Impeachment threats: A trigger never pulled
Jonathan, Tambuwal and Obasanjo
| credits:
| credits:
JOHN AMEH in this report x-rays
past impeachment threats, and writes that the current one against
President Goodluck Jonathan by the House of Representatives might peter
off like others
Drama is rarely scarce at the National Assembly, especially the House of Representatives.
From the certificate forgery scandal
involving a former Speaker, Mr. Salisu Buhari, in 1999, the N628m
renovation contract saga of Mrs. Patricia Etteh; the 2008 power probe,
the N2.3bn car scam, the capital market investigation, the 2012 fuel
subsidy probe to the series of impeachment threats against presidents,
there has always been something to talk about.
On July 19, the House debated a motion
on budget implementation. At the end, members gave President Goodluck
Jonathan up to September 18 to achieve 100 per cent execution of the
2012 budget or face impeachment.
A prayer by the Minority Leader, Mr.
Femi Gbajabiamila, on the issue received unanimous approbation from
members, irrespective of their political party affiliations.
He said, “If by September 18, the budget
performance has not improved to 100 per cent, we shall begin to invoke
and draw up articles of impeachment against Mr. President.”
Members shouted a loud “yes”, “yes”, “yes” and clapped for the minority leader.
The House hinged the impeachment threat
on alleged “poor budget performance”, specifically accusing the Minister
of Finance, Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, of breaching the 2012
Appropriation Act by withholding capital votes from Ministries,
Departments and Agencies.
The angry lawmakers claimed that as at
July, five months to the end of the fiscal year, the budget had barely
performed at 35 per cent.
Only N404bn of the total N 1.5trn
capital vote had been released as of June, according to figures
confirmed by the House and the minister, although the former observed
that cash-backing was about N200bn.
Budget performance has been a sore point
in the relationship between the National Assembly and the Executive
since 1999. In the eight years of former President Olusegun Obasanjo
(1999 to 2007) for example, both sides constantly disagreed over budget
implementation.
The two sides have also quarrelled over
whose arm of government wields the power of appropriation. In 2009, the
late President Umar Yar’Adua attempted to seek the interpretation of the
Supreme Court on the matter but he backed out.
In each budget year, clauses are built
into the Appropriation Act to compel the Executive to implement the
budget as passed by the legislature, but the execution often does not
comply with the provisions of the Act.
Failure to comply with the Act is
considered as a “gross misconduct” by the legislature, whose penalty
under the 1999 Constitution is impeachment.
The power of the National Assembly in
this regard is contained in Section 143 of the constitution thus, “The
President or Vice-President may be removed from office in accordance
with the provisions of this section. Whenever a notice of any allegation
in writing signed by not less than one-third of the members of the
National Assembly (b) stating that holder of the office of President or
Vice -President is guilty of gross misconduct in the performance of the
functions of his office, detailed particulars of which shall be
specified.”
Section 143 (11) adds, “’gross
misconduct’ means a grave violation or breach of the provisions of this
Constitution or a misconduct of such nature as amounts in the opinion of
the National Assembly to gross misconduct…”
However, it is on record that no
president has been impeached since 1999, although before Jonathan, his
predecessors, Obasanjo and Yar’Adua, had received impeachment threats.
In 2002, the House, which was then under
the leadership of Speaker Ghali Na’Abba, passed a resolution in July
accusing Obasanjo of “abuse of power”, “misrule” and generally showing
little regard for the decisions of the legislature.
It also cited poor performance of the
economy as another reason. On these grounds, the lawmakers passed a
resolution asking the former President to resign from office within two
weeks or be impeached!
Within the two weeks, they actually
started compiling signatures and later got the support of the Senate, as
the impeachment threat seemed real.
It was a jolted Peoples Democratic Party
led by Chief Audu Ogbeh that intervened in the crisis in a bid to save
the President’s job. Ogbeh called a series of meetings to resolve the
matter.
Obasanjo on his part, also reportedly
enlisted the support of some former Heads of State and traditional
rulers to appease the legislators. With the nomination for the 2003
general elections coming so close, the PDP was worried that the crisis
could rob the party of victory if a solution was not found quickly.
The crisis was later described as a
“family affair”, while a smiling Obasanjo eventually told the nation
that “I dey kampe” after surviving the impeachment.
In 2009, Yar’ Adua also received an impeachment warning over budget implementation.
The late President had inherited the 2007 budget (already running) from his predecessor when he took over on May 29.
Thus, his first full budget in office
was the 2008 budget; the budget was passed by the National Assembly in
the first quarter of 2009.
However, not long after the budget was
passed, a crisis brewed between him and the House with the latter
accusing the president of “selective implementation” of projects.
Indeed, Yar’Adua had earlier written the
National Assembly rejecting the budget on the grounds that it was not
implementable. He had alleged that lawmakers smuggled some projects into
the Appropriation Act without consulting the Executive to know whether
the country had enough funds to implement the budget.
But, the July 1, 2009 report of the House Joint Committee on Appropriation/Finance, faulted his position.
The committee, then headed by Mr. Ayo
Adeseun and Mr. John Enoh, instead advised the House to insist on the
implementation of the budget as passed.
Yar’Adua replied by threatening to
approach the Supreme Court to seek an interpretation of the 1999
Constitution on who had the power of appropriation.
Presiding officers of both the Senate
(David Mark), the House (Dimeji Bankole) and Yar’Adua quickly tried to
nip the crisis in the bud by convening a series of truce meetings
between the warring parties.
In the end, it was resolved that
Yar’Adua would implement the budget as passed on the condition that he
would forward a reviewed proposal to the National Assembly for
consideration.
Although the impeachment threat fizzled out, the cold war between Yar’Adua and the House continued unabated.
The late President survived yet another
impeachment threat in January 2010 after he had stayed out of the
country for 68 days for medical care without informing the National
Assembly.
The several weeks of political intrigues
that followed led to the passage of the famous “Doctrine of Necessity”
by the National Assembly paving the way for then Vice-President Goodluck
Jonathan to be elevated as acting President. But, Yar’Adua was never
impeached.
The current impeachment threat against Jonathan is on the same issue of alleged poor budget implementation.
It has taken the familiar trajectory of
hype and heating up the polity. What is unclear however, is whether the
legislators are really serious this time or if it is the usual hollow
threat.
Insiders allege that the legislators are embittered by findings that the executive ignores their constituency projects.
Another grouse is believed to be
Jonathan’s unwillingness to comply with the resolutions of the House.
One of the resolutions, which hurt the ego of the members the most, was
the invitation to appear before the House to explain how his
administration is addressing the escalating insecurity in the country in
June, which the president turned down.
It is equally evident that the government’s handling of the fuel subsidy probe report so far has not impressed lawmakers.
House spokesman, Mr. Zakari Mohammed, insisted that his colleagues were not joking about the impeachment.
He has dismissed insinuations that
members are either pursuing selfish interests or pandering to the whims
of a certain opposition party.
According to Mohammed, the decision of the House was born out of “patriotism and national interest.”
He argued that, “People sent us here to
represent them; our goal is to improve their lives. We swore to an oath
to defend the constitution and the Appropriation Act is a product of our
constitutional powers.
“Therefore, when the Act is breached, we are duty bound to correct it.”
Yet, one member, Mr. Ibrahim El-Sudi, does not agree with him.
El-Sudi, chairman of the ad-hoc
committee, which recently probed the near-collapse of the Nigerian
Capital Market, claimed that impeachment was not a decision of the House
but the “opinion” of Gbajabiamila (the minority leader).
This dissenting voice suggests a division in the ranks, which may affect the resolve of members to carry the process through.
As was the case in the past, the
leadership of the PDP is reported to have waded into the dispute, while
Jonathan is also believed to be reaching out to the leadership of the
House for peace talks.
The lawmakers may begin to sing a different tune when they resume on September 18.
