Jonathan cannot suspend or sack Jega
Punch Newspaper
We
must never permit a situation of having to lock the stable door after
the horse had bolted. The constitution is clear and unambiguous: the
process of removal of the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral
Commission, according to Section 157 of the 1999 Constitution, starts
from the Senate and ends with the President.
Reacting to the purported dismissal of Maurice Iwu by President Goodluck Jonathan in the Daily Independent in 2010 under the title, The collapse of the Rule of Law in Nigeria, I said inter alia:
“Readers of this column would have
observed my obsession with issues relating to the rule of law. My pen
has never failed to spare any infraction of what I regard as the canon
of civilisation, however marginal or minute is the breach. It is my firm
belief that relations in any human concourse must be guided by a code,
the breach of which must attract a penalty. This is what distinguishes a
political community from the community of beasts. Indeed, the stage of
development of any nation is a function of the degree of compliance with
the rule of law. Show me a civilised and developed nation and I will
show you a nation that worships at the temple of the rule of law.
“Recently, the newspapers were awash with
the news of the Acting President, Goodluck Jonathan, directing the
Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission, Prof. Maurice
Iwu, to proceed on a “pre-disengagement leave with immediate effect.”
This, of course, generated considerable hoopla in the polity with many
Nigerians, including those who should know better, commending the Acting
President for sacking Iwu. First, Iwu was never sacked; the (Acting)
President has no such power to sack Iwu; he can only do so with the
authority of the Senate. Second, Iwu is entitled to his (annual) leave;
asking him to proceed on his leave “with immediate effect” does not and
cannot amount to a sack or dismissal. As a matter of fact, Maurice Iwu
is still the substantive chairman of INEC because no one can replace him
until his tenure expires on June 13, except he is removed
constitutionally; he can even be recalled from his leave to attend to
matters that are considered important. Therefore, I detest the attempt
by Goodluck Jonathan to score a cheap political point by making a huge
show of a simple administrative matter on the need for Iwu to proceed on
his terminal leave. It was an attempt to create the impression that he
actually sacked Iwu, and consequently secure a political mileage out of
the action. The Independent National Electoral Commission, Code of
Conduct Bureau, Federal Character Commission, Federal Civil Service
Commission, National Population Commission, Police Service Commission,
Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission, among others, are
autonomous federal executive bodies created by Section 153 of the 1999
Constitution. Will it, for instance, be part of due process for the
(Acting) President to issue a public statement anytime any chairman of
any of these bodies is to proceed on (a pre-disengagement) leave? If
Maurice Iwu preferred to continue to work without leave and his
administrative employer thought otherwise, I suppose a memo to that
effect should suffice… The problem, however, is that we do not know the
content of the letter of appointment of Maurice Iwu. Even at that, the
chairmen of these bodies (those I listed above) do not hold their
offices at the pleasure of the President. It will be interesting, for
instance, for the President to direct the Chairman of the National
Judicial Council to proceed on a pre-disengagement leave (“with
immediate effect)!”
The impression conveyed to the public by
President Jonathan during the Wednesday, February 11, 2015 Presidential
Media Chat was that he could hire and fire the chairman of INEC at any
time. No sir. Such power does not reside in the Presidency.
Even if INEC Chairman were to commit a
criminal offence today, such as murder, he can be arrested by the police
and prosecuted, since he enjoys no immunity, but the President has no
constitutional power to either constructively remove him through
suspension or dismiss him outright on account of that criminal act.
Indeed, I find it ludicrous when some lawmakers claim they can suspend
the Speaker of a House of Assembly.
The fact is, there is no such provision
for the suspension of a Speaker. Suspension and removal amount to the
same thing, in that he will not function in the said office during the
period of suspension. No such is ever envisaged by the framers of the
constitution. If he has committed any gross misconduct, he can be
removed by two-thirds majority of the ENTIRE House. I am aware of the
Public Service Rules, the House Rules, etc., but these are subordinate
to the constitution.
The power of the President to appoint or
dismiss the Chairman of INEC, NJC, NPC, etc. is not only limited but
circumscribed by the fact that he shall consult the Council of State for
appointment and obtain confirmation of the Senate, and in the case of
removal secure, first, the concurrence of at least two-thirds majority
of the Senate. The language employed by the constitution is that the
process of removal should commence from the Senate – unlike the process
of appointment which should begin from the President. Therefore, the
President should be well-guided and not act in ignorance or defiance of
the provisions of the constitution.
Buoyed by his getting away with
constructive removal of the immediate past Governor of the Central Bank
of Nigeria, Mallam Lamido Sanusi, from office through suspension, the
President erroneously believes that he can do the same for powerful
federal executive bodies clearly listed in Section 153 of the 1999
Constitution. No sir; that’s a no-go-area.
But then impunity begets impunity. Under
what constitutional power did the President remove Chief Festus
Odumegwu, the then Chairman of the National Population Commission? Did
the process commence from the Upper House? Did the Senate debate, let
alone vote on his removal? But we all kept quiet then; so, why not
attempt other infractions if you could get away with one act of
impunity? But it is time to say thus far and no further to the
President. Acting against the constitution is tantamount to treason.
We must warn against a situation where
the President will attempt to unconstitutionally dismiss the chairmen of
INEC, NPC, NJC, etc. and then ask anyone that is not satisfied to go to
court. That will amount to high treason. The constitution is clear: the
process of removal of the chairman of INEC, according to Section 157,
starts from the Senate and ends with the President. The purpose of
Section 157 is to insulate the all-important bodies like INEC, CCB, NPC,
RMAFC, etc. from the vagaries of politics and political interference
from the President. The polity should no longer permit any act of
impunity that may bring down the edifice of this nation.
- Soyombo, a journalist, sent this piece from Abeokuta, via densityshow@yahoo.com
Comments