives the Federal Executive Council [FEC] of sitting as a contract awarding body since they want to determine who gets what. In that case, there is a legal principle that says you cannot approbate and then probate.  If Part ‘A’ of that law is bad, then Part ‘B’ is also badl. But why do you think the executive will sit down and determine what part of the law to obey? It is because there is no consequence attached to it and nothing happens.
“Look at the issue of fuel subsidy. To every democrat, the question will be that,  is there a law that authorises the president to remove subsidy? There is the Price Control Act which has petroleum products whose price is regulated under the law. So as a democrat, where are you going to ground your action? The argument we heard from government was that ‘there is no going back’ and I don’t think there is any civilised democracy in the world where you hear the executive shouting that there is no going back on any policy. Everything is meant to be driven by consensus. What in your whole imagination will make somebody to break the law and there is no consequence? Because if it were a true democracy that we are running, the question would be that there is a law and the Attorney General is there to get the legislature repeal it to pave the way for subsidy removal.
“There are catalogues of other breaches that I will not enumerate here. So, our thinking in crafting this bill was why should there be a culture of impunity? The corruption we are witnessing in Nigeria today is as a result of the concentration of powers in the hands of a few individuals and without some appropriate checks. The entire goal of our retributive system of justice is to ensure deterrence. If robbers are executed, it is because they want to deter people from committing robbery. Then, what is there in the constitution that will deter the executive, president, vice president from committing obvious breaches?  The only thing you find in the constitution is the provision for removal from office or impeachment. Where the threats cannot be carried to perfection, then the deterrent can never be there and they have read the constitution, they understand it and that is why every successive Nigerian president violates the constitution at will.
He stated that “as a matter of fact, if I were the president, there is nothing in the whole constitution that stops me from being a dictator. The power of impeachment under Section 143 is given to the Chief Justice of the Federation through the panel of seven that he will constitute. And we all know what will happen when the whole National Assembly, a body of 469 members by two-thirds passes a resolution to say that an office holder has committed an impeachable offence and the CJN is called upon to constitute the panel. At the end of the day whatever they say, the courts cannot query it; the National Assembly cannot debate it. So, if I were the president, I will just give the CJN the seven names because he is my appointee and then houses or mansions will be bought for them. They will be bribed and the story goes on. In fact, they won’t even put the people of unquestionable integrity that the constitution specifies,” he stated.
Honourable Dogara added, “There is no civilised democracy out there that impeachment is not a political process handled by politicians. Political offenses and even the punishments are political. If the president commits an offence and then you require the intervention of the judiciary, there is the proposal that after his impeachment if he has committed a crime, he should nonetheless be prosecuted, it is against the principles of our law for the person to be tried twice by the same institution that is the judiciary on same allegations.  That is why if you look at cases of impeachment from Alexander Hamilton, one of the American founding fathers, he encapsulated these points in his arguments; let the politicians determine what constitutes an impeachable offence. That now separates the body that accuses which is the House of Representatives. Impeachment in our proposal does not amount to removal from office. The House will first indict by impeachment only, then the matter will be entirely referred to the Senate and later, the CJN will come to the Senate and preside over a hearing, because the major defect of that section is that it failed to provide for fair hearing. That is the practice everywhere”.
When pressed further on suspicions that the bill was targeted at the President, the lawmaker said that “those who think that we are targeting President Jonathan may not have listened to the debate, because the goal of legislation cannot be an individual. It is even very wicked to claim that we are targeting the president we supported and campaigned for seriously. After all, Jonathan will not be president forever; we are dealing with the Nigerian Constitution and if it is altered in that regard, it is going to be there for a couple of years and whoever is the president will meet that. The bill was proposed by four of us who are all members of PDP and we are guided by the fact that we have not done anything against the party and then in the bill, we are seeking to address the question of whether it is right within this circumstance to introduce it. Remember we did not take any oath of allegiance to the PDP; the oath we took was to serve the country. So whatever it is that is contentious and we can do to better our democracy and the lives of those who elected us I think it doesn’t matter who is for or against it.”
But be that as it may, some pundits are of the opinion that the House ought to tread softly on the bill because of the far-reaching implications for the politics of the country, as any of the lawmakers could eventually become a victim of the proposed amendment if succeeds.