What does Aisha Buhari Want?
Last Wednesday, December 11, 2019, the Inaugural Annual International Conference in celebration of Chief Folake Solanke, SAN, CON, held at the Civic Centre, Victoria Island, Lagos. Here are some of the personalities, who were in attendance.....
“ON THAT OCCASION, THE PRESIDENT SIMPLY DISMISSED HER VITUPERATIONS, JOCULARLY WONDERING ABOUT HER ‘LOCUS STANDI’ TO COMMENT ON ANY ISSUES BEYOND THE ‘OZA’ ROOM”
The First Lady’s Complaints
The public statement issued last week by the First Lady, Mrs. Aisha Buhari, in which she openly attacked her husband, President Buhari’s spokesman, Garba Shehu, has been the topic of informed and not-so informed commentary all week. To be sure, it was a bombshell like virtually no other, arguably rivalled only by her allegation, a few years ago, that some nameless people who did not campaign for her husband’s election, were reaping where they did not sow, cornering all the ‘juicy’ positions in the Presidency and calling all the shots.
On that occasion, the President simply dismissed her vituperations, jocularly wondering about her ‘locus standi’ to comment on any issues beyond the ‘oza’ room. This time around, locus standi or not, the First Lady left no one in any doubt about her perceived grievances, as she pulled no punches in publicly calling out the presidential spokesman. She accused him of “going beyond his boundaries and powers” by, in her words, “interfering with the family affairs of the President”, and allegedly asserting that “the Government will not allow the office of the First Lady to run”. For the foregoing (amongst his other perceived ‘sins’), Mrs. Buhari declared peremptorily that “this kind of behaviour will no longer be tolerated”. She, therefore, urged him “to take the advice of the authority given to him sometime in the first week of November, 2019”; whoever that authority might be, and whatever that advice might be. She did not say. Why was she reticent about disclosing those ‘facts’? That is the question.
In the statement, Mrs. Buhari defended the position of First Lady as being more than a tradition; according to her, “it has become an institution”. What she seems to have missed is that no public institution, either official or otherwise, operates without clearly defined responsibilities, duties and obligations. If, as Mrs. Buhari would have us believe, her quasi or pseudo- official status as ‘First Lady of Nigeria’ entitles her to certain rights and privileges which the likes of Garba Shehu fail to recognise, pray, what are her duties and obligations under the law? Is she a public officer within the definition of that phrase in the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution? In other words, is she subject to the Code of Conduct for Public Officers, both under the Constitution and the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act? Did she take or subscribe to the Oath of Office and/or Allegiance contained in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution?
Special Advisers
By contrast, Special Advisers to both the President/Vice President are duty-bound to take such oaths. Talking of the Code of Conduct, it would seem that, instead of airing her grievances against Malam Shehu in public, there are adequate provisions under 1999 Constitution and the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act aforesaid, which the First Lady could have resorted to, in calling him to order – this is, assuming she was determined, as seems to be the case, to bypass her husband. For instance, Paragraph 9 of the Code in the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution provides that: “A public officer shall not do or direct to be done, in abuse of his office, any arbitrary act prejudicial to the rights of any other person knowing such act is unlawful or contrary to any government policy”. A similar provision is contained in Section 13 of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act aforesaid.
It is trite that, Presidential or Gubernatorial Advisers/Assistants require the imprimatur of the Senate/State Houses of Assembly, before they are appointed. It is surely a travesty, for a person who owes her position more to a presumed tradition than anything else, to purport to indict a duly-appointed public official, to the extent of demanding his resignation. From the public reaction to her outburst this time around, it is clear that, Hajia Aisha may have gone too far – all this, while her husband is far away in Egypt.
Her latest outburst, prompts certain questions, which - whether she likes it or not - must be asked: why does she have this uncanny, penchant for throwing caution to the wind, shooting from the hip and attacking most people in her sight, including her husband? Lest we forget, it was barely a couple of months ago, that she had an encounter with the daughter President Buhari’s nephew, Fatima Mamman Daura, only to apologise and eat humble pie, upon realising her folly. Didn’t she learn any lessons from that fiasco?
As for ‘poor’ Malam Shehu, as things stand now, he is between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, he is torn between his loyalty to his boss, President Buhari, and the need to defend himself in the public domain from the virulent criticisms of the First Lady. I doubt if he will take the latter option as, from all indications, he seems to possess far more discretion than that. The real challenge is for the President (whom one news outlet has vowed to henceforth address as ‘Major-General’, on account of the perceived serial human rights violations of his administration) to salvage the public image of his Presidency, by calling his wife to order.
Still on ex-Governors’ Pensions The recent decision of the Federal High Court, which directed the refund of pensions received by ex-Governors who are holding (or have held) other political appointments, seems to have overlooked a couple of relevant constitutional provisions. I believe those provisions might make effective recovery of those pensions illusory, if not an outright mirage. To start with, Section 210(1) of the Constitution provides that “the right of a person in the public service of a State to receive pension or gratuity shall be regulated by law”. By virtue of subsection (2) of the Section, any benefit to which a person is entitled under such law, shall not be withheld or altered to his disadvantage, except to such extent as is permissible under any law.
Section 318(1) of the Constitution defines “public service of a State” as “service of the State in any capacity in respect of the Government of the State”. If this provision is interpreted liberally (as it should be, given that it is constitutional: NAFIU RABIU v THE STATE (1980) 2 S.C. 130), I believe it would be wide enough to include former Governors and their Deputies. As for those of them who have held or are now holding other public offices, such as Ministers of Senators, Paragraphs 2(a) and 4(2) of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers in the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution provide thus, respectively:
- “A public officer shall not receive or be paid the emoluments of any public office at the same time as he receives or is paid the emoluments of any other public office”;
- “A retired public servant shall not receive any other remuneration from public funds in addition to his pension and the remuneration of such one remunerative position”.
It is obvious that, in interpreting the foregoing provisions in the suit which the Federal High Court has directed the Attorney-General of the Federation to initiate to challenge the affected State Pension Laws, a lot will depend of the meaning to be attached to the words “emoluments”, “remuneration”, “pension” and “public service of a State”. The outcome of such an action, if and when it is initiated, his remains to be seen.
Teach Sharia in Arabic? The reported suggestion by the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Hon. Justice Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad, last week, that Islamic Law or Sharia, be taught in Arabic in our tertiary institutions, has, predictably, raised a few eyebrows among non-muslims, both Lawyers and ‘laymen’ alike. Addressing an academic forum (through a representative) in Zaria, the Hon. CJN reportedly premised his prescription on the fact that, “There is no University in Nigeria that runs Sharia in Arabic; they all teach in English”. For this reason, the CJN reportedly challenged academicians to “look into the issue”.
I believe that, there is no cause for alarm, as English is the official language of instruction in tertiary institutions. Besides, the context in which His Lordship made that ‘pronouncement’ ought to allay any concerns by those who might feel threatened by it - it was purely an academic forum. To that extent, it lacked the ‘bite’ or coercive force of a judicial pronouncement, properly so-called. The CJN merely expressed a personal opinion (‘ obiter dictum’?), which is both non-binding and unenforceable.