Ransay Clark defined impeachment as “a means by which we the people of the united state and our elected representatives in congress can prevent further crimes by the president and the human catastrophe they threaten and force accountability for crimes committed. Congressional proceedings for impeachment can bring about open, fearless, consideration of the most dangerous acts and threats ever committed by an American president, if courageously pursued, they can save our constitution”.
Dr. Jacob A. Dada, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Calabar also defined impeachment as “the process by which the legislature formally brings charges against an official with a view to his trial by the same legislature and removal from office if found guilty of the charge”.
It therefore means that the power of impeachment, simply put, is the power of removal from office exercisable by the legislature over the Executive.
This power, Dr. Dada contends, is a prominent feature of presidentialism and is the counterpart of a vote of no confidence applicable in a parliamentary system of government.
Learned pundits agree that the utility of this power lies in the aim to moderate or check possible excesses of the executive. The office of the power of impeachment, it has been postulated, is not an inquest of office. Rather, it is a constitutional device designed to put the executive in check since the executive arm is bequeathed with so much power and the president is the repository of these powers. There is no gainsaying that these powers are easily amenable to abuse. To prevent its arbitrary and capricious exercise brought to birth the evolution of the doctrine of separation of powers proponented by Montesquieu, a French philosopher which was only an improvement of John Locke’s doctrine of natural rights and the social contract.
However, contrary to what the intention of impeachment should be as seen above, the impeachment powers in Nigeria have been used as a political tool of witch-hunting of enemies or as an instrument of intimidation mainly used to force stubborn presidents or governors to a negotiation table for political gain.
The spirit of sections 188(2)(b) of the 1999 constitution was to curtail the excesses of executive action and to ensure that it is not abused or corruptly used to the disadvantage of the electorate.
No wonder Niki Tobi JSC (as he then was) stated in INAKOJU V. ADELEKE (2007)4NWLR (pt 1025) 423 at 634 “The plethora of removal proceedings in respect of Governors is not only frightening but also capable of affecting the stability of Nigeria. It is almost like a child’s play as some state legislatures indulge in it with all the ease and conflict like the way the Englishman sips his coffee on his breakfast table”. To lend a voice to the alarming rate of abuse of the power of impeachment in this country, Babatunde Oshilaya, a legal luminary in an article entitled, “How Not to Remove a president” wrote, “curiously and arguably, the most popular political and constitutional law concept in Nigeria forth constitution is impeachment”.
The 1999 constitution or the previous ones of 1960, 1963 and 1979 did not expressly enshrine the word “Impeachment” nor is the word found in any of the eight (8) chapters and the three hundred and twenty sections including the recent amendments and alterations. The word used in the grundnorm is “removal”.
However, historically, the power of impeachment was tested firstly in Kaduna state during the second Republic which led to the celebrated case of ALHAJI BALARABE MUSA V. SPEAKER, KADUNA STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY (1981) 1 NCLR, 414. It is to be noted that the Governor of Kaduna state, Alhaji Balarabe Musa was unjustly removed because of sentiment on political affiliation. Unfortunately the court relied on an ouster clause in the 1979 constitution to decline jurisdiction to entertain the case and Balarabe Musa lost his position and right to ungodly politics.
Since then the word “impeachment” became a major topic in our democracy. Impeachment of speakers, deputy speakers, Governors, Deputy Governors, and even senate presidents on flimsy excuses became rapacious. The Governor of Bayelsa state, D.S.P Alameyesigha was impeached in a controversial circumstance, not because he did not commit an impeachment offence but that the powers from Abuja midwived the whole process and ensured that the House of Assembly of that state impeached the governor by all means either in Lagos or in Yenagoa under heavy security.
Governor Joshua Dariye of Plateau, Governor Ayodele Fayose of Ekiti etc, the Deputy Governor of Abia state, Dr. Enyinaya Abaribe now in the senate, the speaker House of Representatives, Hon. Salisu Buhari, Senators, Evans Ewerem, Chuba Wilberforce Okadigbo, Adolphos Wabara, Hon. Patricia Olubunmi Etteh, Hon. Magret Ichin, (1st Female speaker in Nigeria and Benue state) are few examples. The list is unended as far as impeachment is concerned since 1999.
Dr. J.A. Dada admits that in Nigeria, there has been consistent employment of this power by the various legislative houses making it difficult, if not impracticable for the executive arm to operate without the concurrence of the legislature on any matter. The Governors and the Chairmen of Local Government Areas have, in most cases yielded to this unhealthy political pressure by “Settlement” or negotiation for survival.
It has been observed that the godfather syndrome in the country helped to precipitate this unhealthy development. The abortive impeachment of Dr. Chris Nwabueze Ngige of Anambra state was purely orchestrated by a supposed godfather Chris Uba who felt slighted by the various appointments made by Governor Ngige and his not having access to the financial strong room of the state as was practiced during Governor Chinwoke Nbadinuju’s tenure.
The impeachment of Rashidi Ladoja of Oyo state was also masterminded by the godfather of the state, Late Chief Adedibu who was an ally of the president then, President Olu Obasanjo. The ordeal of the Oyo state Governor was reported to have been rehearsed from Aso Rock.
Chief Afe Babalola SAN, OFR stated that impeachment is very serious weapon of destruction that destroys its given victim(s) completely. In highly sophisticated advanced democracies of the world especially the United State of America where we copied our presidential system of government the weapon of impeachment is sparingly mentioned let alone employed ostensibly because of its damaging potency.
It is only employed in extreme cases where alternative routes do not just exist at all for example, vote of censure, or vote of no confidence. Therefore, impeachment as a constitutional process is not designed as a weapon of political intimidation, oppression, suppression, repression, harassment and/or witch-hunting of a president or Governor or Speaker whose face the legislature does not want to behold any longer in the government house or on the speaker’s seat. When it is used this way it amounts to a gross abuse of this power and it goes to show that its purpose is misunderstood in this country.
So also are the provision of subsection 10 of 188 or 143 misconstrued, misunderstood, abused and politicized to the extent of thinking that there is a complete ouster of the courts jurisdiction to entertain any matter relating to impeachments. True, when they are carried out in gross or flagrant disregard to the constitutional procedures (as in the cases of Balarabe Musa, of Kaduna state, Abaribe of Abia state, Ayodele Fayose of Ekiti state, Joshua Dariye of Plateau state among others) the court is not robbed of jurisdiction.
It can rightly be said that whereas under the 1979 constitution, the power of impeachment was an absolute political matter limited to members of the legislature, under the present 1999 constitution, the judiciary is assigned a duty or responsibility thereby making the impeachment issue a quasi judicial process.
It is of interest to note that the Governor of a state and his Deputy are elected by the people, that is to say the electorate. So the procedure and proceedings leading to their removal should be transparent for the public to see from the gallery. The Supreme Court seriously frowns at the secret proceeding in the manner leading to the removal of Governor Ladoja. It should equally be stressed that when ouster clauses are provided in statutes, the courts usually invoke section 6 as a barometer to police their constitutionality. The courts become helpless when the constitution itself provides for ouster clauses.
In such situation, it is submitted that before the court can give effect to those ouster clauses, it must have ensured that such provisions were clearly donated in the statute. The court would then check whether all the provisions or procedures have been religiously complied with before it can invoke the provision of the ouster clause.
The legislature should not also use the impeachment powers as a snare or trap to settle political differences or to enthrone corruption by way of looking for their loot to share or what they call “National cake”.
Barr. Gideon Kpoobari Girigiri
08036784327
