FEATURE ARTICLE


Monday, August 19, 2002

Chika B. Onwuekwe
[email protected]
Saskatoon, Canada


Obasanjo's impeachment threat: An eerie time bomb?


n Tuesday, August 13, 2002, the House of Representatives (Nigeria's lower federal lawmakers) gave the President (Chief Olusegun Obasanjo) an ultimatum to either resign within two weeks or be impeached. Their grouse, as reported in the newspapers, was because of Obasanjo's incompetence and abuse of office. Hopefully, when the lower house reconvenes on September 4, 2002, they will explain to Nigerians the details of the allegations against the president. This is because of the blanket and near unanimous vote of no confidence against the president, as signified by the ultimatum. What is startling however is that although the motion was moved by an All People's Party (APP) lawmaker, most of the lawmakers from the ruling People's Democratic Party (PDP), including the Speaker of the House, endorsed and voted in favour of it. Vibes from the presidency indicate that Obasanjo is not perturbed by this ultimatum. In fact his aids have challenged the lawmakers to seek better things to occupy their time rather than awakening a sleeping dog. I bet the lawmakers must take such warning seriously. They also contend that until Obasanjo receives an official letter or document containing the ultimatum, he is not going to respond to it. Fair enough, as the lawmakers may just be testing the nation's pulse. But, what exactly is at stake this time? Who should Nigerians believe -the lawmakers or the presidency? What could be the possible fallout from this tussle assuming the impeachment threat comes to fruition?

While some people have interpreted the two weeks "resign or be impeached" ultimatum as a joke others see it as not only proper but also long overdue. Those in the first category have continued to vilify the lawmakers. They view the threat as unserious. For these people, the lawmakers are merely playing the impeachment card as a ploy to arm-twist the executive. Some of them also believe that the lawmakers are witch-hunting Obasanjo and out to cause mischief as the country prepares for general elections in 2003. On the other hand, those who support the lawmakers' threat are of the opinion that Obasanjo's regime has left Nigerians worse than they were before May 29, 1999. Although no statistics has been provided to support such assertion, they argue that the country needs a more visionary leader. Fair enough too but is that not one of the goals of the forthcoming 2003 elections? What is further confusing with this group's argument is that some of them cloak the allegation of Obasanjo's non-performance on his failure to carry out a (sovereign) national conference to determine the corporateness or otherwise of Nigeria. My greatest sympathy nevertheless lies with the third group, who have read ethnic undertone into the ultimatum. At the moment, I am unable to dismiss their suspicion without further verification. This is because Obasanjo was voted into office in 1999 by majority of Nigerians other than his Yoruba tribe. Indeed, I see Mr. President's landslide victory in states outside Yoruba land in similar light as that achieved by veteran philanthropist, late Chief M.K.O. Abiola, in 1993.

Undoubtedly, the lawmakers have the constitutional power to initiate impeachment proceedings against either the president or the vice president at anytime (section 143 of the 1999 Constitution). However, like any other democratic authority, such power must not be abused. Therefore, there is a presumption that the lawmakers would not make impeachment threats unless they are convinced that Obasanjo has committed impeachable offence(s). Nevertheless, in view of the fragile democratic structures on which this government (including the National Assembly) stands most Nigerians expected that the lawmakers would have been more cautious. It would therefore be irresponsible if it were later discovered that their current threat was either a vendetta or a mere spontaneous reaction to alleged frustrations from the presidency. The timing of this threat makes it the more worrisome. Thus, the presidency and political watchers in Nigeria should not dismiss it as the ranting of an unserious bunch of lawmakers. This is because, notwithstanding past unsuccessful moves by the National Assembly to impeach Obasanjo, the present threat may have a lot of undertones. Thus, even though the president came out stronger than the lawmakers on those other occasions there is no certainty that he will this time.

While we wait and see how events unfold in the coming week, lets pause for a moment and ponder whether there is any merit in the current threat. Or is it merely another power show? Has Obasanjo, or indeed PDP led government, underachieved to warrant a vote of no confidence on the party's leader? Should the executive arm led by the president be solely held responsible for the non-performance of this government? In fact, is PDP worthy of the electorates' votes in 2003 elections, barring the negative deployment of the power of incumbency often manifested in Nigeria through massive rigging and political gangsterism? Are not the lawmakers, especially those elected under the platform of PDP (and therefore part of the ruling party) partly responsible for any incompetence attributable to this government? To what extent, if at all, should they be blamed for such incompetence? Is abuse of power a legitimate ground to impeach the president under the Nigerian constitution? Besides the controversy on budget implementation and proper accountability, is Obasanjo guilty of other unconstitutional excesses? Answers to any of the above questions would be as diverse as there are Nigerians. That is the essence of democracy and freedom. It is however the ability to discuss such differences in an atmosphere of candour and tranquility that elevates democratic system above autocratic regimes. Having witnessed late General Sani Abacha's holier-than-thou attitude before he was beckoned to salvage the democratic dreams ignited by June 12, 1993 elections, it is hoped that this impeachment threat is not another gimmick to repeat history.

Assuming Obasanjo is successfully impeached during this current move to unseat him from Aso Rock, what likely scenarios will play out? If the lawmakers successfully impeach the president, the constitution provides that the vice president should assume his position. This would be unlike what happened in the upper house when the erstwhile leaders (Chief Evan Enwerem and Dr. Chuba Okadigbo) were respectively ousted and a replacement was sought from other senators of Ndigbo extraction. It was on this arrangement that Chief Anyim Pius Anyim assumed the mantle of senate president. In other words, except the constitution is amended, it does not appear that PDP would be allowed to field another southerner, albeit a Yoruba, to succeed an impeached Obasanjo. Moreover, there is no guarantee that such a person, assuming the constitution allows for such frivolity, would be comfortable with Atiku Abubakar as his/her vice president. More tension may develop and Nigerians, rather than PDP, would be worse for it. Hence, unless the constitution is amended to accommodate the current zoning formula of PDP (which I do not endorse), nothing appears to stand against Atiku replacing Obasanjo, if the impeachment process succeeds. Only such a development would fulfill the requirements of the constitution to which all the officers have sworn to uphold.

Besides the person that succeeds the president in the event of a successful impeachment another concern will be to determine who becomes the PDP flag bearer for the 2003 presidential elections? This is not conceding that Obasanjo has won PDP nomination for the 2003 elections. Thus, if the impeachment succeeds and Atiku serves out Obasanjo's remaining term (be it one day or few weeks/months), it is logical to assume that he would not welcome any political demotion in 2003. Any request for Atiku to respect PDP's zoning formula in favour of a southern presidential candidate could be rebuffed. The dilemma of choosing a PDP flag bearer while the impeachment process is in progress with general elections drawing closer (assuming independent national electoral commission [INEC] sets one) will be a daunting task. With impeachment proceedings hanging over the incumbent in his party dominated legislature, it is obvious that the party may seek another candidate, as its presidential flag bearer. Would Atiku fill that gap? If he agrees to do so (while the impeachment process is ongoing) would he incur the wrath of Nigerians like Ambassador Babagana Kingibe, who abandoned the June 12 mandate he won with Abiola to serve as a minister in Abacha's government? Is history about to repeat itself in an uncanny way? This explains why PDP leadership is panicky. Regrettably, rather than seek to resolve the looming crisis amicably, the party hierarchy is busy indulging in name-calling and buck-passing. Whether the party's leadership has adopted a mediator's unpartisan approach or taken sides with the executive is not the focus of this analysis. However, the party should note that their downfall would be the gain of any of the other political parties. That indeed is the juicy part of democracy.

There are grounds to believe that the lawmakers are unserious about their recent impeachment threat. As Chief Gani Fawehinmi (SAN) argued (Guardian of August 15, 2002), the lawmakers were generous to have given Obasanjo a two weeks ultimatum rather than one that took effect immediately. What the likes of Fawehinmi fail to understand is that the lawmakers may be working on a different agenda that may not include the actual removal of the president. The taste of the pudding is surely in the eating. Hence, backing up their threat may be more daunting than they envisaged. This is because there is a likelihood that this motion was passed on the spur of the moment. Consequently, they will soon find out that getting the necessary signatures to support an impeachment motion will not be easy. It is however hoped that the executive will not play dirty in their bid to outsmart the lawmakers. In clear terms, the democratic process should be allowed to take its course devoid of any intimidation. Already, close associates of the executive have swung into action. Both the Speaker of the lower house (Alhaji Ghali Umar Na'Abba) and the President of the Senate (Chief Anyim) have been put on the spotlight. Allegations of corruption and unjust enrichment have just been filed against them before the anti-corruption commission and the high court, respectively (re: Guardian August 15, 2002, online: https://odili.net/news/source/2002/aug/16/23.html. On the other hand, the Senate has, in a recent press conference (Vanguard, 16 August 2002, available online https://odili.net/news/source/2002/aug/14/33.html) given by Senator Udoma Udo Udoma, warned the executive to stick to the letters of the 2002 Appropriation Act or face its wrath when it reconvenes on August 27, 2002. They also cautioned the presidency not to unilaterally amend the 2002 Appropriation Act or indeed any other law duly passed by it. Assuming the president is found guilty of any such action, it is definitely unconstitutional and a proper ground for initiating impeachment proceedings. Is this not democracy at work? On the surface it appears as if it is but underneath there seems to be an attempt by Nigerian political gladiators to ridicule the democratic system, the country and its citizenry, once again.

It is on this basis that those calling for a truce between the president and the lawmakers should be careful or else they deny Nigerians a golden opportunity to get to the root of the present political brouhaha. Consequently, the laid down procedures for enthroning sanity and accountability into the democratic process should not be rejected as tedious. Rather, it should be seen as a chance for the country to test the state of its democratic spirit. Or are some people afraid that the apple cat may be upturned? If the lawmakers believe and have facts to justify their position, they should be encouraged to prove their allegation(s). Likewise, if the president has nothing to hide and can justify that the legislatures have overstepped their bounds this development offers him the opportunity to expose the lawmakers for whom they are. The provision of the constitution on impeachment is anchored on transparency and fair hearing. Nigerians should worry on whether the democratic process is working rather than on the timeframe for completion of any impeachment process, if initiated. If the lawmakers shouted wolf when there was none they will soon find out that they have embarked on a political suicide. It will further prove to every Nigerian that they are a bunch of unserious people.

Ordinarily, the lawmakers cannot extricate themselves from any blame on the poor performance of this regime. It is even worse for PDP lawmakers who seem to have fallen out of favour with their party hierarchy as tinkered by the presidency. First it was Chief Barnabas Gemade, and now Chief Audu Ogbeh, that were foisted on them as PDP's national chairman. It will not surprise me if some PDP legislatures are already dusting their bags to join any of the other political parties. This group may be craving to spoil the broth while they can. Unknown to such persons, whatever touches the nose will eventually get to the mouth. As such, the impeachment threat may be a bad gamble.

But was the ultimatum in good faith? In other words, can it be said that the resolution that gave rise to this ultimatum was taken in the best interest of the large majority of Nigerians? Is initiating an impeachment proceeding against Obasanjo, or indeed his removal from office, the antidote for accountability in the polity? Answers to any of these questions depend on how the current impeachment threat unfolds. I envisage rancour and acrimony when the lawmakers reconvene. There will be finger pointing and name calling which has become the trademark of Nigerian politicians. Otherwise, let the lawmakers prove us wrong by treating the alleged breaches of Mr. President with the seriousness it deserves. Obasanjo, on his own part, should be willing to subject himself and his cabinet to any probe initiated to get to the bottom of the allegations of incompetence, flagrant disregard for the constitution and/or abuse of power. In fact, for Obasanjo and his sympathisers, it may be wise to take seriously the threat of the legislatures, as weird as it may look. Lastly, the courts should also resist any attempt to be used for obtaining countless injunctions to stall any process meant to sanitize the polity.

The question that keeps playing in the minds of most Nigerians is, why now? In other words, why should the lawmakers wait until this late hour to express their determination to impeach the president? Is this indeed a subtle invitation for the executive to negotiate with them? Or could it be the lawmakers' way of getting back at the executive for undermining their authority on a number of issues? Nigerians had better count their teeth with their tongue. This is notwithstanding Fawehinmi's allegation that "Obasanjo has committed so many unconstitutional acts, too numerous to account that his impeachment could have been done earlier than now." Although the lawmakers were not as blunt or forthright as Fawehinmi, they nevertheless must have catalogued Obasanjo's undemocratic and unconstitutional acts. Logically, only the possession of such evidence would have boosted their confidence to pass this motion. As earlier stated, one hopes that it is not an attempt to scuttle the democratic process. Ordinarily, there is nothing wrong with impeaching a president who has breached or continue to violate the constitution, which he/she swore to uphold. What may however be wrong is if the lawmakers are found to be playing games.

Obviously, a lot of clean up needs to be done before the next elections. PDP legislatures should however not seek a back door to deny Obasanjo's re-nomination as the party's flag bearer. If they are confident about their power-brokering prowess, they should not be afraid to confront him constitutionally. The same admonition goes to the presidency. Let Nigerians decide at the polls. On this note, there have been countless accusations of incompetence and partisanship against INEC's leadership. INEC is supposed to be an impartial umpire empowered to conduct political elections in Nigeria. Granted that its leadership is currently embroiled in corruption scandal, the call for Dr. Abel Guobadia's removal as chairman of this body should be resolved as quickly as possible. Whatever is happening at INEC and other government agencies is a true reflection of the country's current leadership ineptitude. Only a total overhaul can redress this unhealthy development. There is however no certainty that those who will be asking for the electorates' votes in 2003 are determined to initiate required changes. Until politicians are made to render account of their stewardship to their constituencies, it will be difficult to instil any decorum in the polity. Hence, the current impeachment threat if it is allowed to succeed or die on its merits, may be a good starting point after all.

Nigeria's democratic process is still mucky. However, with collective determination founded on transparency, the country will one day cherish its newly found freedom. Democracy connotes power to the people. Such authority is priceless. Therefore, Nigerians should not allow politicians, who unfortunately are bad losers, to impose on them ever again the dark days of the military. Nigerians must therefore be alert or else the democratic light switches-off too soon. The press, as the fourth estate, should be unbiased in their reporting. Consequently, journalists should sheath their ethnic garbs and be as objective as they can in their reporting and analysis of issues. Nigeria is above any person's or ethnic communities' ambition. We, as citizens, should therefore resist any attempt to truncate the current democratic process.