Impeachment: Al-Makura’s Acquittal

Ordinarily, impeachment is a constitutional process featuring the presentation of specific charges against an elected public official, which he or she is expected to respond to. Its outcome could lead to the removal or otherwise of such official

In the wake of the gale of impeachment threats and processes across the country, the drama involving the Nasarawa State House of Assembly and the governor, Umaru Al-Makura, offers interesting lessons. For the first time in the history of the country, an impeachment process derailed on the basis of mismanaged legal technicalities by the accusers, to the benefit of the accused, and in the process set up a precedent.

The Nasarawa State Assembly had by a resolution, backed by 20 out of the 24 members of the House, initiated impeachment proceedings against the governor and caused the state Chief Judge Suleiman Dikko to set up a seven-man investigative panel to that effect, as provided for by the 1999 Constitution (as amended). However, the legislators rejected the composition of the investigative panel based on a petition that its membership comprised individuals whose status was in conflict with constitutional provisions. The constitution prescribes that the members of the panel shall in the opinion of the Chief Judge be of “unquestionable integrity, not being members of any public service, legislative house or political party”. The state legislature asked that the panel be disbanded, as its members would not appear before it.

The chairman of the panel noted the objection of the Assembly, but observed that it lacked the power to consider their request. In the light of that legal position, the panel proceeded to sit, with the governor making appearance while the lawmakers, through their counsel, maintained their unwillingness to appear before it. The panel read the16 charges levelled against the embattled governor, to which he replied in person, and was acquitted on the grounds of lack of evidence from the absent members of the Assembly, his accusers.

Indications that the members of the Nasarawa State Assembly-controlled by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), which is opposed to Al-Makura’s All Progressives Congress (APC)intend to stretch the otherwise concluded crisis emerged during the week with their threats to re-launch the impeachment process, in spite of their failure to make good of this first serious attempt. However, it is doubtful if that disposition promises any positive dividends for their constituents, given the tension and unease which the entire impeachment affair had attracted to the state while it lasted. Reports at the weekend indicated that tension has risen again in Lafia, the state capital, following claims that the House is still planning to remove the governor. It is easily recalled that the onset of the impeachment process unleashed public misgivings with restive youth groups taking to the streets in demonstrations against it. Beyond the foregoing, there was the issue of some members of the State Assembly, including the Speaker, being confronted with threats of possible recall from their constituents, for engaging in an impeachment exercise they were “not mandated” to participate in. All these are unnecessary distractions that the state does not deserve. The failed attempt to impeach the governor should give both the Legislature and the Executive a new opportunity for reconciliation and restoration of normalcy in the state.

In any case, the 1999 Constitution (as amended) makes it very clear that once the panel clears the governor, the matter must be brought to an end. The constitution specifically states that where “the panel reports to the House of Assembly that the allegation has not been proved, no further proceedings shall be taken in respect of the matter”. It also states that no “proceedings or determination of the panel or of the House of Assembly or any matter relating to such proceedings or determination shall be entertained or questioned in any court”. The intention of the Assembly to prosecute the impeachment agenda further therefore qualifies as an ill-advised and belated initiative that will only foment additional problems for Nasarawa State in particular and the nation in general.

Ordinarily, impeachment is a constitutional process featuring the presentation of specific charges against an elected public official, which he or she is expected to respond to. Its outcome could lead to the removal or otherwise of such official. In particular the situation in Nasarawa State eloquently demonstrates that the impeachment process involves the participation of all the three arms of government to fail or succeed. It therefore serves as a humbling reminder to trenchant impeachment mongers in the various legislatures in the country that they do not have the final say on the matter. That is why the proimpeachment lobbies in the country should be more discrete over the clamour for removing governors without adequate homework, given the grave consequences of such misadventure.

For the Nasarawa State legislators the entire saga qualifies to induce them to return to the pressing challenge of taking their state to the next level of development through closer collaboration with the other arms of government, in the interest of the constituents on whose mandate they are in office.