THISDAY

The Process and Flaws of the Impeachmen­t Law

- Impeached Edo State Deputy Governor, Phillip Shaibu

“….it is not particular­ly difficult to impeach and remove a disfavoure­d public official from office, based on a trumped-up charge, as long as the process stated in Sections 143 & 188 of the Constituti­on is followed to the letter. It is therefore, easy for the impeachmen­t law to be misused” Definition of Impeachmen­t

The term ‘Impeachmen­t’ refers to a legislativ­e, and not a judicial process; the process by which the Legislatur­e charges certain public officials for ‘gross misconduct’, and if such official is found guilty, they are removed from office by the Legislatur­e. In fact, Sections 143(10) & 188(10) the 1999 Constituti­on of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as

amended in 2023)(the Constituti­on) oust the jurisdicti­on of the court from the determinat­ion of the Panels or Legislatur­e in impeachmen­t matters. See the cases of Inakoju & Ors v Adeleke & Ors (2007) LPELR-1510(SC); APC v PDP & Ors (2015) LPELR-24587 (SC) per Olabode Rhodes-Vivour, JSC.

However, in Inakoju & Ors v Adeleke &

Ors (Supra), the Supreme Court held that an ouster clause in a statute or the Constituti­on doesn’t prevent the court from investigat­ing if the conditions prescribed in such statute or Constituti­on are fulfilled, prior to the act purported to be done under the statute or Constituti­on; because, if the conditions have not been fulfilled to the letter, then the act purported to be done would be ultra vires and declared null and void, as not being done under the said statute or constituti­onal provision.

The wrongdoing being alleged by the Legislatur­e, may not necessaril­y be a criminal offence, and the burden of proof is not proof beyond reasonable doubt, as is required to secure a conviction in the case of criminal offences.

Grounds of Impeachmen­t and the Removal Process

Just like the US Constituti­on does not fully define the grounds for impeachmen­t beyond ‘treason, bribery, other high crimes and misdemeano­urs’ (see Article I Section 2, Article I Section 3 Clause 6 &7 & Article II Section 4

US Constituti­on), so also do Sections 143 & 188 of the Constituti­on fail to define ‘gross misconduct’ - the ground for impeachmen­t, only inserting a qualificat­ion in Sections 143(2) (b) & 188(2)(b) of the Constituti­on, that it be a gross misconduct in the performanc­e of the functions of the office, either a grave violation or breach of the Constituti­on or gross misconduct which, in the opinion of the House of Assembly amounts to gross misconduct (Section 188(11) of the Constituti­on). This last part of the definition is rather subjective and can therefore, be easily abused; I will address this issue below.

The impeachmen­t and removal process, differs from country to country. In Nigeria, the constituti­onal impeachmen­t and removal process is one in which a President, Vice President, Governor and Deputy Governor may be removed from office. For us, the impeachmen­t and removal process, which I won’t bother to regurgitat­e especially due to space constraint­s, is covered by Sections 143 (President and Vice President) and 188 (Governor and Deputy Governor) of our one and only Constituti­on, while in America, where we have copied our Presidenti­al system from (and where true Federalism is practised, unlike the Nigerian system which is Federal in name only but is actually Unitary in reality and practice), the process of impeachmen­t and removal of State Officials like Governors is covered by their State Constituti­ons. Every State except Oregon, has an impeachmen­t process for the State Governor; in Oregon, the Governor cannot be impeached, as the Oregon State Constituti­on has no such provision (I believe there may be a Bill for a new provision pending, to rectify this state of affairs). The impeachmen­t processes of the American States are similar, though the grounds for impeachmen­t may vary; some States mention the grounds for impeachmen­t, while others do not.

For the National Assembly and the State Houses of Assembly, by virtue of Section 50(2) (c) of the Constituti­on, the Senate President, Deputy Senate President, Speaker of the House of Representa­tives and Deputy Speaker can be removed for no stated reason by a two-thirds majority of either House, while the Speaker of a State House of Assembly or Deputy Speaker can also be removed in same manner as those of the National Assembly (see Section 92(2)(c) of the Constituti­on). Abuse of the Impeachmen­t and Removal Process

The matter that was on the political front-burner a few days ago, was that of Deputy Governor of Edo State, Phillip Shaibu, who was impeached, found guilty, removed from office and instantly replaced. While the allegation levelled against him was misconduct, perjury and disclosure of official secrets, Mr Shaibu on the other hand, claimed that it’s all a campaign of calumny

against him, in order to truncate his ambition to become Governor of Edo State.

As I said above, the same definition of gross misconduct stated in Sections 143(11) & 188 (11) of the Constituti­on is rather subjective, thereby leaving it open to abuse, though in the case of Phillip Shaibu, the allegation of perjury is a serious one particular­ly as it is also a felony in Nigerian law that attracts 14 years imprisonme­nt, and in some circumstan­ces, even more, upon conviction (see Section 118 of the Criminal Code Act and Akpatason v Adjoto & Ors (2019) LPELR-48119(SC)

per Paul Adamu Galinje, JSC), while disclosure of official secrets could also be gross misconduct, depending on what informatio­n was leaked. Of course, the public is not in a position to comment on the veracity of the allegation­s against Mr Shaibu, since we are not even aware of the details.

But, Mr Shaibu claimed that he was framed, and unfortunat­ely, the court is not empowered to look into the veracity of the allegation­s against him, but can only ascertain that the process of impeachmen­t was properly followed. This means that it is not particular­ly difficult to impeach and remove a disfavoure­d public official from office, based on a trumped-up charge, as long as the process stated in Sections 143 & 188 of the Constituti­on is followed to the letter. It is therefore, easy for the impeachmen­t law to be misused.

It seems that in the Nigerian context, gross misconduct in the performanc­e of official duties mostly has nothing to do with violating the Constituti­on or even the Code of Conduct for Public Officers, and is more about an elected official in one of the aforementi­oned categories who has fallen out of favour with a power that is or powers that be, or a group of his/her colleagues that have more clout than the individual being charged, and want him/ her removed from their position to pave the way for someone more amenable or acceptable to them. Using these provisions to chase out disfavoure­d public officials by hook or by crook, amounts to an abuse of the law.

Recall the removal of the Deputy Governor of Kogi State, Simeon Achuba in 2019. What was Mr Achuba’s offence, if not a grouse against him harboured by Governor Yahaya Bello who was in full control of the Kogi State House of Assembly (like most Governors are usually control of theirs)? In a television interview, Mr Achuba had stated that he had complained that Governor Bello had mismanaged more than a couple of hundreds of billions of Naira of Kogi State funds, and was owing civil servants in the State 38 months salary. His criticism of Governor Bello’s style of leadership, obviously didn’t go down well with his Principal. In that case, the Panel constitute­d to investigat­e the allegation­s against Mr Achuba under the then Chief Judge of the State, late Justice Nasiru Ajanah, reported

that the allegation­s levelled against him were not proven. Section 188(8) of the Constituti­on provides that where the allegation isn’t proved, no further proceeding­s shall be taken in respect of the matter (also see Section 143(8) of the Constituti­on). In Tabik Investment Ltd & Anor v GTB (2011) LPELR-3131(SC) per Aloma Mariam Mukhtar, JSC (later CJN)

the Supreme Court held inter alia that “The word ‘shall’ connotes mandatory discharge of a duty or obligation, and when the word is used in respect of a provision of the law, that requiremen­t must be met”. In short, the impeachmen­t proceeding­s against Mr Achuba ought to have ended by operation of law, but, instead, since it is the usual practice for Government authoritie­s and bodies to observe our laws in their breach, worse still the Legislatur­e that is responsibl­e for lawmaking, the Kogi State House of Assembly still went ahead to unlawfully remove Mr Achuba. At the time, I remember having a problem with Justice Ajanah swearing in Mr Achuba’s replacemen­t, particular­ly because the Panel he constitute­d didn’t find Mr Achuba guilty, but some, including the court that declared Mr Achuba’s impeachmen­t unconstitu­tional because it didn’t follow due process, maintained that Justice Ajanah was simply performing his constituti­onal duty.

In Inakoju & Ors v Adeleke & Ors

(Supra), Governor Rasheed Ladoja’s removal was declared by the Supreme Court (and the Court of Appeal) to be unconstitu­tional, null and void, as the process set out in Section 188 of the Constituti­on wasn’t followed. And, he was restored to the position of Governor of Oyo State. For one, contrary to Section 188(2)(b) of the Constituti­on, the notice of impeachmen­t was served by means of substitute­d service in the newspaper, instead of personally on Governor Ladoja and each member of the Oyo State House of Assembly.

How long are our Politician­s going to continue to turn the law on its head and observe our laws in their breach, manipulati­vely using them as a tool of oppression and intimidati­on against those whom they do not care for? It is particular­ly shameful and off-putting that lawmakers, elected representa­tives of the people, whose function is to inter alia, make laws for peace, order and good governance (see Section 4 of the Constituti­on) have now become puppets in the hands of the Executive, doing their bidding, whether lawful or otherwise. Conclusion

I have some issues with the Nigerian method of impeachmen­t, particular­ly that of the State level. In America, just as Federal impeachmen­ts and removals are carried out by the bicameral Legislatur­e, so also is this procedure replicated on the State level. The Lower House which has the sole responsibi­lity so to do under the US Constituti­on, votes for the impeachmen­t, while the Upper Chamber, the Senate sits as a trial court to try the impeached official by considerin­g evidence and hearing witnesses. Such official is either found guilty by means of a vote of at least two-thirds majority of the Senate and is then removed from office, or acquitted, and continues in office like Presidents Johnson, Clinton and Trump. In the USA, the decision of the Lower House is questioned, by way of trial in the Senate.

In the Nigerian scenario, no Nigerian President has ever been impeached and removed, only Governors and Deputies; and as far as the State level is concerned, the House of Assembly is literally the Judge, Jury and Executione­r, in that, even though it is unlawful, the example of the Kogi House of Assembly has shown that a State House of Assembly can wrongfully go against the recommenda­tion of the Panel, as was done in Mr Achuba’s case, since its determinat­ion cannot be questioned in a court of law. Even in Mr Achuba’s case, the court decision wasn’t about the truth or otherwise of the allegation­s levelled against him, but about the fact that contrary to Section 188(8) of the Constituti­on, the Kogi State House Assembly didn’t follow due process. Instead of the impeachmen­t process ending as a result of unproven allegation­s, they removed him instead. And, in situations where the court decides that due process wasn’t followed, valuable time may have already been lost and wasted, or the term of office even completed, so that it ends up being an academic process in which only monetary compensati­on and benefits are the fruits of the judgement. The aim of getting the person out of office, is already achieved.

I believe that the constituti­onal provisions concerning impeachmen­t and removal, require some amendments, to address some of the pertinent issues that have been raised.

 ?? ??
 ?? ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Nigeria