SOCIETAL MORALITY AND IMPEACHMENT

SOCIETAL MORALITY AND IMPEACHMENT

By Kay Aderibigbe

Our first experience of impeachment happened on the 21st of May 1962, when the house passed a vote of  no confidence on the Premier, Chief Samuel Ladoke Akintola, then, Sir, Adesoji Aderemi, the Governor, through Sec33(10) of the constitution of Western Nigeria , set out in the first schedule to the Nigerian constitution Order in Council 1960, removed the  Premier while Mr. Adegbenro Soroye was made the premier.

 

Consequent upon this was the declaration of state of emergency by the Federal Government four days later due to a burlesque presentation of party events in the National Assembly complex in Lagos. Anti-party activities and party perfidy was the dynamo that triggered the impeachment  of Akintola, but a higher political party invasion suspended the Government of Western Region and brought back Akintola after six months of emergency rule.

 

Impeachment was utterly employed as a political weapon when Mr. Balarabe Musa of People's Redemption Party found himself in an Assembly dominated by National Party of Nigeria, a Federal Government party. Balarabe was impeached on June 23, 1981 as a result of 'majoritarian politics"

 

Nigeria's fifteen years of democratic experience has featured impeachment of six Governors, i.e, Rasheed Ladoja (Oyo) Alamieyeseigha (Bayalsa) Ayo Fayose (Ekiti) Joshua Dariye (Plateau) Peter Obi (Anambra) Muratala Nyako (Adamawa) being the latest. An objective analysis of events in the light of above cases would better be done through utility of politics.

 

The issue of political weapon comes into play when the affected Governor was 'victimized' on the ground of minority posture of his party in the scheme of things. This is always the voice/tone of politicians that were defeated; while those that win term it a fight for the state and the triumph of democratic tenets.

 

Why is impeachment possible in a democracy? The simple answer is to erect separation of powers as espoused by Baron de Montesquieu (1689- 1755). Chapter 1v, part 11, section 188(1)-(10) of the 1999 constitution, stated in clear language how a state Governor/Deputy can be removed from office. Political analysts are unable to agree whether the concept of 'gross misconduct' should fall within the purview of the legislature or the judiciary.

 

'Gross misconduct' according to 1999 constitution means a grave violation or breach  of the provisions of this constitution or a misconduct of such nature as amounts in the opinion  in the House of Assembly  to gross misconduct'.

 

An epistemological appraisal of the concept of impeachment do not afford  open- jacket definition to those who perceive it as a weapon either. This is because there is embedded slim checks between the House, judiciary and an independent body of investigators that are meant to prove/probe the allegation(s). For instance, the 2006 maladroit impeachment of Ladoja in Oyo state was revoked by two different courts despite the political strength of those that wrestled with the Governor, and moreover, everyone involved smell the pure travesty of parliamentary politics perpetrated.

 

There are two sides to an impeachment of a state Governor. One, the legislators that removed a Governor from office must have perceived a state perfidy/corrupt practices on the part of the executive. In the second place, the political camp where those 2/3 belong must be safe, strong and adhesive of the consequential effects (politically). In my opinion, there is always a 'democracy of the minds' of politicians that enables them (legislature and executive)  to function in unity  either against or for the society that elected them.

 

In Nigeria, purveyors of divesting macabre (politicians) would see impeachment from one angle, but a policy analyst will always look at it from different dimensions. Adamawa state Assembly had worked with Nyako for seven years. They even passed a vote of confidence in him last year October. How come did they plotted against him now? Many will attribute the move to partisan differences, yes it is true! Do we ask why they prevailed? What happened to the #6bn he couldn't account for? Why did he refused to defend himself even, when the seven-man committee set up by the court were advertising that he should come?

 

The fault lies with the constitution. It makes public accountability difficult since there is absence of  'constituency surgery' - calling representatives to explain how they spent their constituency allowance over every 2 years. Since majority of our people are illiterates they cannot even deploy a 'recall'. Thereby leaving law makers to assume they are veritable mountains.

Whoever is swept away by the flood of impeachment should not be politicized because politicians are heretics of their own concept. After all, every Assembly and Governor are party to any sort of embezzlement of public fund. We should long for the democratization of life instead of crying a river over politicians who hide under party sympathy to defraud their people.