Impeachment
As A Political Weapon Against Opposition
By
Robert
Obioha
robobioha@yahoo.com
culled from THE SUN,
October 26, 2006
Those who drafted the 1999
Nigerian Constitution and put in it the impeachment clause did not
envisage to what extent such a clause can be used to truncate the
democratic process. In their thinking, the impeachment clause was a
constitutional provision meant to check the excesses of the executive by
the legislature. But this very instrument aimed at curbing dictatorship
and abuse of office has in itself become open to abuse and political
manipulations.
It is now being used as a veritable weapon against the opposition. Its
dangerous application, some analysts hold, portends danger to our
nascent democracy. Some are afraid that the invocation of the powers of
the impeachment clause and the subsequent imposition of state of
emergency as a rule has more sinster motives than meets the eye.
What had started with a move to remove the “corrupt” former governor of
Bayelsa State, Chief DSP Alamieyeseigha and the entronement of is
Deputy, Dr Goodluck Ebele Jonathan, as the governor has led to various
attempts (still ongoing) to remove the governor of Plateau State, Joshua
Dariye, the removal of former Oyo State governor, Alhaji Rashid Ladoja
and recently the impeachment of both the governor and deputy governor of
Ekiti State, Ayo Fayose and Mrs Abiodun Olujimi.
While some members of the Plateau State House of Assembly are still
intent in impeaching Governor Dariye, other members of the House who are
in the majority and stakeholders in the state are vehemently opposed to
the move. The impeachment train moved to Anambra State where the Peoples
Democratic Party (PDP) dominated House of Assembly is being manipulated
to remove the All Progressive Grand Alliance (APGA) Governor Peter Obi
from office.
The Anambra impeachment is coming a day after President Obasanjo in a
state visit to the state told Obi to forget re-election in 2007 if he
did not join the PDP because he (the president) would not support
somebody outside the PDP. This may sound as a joke but the fact that the
legislators commenced Obi’s impeachment to a day after the visit is
suggestive that the PDP’s controlled fedeal government cannot easily
extricate itself from the dubious plot to remove Obi whose tenure has
earlier been hugely appropriated by the PDP when Dr Chris Ngige was
hoisted on the people as the governor.
Obi later won his case at the election tribunal mainly because Ngige has
fallen out of favour with his erstwhile political godfather, Chief Chris
Uba, as well as the hierarchy of the party at Aso Rock because of the
Ubas’ connection. The rest of the story is very much known that there is
no need for its recounting in this piece. And from the grapevine comes
the more damning revelation that more state chief executives would be
impeached before the end of the year. Nobody knows if such impeachments
would be followed by a declaration of state of emergency.
And if such emergency is imposed in six or more states, it might give
the impression that the Nigerian state is in a state of emergency. It
will mean that more retired miliatry men will be drafted as
administrators to serve in the states where they are not from as
witnessed by the appointment of retired Gen. Tunji Olurin, from Ogun
State to oversee the affairs of Ekiti State for six months in the first
instance. With this appointment, both Ekiti State executive and the
legislature have ceized to exist. The only semblance of a democratic
institution remaining in that state is the council government.
Why must the State House of Assembly be suspended in a state of
emergency when their tenure has not expired? Why must the administrator
of a state come outside that state? Must a state administrator to be so
appointed be a retired military officer? What is wrong with appointing a
civilian from that state as the administrator?
And when is the invocation of a state of emergency the final option?
Although not justifying the lawlessness that has characterised the
impeachment of Fayose and his deputy, is there no way to save the
situation before the declaration of state of emergency? Prior to the
emergence of three parallel governments in Ekiti State, there were ample
time to nip the problem in the bud. Aso Rock would have acted
immediately it noticed that the removal of a state Chief Judge by the
Speaker of the State House of Assembly was illegal. It would have acted
when the speaker appointed his own state Chief Judge in utter disregard
of constitutional provisions.
Waiting until the scenario degenerated to having three persons laying
legimate claim to the rungs of executive power in the state before
declaring a state of emergency is not tidy enough. It appears the ruling
PDP very much anticipated the situation and waited till it played out in
its favour. But such picture being painted in Ekiti now is never healthy
to our fledging democracy. It may even truncate it if allowed to extend
to the planned five or more states of the federation. It may even
blossom to a state of anarchy which the authors of the present
impeachment moves might not have envisaged. It did not really occur to
them that a speaker might rise to become the ultimate beneficiary on the
impeachment of the governor and his deputy.
Now, that both the executive and the legislature in Ekiti State have
become the ultimate losers in the Ekiti crisis, will the remaining other
states House of Assembly learn from the folly of Ekiti State
legislators? Can those warming up to impeach their governor with only
few months to the 2007 general elections learn from Ekiti’s
misadventure?
The current programmed impeachment moves whether in Anambra, Enugu, Ogun,
Plateau or whatever state is dangerous and ominuous. It does not serve
the interest of those behind the move, the electorates and the nation at
large. In the long run, it is the nation and its development that has
been arrested. Using impeachment and state of emergency as a decoy to
whip opposition into submission is self-defeatist, totalitarian and an
abuse of due process.
When the gestapo style of impeachment started with Bayelsa State and the
coercion of the members of the State House of Assembly by the Economic
and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), people thought the entire
exercise was targetted at getting a corrupt governor out of the way.
Renowned constitutional lawyer, Prof Ben Nwabueze raised constitutional
breaches on the impeachment of Alamieyeseigha govt as he did in that of
Dariye at that time. In fact, the situation has not changed because more
state legislators are now being blackmailed and even forced to commence
impeachment moves against targetted governors in some states of the
federation.
Some interprete this ugly development as an extention of the dead third
term dream, through an orchestrated creation of a state of anomie that
will translate to the imposition of a general state of emergency on the
entire country. If that happens, they reasoned, there will be no general
election in 2007. It will then mean a continuation of the status quo by
the other means. But this option will not work because it will kill the
current democratic culture. It will even suspend development and
continuation of the present regimes’ reforms.
Those wishing this nation well should stand against the pervading gale
of impeachments whose only purpose is to create confusion and a
semblance of anarchy. Nigerians are tired of developing fever at every
election year. Let the 2007 experience be hitch-free and fever-free. The
electorates deserve the best from the Nigerian politicians whom they
have over the years given their best. Nigerians need better education,
roads, hospitals, economy, housing and other things that make life worth
lving and not man-made chaos or disaster aimed at truncating our
democratic march and development.
Nigerian democracy : All is not lost
By Robert Obioha (robobioha@yahoo.com)
Thursday, October 26, 2006
While it remains clear that neither the culture of opposition nor
the habit of fair contest have been given a fresh lease of life as
yet in the Nigerian democratic space one thing is certain and that
is that Nigerians are determined to keep on trying to build a viable
democratic order. The arrogance displayed by some elements of the
ruling party over the issue of electoral probity in the party’s
internal affairs does not reflect either popular opinion or the real
ambitions of the average politician.
This is obvious whenever crises of competitive decision arise within
the party in certain states or at the national level. At such times
it becomes obvious that the depth of adherence to the trappings of
democratic contest is profound even though the actual practice of
electoral honesty is easily undermined. There are some states for
example where major challengers emerge to contest gubernatorial
seats based on genuinely popular feeling but in most such cases if
the incumbent is also eligible to contest the battle becomes
one-sided in a very short time.
The use of state power and security privilege to harass and
intimidate the challenger’s machinery is considered fair game in
most such circumstances and this is even portrayed at times as being
in the best interest of the party and the democratic order. It is in
this light that when police, SSS, and army personnel were used to
clear some party members who were regarded as being disloyal to the
Governor of a certain state from the party headquarters recently a
soldier asked a female member whom he was flogging with ‘koboko’,
“Abi, you go fit to fight government?”
That this incident has been barely reported and, even more
frighteningly, not been treated with seriousness by the state
government in question shows that the principle of democratic
tolerance has yet to be consolidated within the current
dispensation. Harassment of the opposition is the most intransigent
legacy that has survived from the locust years of military
autocracy, and those who are deeply concerned about the survival of
democracy might be tempted to believe that this legacy could abort
the survival of democratic values in the nation.
To be fair it must be recognised that in some instances both the
challenger and the incumbent bear equal measure of blame for the
improvident use of party privilege as the basis for contesting
power. When challengers are given the go-ahead from the central base
of the party to seek to overturn the regional leadership of state
governors they often do not take into consideration the fact that
regional interests tend to coalesce around the ability of the
governor to dispense state largesse. At times the party’s central
hierarchy appears to be convinced that it can hand down directives
by fiat from above and enforce its will by sheer intimidation.
However such strategic domination of the dispensation of power can
only be cosmetic at best when the incumbent is also a product of the
same manipulation of the processes of privilege and power. The
consequence of such machinations is the division of the party
hierarchy into factions. One faction will support the challenge, but
only to the extent that it forces the incumbent structure to
increase its use of state privilege to empower the central machinery
in order to protect its hold on power. Another faction will work
effectively to protect the incumbent’s privilege in all its
manifestations as a representative of the conservative traditional
base of the existing power equation.
Sometimes, but not very often, a faction will also emerge that
promotes the genuine installation of the challenger’s structure as
the basis for popular consolidation of the party’s fortunes in the
state in question. When this latter scenario emerges something near
to, but not exactly like, democratic empowerment can be achieved.
Whether a genuine contest for the privileges and opportunities of
power can emerge from this set of circumstances will only be known
when fair and neutral elections for party offices and the nomination
of ticket-bearers can be conducted. We find it difficult to accept
that any such condition exists within the ruling party in Nigeria
today.
In spite of this pessimistic and distressing assessment of the
contemporary political circumstances facing Nigerian political
aspirants the record of the last seven years is not without hopeful
signs and premonitions. Although it is obvious that many of the
strategies being shaped for the conduct of the next set of elections
are not based on the generation of popular sentiment but rather on
the manipulation of collective deception there is also a high degree
of dialogue and debate over the objectives and abilities of the
contestants.
The culture of probity has been strengthened by the intervention of
agencies of scrutiny and investigation like the ICPC and EFCC
because the issue of proving that programmes and policies which are
accountable to the people can be installed by those in office has
become a central aspect of the political contest. This element of
the present circumstance has proven to be the most difficult test
for incumbent officials to overcome.
It is easy to query, and in some cases to indict, them over
mismanagement of state resources, and incompetence in the handling
of the affairs of the public trust. However mismanagement of
governance is not always the outcome of a deliberate set of actions
by those in power but rather it can also stem from directives and
strategies imposed by the party on its elected officers. For example
it is becoming quite clear that a lot of the accusations of
financial profligacy being laid against some governors and other
senior figures in the PDP can be traced back to actions they took in
order to help the party achieve its overwhelming victories at the
polls in 2003 and to offset debts incurred in the 1999 polls. While
this is not an excusable motive for the impulsive expenditure of
public funds it is understandable because this process is based on a
precedent established by the practice and political custom that
enabled them to register their own success.
The saying that nothing succeeds like success is a truism that
explains away many of the anomalies of present day Nigerian
politics, but it should also be remembered that no failure is as
spectacular as the reversal of a successful fraud. When a person has
achieved privilege and power by means that are less than honest and
the nemesis of time and fair play catches up with that achievement
the reversal of fortunes can be devastating.
When this becomes the basis for a series of events in the general
and constant order of political affairs in a nation it also creates
a set of precedents that can serve to install a gradual change of
concerns and objectives in the society. To some extent this appears
to be happening in Nigeria. Even while it is a lamentable fact that
some of those who are already in power have openly signaled their
intention to continue to build their careers on the promotion of
dysfunctional political strategies it is worthy of note that a few
of those who have come to the fore within the system are challenging
this process from within.
The existence of such challenges indicate that all is not yet lost
since their presence and the strength of their efforts indicate that
the spirit of democratic contest is alive even though battered. If
such challengers fail to win the battles they have instituted they
might still succeed in creating a foundation for the more
accountable and honest practice of the art of government by their
antagonists in the future. It is often said that the installation of
an effective system of government is a tedious and long process.
An important part of this process is the exhibition of a truly
competitive spirit by rivals even if they only desire to capture the
support of the same machinery rather than to influence the popular
sentiments of the people at large.
|
