Impeachment The Facts

Impeachment: The Facts, the Fallacies

The motion of the House of Representatives, directing President Olusegun Obasanjo to resign or be impeached has ignited a swirl of emotions around the country. Indeed, no issue since the return of democracy in 1999 has generated as much debate. Suddenly, a polity, which was drowning under the monologue of the President, has found a voice, will and verve to debate. Regardless of how it is resolved, one thing that will stand out is that the matter has thoroughly tested our preference for democracy. In a very profound and clear way, Nigerians are indicating that they never will, in the name of democracy, cede their rights and preferences to the rule of one man's thumb, no matter, his good intentions. If that is what we take away from it all, then we have made very profound achievement.

However, not many people have for different reasons professed the heuristic value of the altercation between the executive and the legislature. This is not because they do not understand it. On the contrary, they do but refuse, for obtuse political considerations; prefer to deflect the crucial issues with narrow, parochial sentiments. Unfortunately, for those with this parochial mindset, the issues raised by the National Assembly are constitutional. The processes for the impeachment of the president do not give any role to the columnist, or traditional ruler or priest, who issues fatwa on the legislators from his palace or pulpit or even the party. The truth therefore is that, regardless of the decibels of noise or abuse on the National Assembly members, they alone have been given the powers to decide the fate of the President. What that informs is that what ought to engage the attention of the pro-Obasanjo groupings is how to free him from the noose of the constitution.

Rather than do so, a gargantuan army of sycophants have been assembled, to put pressure on the National Assembly. They assume all sorts of silly theories, and conjectures. They sit in corners and cook up all manner of outlandish tales. They peddle all sorts of fallacies, which are so elementary you imagine how they sit in the mouth of adults. Fortunately, the drafters of the Constitution didn't contemplate that a serious issue as violation of the constitution would be answered by pandering to sentiments. These sentiments have been couched in these major fallacies, which lack basis, and proof whatsoever.

These fallacies are:

Members are looking for gratification.

This is a very popular sentiment. Some sections of the public believe that the House of Representatives is not serious. Infact that they merely wish to frighten the President, to give them some gratification. Again, this is the Nigerian way, which has been used against the National Assembly since its inception. Each time members try to take on the President, the public say they want money.

But those who peddle these allegations do great disservice to the country. Impeachment, at the national level is a complicated process. It is difficult to contemplate that people can embark on such process just because they want to be settled. In any case, it is said that President Obasanjo does not settle anybody. In terms of logic, even the allegation is suspect. Those who want to be settled do not have to fight the President. Those who are playing fixers for the villa did not have to flex muscles before they were commissioned.

In any case, if by any reason the cash flow in the National Assembly eases, it will only because the President has decided to release arrears of capital, and recurrent allocations, in the budgets he signed, but in his wisdom, decided to withhold.

Hatched by Na'Abba and few members.

At the helm of this fallacy is Chief Tony Anenih, the Minister of Works and Housing under whom, Nigerian roads have lapsed into the worst state of disrepair. Someone said even roads in DR Congo, under the throes of civil war for years are better than Nigeria's. As he told the NTA in the wake of the crisis, this is a vendetta by Speaker Ghali Umar Na'Abba against the President. Predictably, many ignorant and gullible commentators have taken it off the lips of the likes of Chief Anenih. But we are not stupid. Na'Abba is just a member of the House of Representatives. By what awesome power does he manipulate or command the House to do his billing? Did he invent those serious breaches of the constitution or did someone else amend the revenue allocation formular. Again, the holes in this fallacy are too wide for anybody to take it as truth. This is sheer bunkum!. If Na'Abba can command the House to do his will, and also get the Senate to support, then he must be powerful than the President of the USA.

Impeachment is Northern script to win back power.
It is hard to fathom what authors of this theory want us to believe by insinuating that the impeachment is a Northern design to win back power. Nothing can be farther from the truth. Infact, those who have been peddling this, are to say the least, ignorant of politics. And even contemporary history. The North has a right to aspire to win back power; that is if there is still any monolithic and powerful North, which responds to the beat of one power centre. Questions arise from this, which chip away at the foundation of this outlandish theory. Is it the same North that went to Ota, drafted Obasanjo, paid the bills and made him President to the pretentious protests of the South-West?

I find the argument that Obasanjo is being persecuted by the North for dealing with them, very laughable. Reason is if Obasanjo has dealt a deadly blow to the North, how has that changed situations in the South. It does not require a referendum to know that the signature of the failure of this Administration is everywhere. If the President has dealt with the North, then the South will be an Eldorado. But ask those who ply the road to Ota Ask the people who travel from Lagos to Benin. Ask Igbo people. Ask the people in Odi Ask those who live in Lagos about the state of the roads, and other infrastructure. If anybody wants The President¡s job, it is not because of any other reason than the fact that he has not delivered and has no plans to deliver, even if he stays longer than Daniel Arap Moi, or Robert Mugabe. The motion for impeachment is not about the plan of the North, whatever, it is. It is about what the President has done with the mandate given to him in 1999. The fact is that he has in more ways than one, breached the Constitution, which he swore to uphold. That is what the debate should be about.

Impeachment will scuttle democracy.
This is another fallacy. But we know where it springs from. Its authors pin this fallacy on the fear motif. The idea is to feed on public frenzy about democracy. Say that democracy will fail if the president is removed, and ignite the hope that with time, this frenzy will drive people to unite under the President and make the National Assembly abandon the cause.

Also, this assumes that the President is synonymous with democracy. Those who push this argument have a wrong premise. Democracy is about institutions and not individuals. The assumption that the office of the President or the Speaker equates those institutions is at the root of the current crisis. Luckily, the way the Executive has rubbished the National Assembly in the last three years, has made clear the reasons why we need to strengthen the institutions of democracy, elevate the rule of law, instead of the rule of the thumb, promote order instead of arbitrariness. If the President is impeached, nothing will happen to threaten democracy because the constitution clearly states how to approach it and how to deal with its aftermath.

House is working for the military to take over.
Those who cooked up this story had a design: invent treason, arrest leaders of National Assembly and frame them for treason. Then they sold the story to all after dinner visitors to Aso Rock. To make it look credible, two members of the House of Representatives, Hon. Jonathan Asake and Hon. Lasberry Amadi were called into one meeting to testify that they attended meetings of governors to give their gory testimony.

Some discerning governors dismissed the story. But a gullible Chief Lam Adesina went to Ibadan and recounted impeccable evidence that the military and the House are working in concert in the impeachment motion. But let's forget political sentiments and look the facts in the face. They say the House held meetings with the military in Lokoja and at the Hilton Hotel, Abuja. Question is: is it possible for serving military officers to hold meetings on how to overthrow the Federal Government? Is it possible for the military to hold meetings with over 100 politicians on a conspiracy which punishment is death? Agreed, civilians and the military collaborate in coups, but not in this way. Infact, those who peddle this, denigrate the intelligence of the military. This is a cheap propaganda. It is dangerous. It is negative and self-serving. Were Chief Moshood Abiola alive, he would laugh at this kind of talk. This is not-how-they-do-it. The question is: If there is evidence of treason, we expect that it is the security agencies who should unearth this and report to the National Security Adviser (NSA) depending on the reporting line. After that, these agencies know what to do. This is the kind of things you hear in a barber's shop and not even on the gatehouse of the Office of the President of Nigeria. If the people who peddle this, say they attended meetings, they should be arrested for being accessories to the fact of treason.

Let those behind this credit Nigerians with some intelligence. This is not Zimbabwe. This is not Arap Moi's fiefdom. Nigerians are sophisticated. Gen. Sani Abacha used this method to frame a lot of people and deal with them, which is why Major-Gen. Musa Yar¡Adua died, and Gen. Obasanjo himself was jailed. But as long as this is a democracy, this cannot happen again here. Let the strategists of the executive think harder.

House was paid for motion
The architect of this fallacy is Prelate Sunday Mbang, President of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN), and head of the Methodist Church of Nigeria. He visited the presidential Villa and returned with a scoop: that members have been induced with N500 million to impeach the President. This is laughable.

Although Mbang has a reputation for making wild statements and idle talk, the situation on ground demanded, (if he wants to help his friend) caution. It is clear that his statement has no basis. It springs from this mindset that the National Assembly is incapable of any good. Anytime members discharge their responsibility, it is either that somebody is paying them or that they have been instructed to do so. Like we stated two weeks ago, let Mbang and those who like him who atlk before they think, come forward with proof. Let him name the person that gave the money, the recipients and help this country for once. Otherwise, this kind of talk is cheap and idle. It does not help the resolution of the crisis because only the National Assembly can decide the fate of Mr. President right now. The constitution does not give any role to the President of CAN.

Impeachment is targeted against Yoruba.
This is perhaps the most laughable of the fallacies. Most columnists from the South-West have had to place the argument in this kind of logic. Yet they turn around to cite the ethnicization of the conflict. Human memory is short indeed. In 1999, the South-West rejected this President. Among the reasons given at that time was his incompetence. Three years later, there does not appear that anything has happened to change that. Curiously, the impeachment has led to his adoption as our son. In very plain terms, we are being told that constitutional breaches should not be spoken of because the man who committed them is Yoruba. Is it how the self-confessed most sophisticated ethnic group, with the largest concentration of professors and lawyers want to be perceived. Yorubas like they say they are stickles for democracy and rule of law. But this is different and strange. When did Obasanjo become a Yoruba president?

People have forgotten that he was the one who made heavy work of the realization of June 12 project, stabbing Abiola at the back by agreeing to the interim administration arrangement, which helped Gen. Ibrahim Babangida steal thunder from the determined pressure to defeat military rule in 1993. It was also the same man who told the US and his international friends that Abiola was not the messiah. These facts are there. So when did he become Afenifere?

Let us also ask the question: What has he also done for the Yoruba? Has he subscribed to the restructuring of the country, or to a conference of any sort? The fact is that the vocal minority who has access to the media can promote these sentiments. But they do a grave injustice to the Yoruba. One question that clinches it is: Were Chief Obafemi Awolowo alive, would he subscribe to the unilateral amendment of the Revenue Allocation formular by any President? We know precisely what Awo would have done. Those who argue like this forget that in 1981, Professor Ambrose Alli, governor of then Bendel State, went to court and challenged the attempt to manipulate the Revenue formular. Alli and UPN won.

It does not seem to me that those who use ethnic sentiments to answer constitutional questions know where they come from. Let them read a bit of history. Were Awo alive, he would support the removal of a President who has no respect for the Constitution, and has no compassion for the people, and has no idea where to take the country.

This is not the right time.
Critics of the House argue that this is not the right time to impeach the president. Again, this is another emotional blackmail. There is no provision in the Constitution for the right time. In fact, things got this bad because of the consideration of the right time.

These breaches have recurred over a long time. But the leadership of the House has considered that there was a need to let the President settle down. The instrument the House have used in that instance have been resolutions. Of course, it is on record that all the resolutions of the House so far, have been ignored. Beside that, the Speaker have always written the President anytime the House have reason to believe that the actions of the executive were in breach of the constitution. The evidence is there.

In terms of the recent motion, the Speaker did have cause to write to the chairman of the PDP, Chief Audu Ogbeh, on how bad things have become. He asked him to find out why the President was not implementing the budget. He hoped the Chairman would find out and get back to them. Of course, no communication was received, and not even a phone call. Once the motion came on the floor, the Party began to respond. Unfortunately, this is not about the President, the party or what Na'Abba wants. It is about the future of the country.

After all these efforts, it is surprising that people are talking of the right time. Please, let us face the issues: did the President breach the Constitution or not? This must be answered, because the powers to ask and get answers and also sanction reside with the National Assembly alone. Luckily, they are committed to using it in the best interest of the nation. All other sentiments are decibels of noise, which cannot help the process.

Assembly cannot get the numbers.
The purpose of this fallacy is to provide some comfort for the President and those around him. But that is wrong because, it creates a very false impression of what is out there. This is just the same way they under-estimate the level of frustrations in the country. By arithmetic and conviction, it is very easy to impeach this President. Those who think otherwise should look at two things: Do those charges amount to breaches of the Constitution? Even the President's lawyers know that they are. Unfortunately, the plea of good intentions is not acceptable, because it is a constitutional matter. Secondly, let the critics of the House read Section 143 (1), (2), (10) and (11). For the avoidance of doubt, let them ponder on this.

Section 143 states: 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 is presented to the President of the Senate, stating that the holder of the Office of the President or Vice-President is guilty of gross misconduct in the performance of his office, detailed particulars of which shall be specified.

A motion of the National Assembly that the allegation be investigated shall not be declared as having been passed unless it is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds majority of all the members of each House of the National Assembly. This may seem complicated, a matter that gives comfort to strategists of the President. But they err. If it requires one-third of the National Assembly to present the petition, that can be got in one hour. Those who understand the depth of anger in the country, know that the will to impeach the President is strong, despite the efforts of a combination of fixers and governors to scuttle it.

Again, it is easy to get two-thirds of the House, and two-thirds of the Senate to direct the investigations. Look at the arithmetic. Two-thirds of the House is 240. They are ready. Two-thirds of the Senate is about 74. That is a phone call away. Once, the process rolls out, it would be easy to accomplish. Therefore those who feel that the best attitude is to abuse the National Assembly and pressure them to sweep under the carpet, the fundamental questions raised based on the feelings that the numbers would be difficult to get are putting the President in graver danger.

Even then, those who feel that the courts can provide succour need to perish the thought. My advice is that they read 143(10) and (11).

No proceedings or determination of the panel or of the National Assembly or any matter relating thereto shall be entertained or questioned in any court. This is very clear. The process cannot be disrupted, with as is now the fashion, court orders, or injunctions. So it cannot suffer the fate of the convention of the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP).

In this Section; 'gross misconduct' means a grave violation or breaches of the provisions of this constitution or a misconduct of such nature as amounts in the opinion of the National Assembly to gross misconduct.'

Again, this should be troublesome for those who say the National Assembly has no case. Prof. Jerry Gana, the Information and National Orientation Minister, who has never been able to help President Obasanjo out of any crisis, boasted that the President has the answers to all the charges. With due respect, it is not evident that he has read both the charges and the Constitution. If he and others had read it properly, their responses would be different.

Let me be modest. Propagandists who work for the president have a right to choose the strategy to use. Often time, one strategy could be to deflect the argument. They have tried hard, with the armada of resources at their disposal. Unfortunately, this issue is different. We are not in the market. It is not about who shouted the most. The question bothers on the constitution, which the President swore to uphold. Luckily, the Constitution laid down how they will be answered. Let those who wish to help, focus on the issues. That is the way to resolve it. Otherwise, this swirl of sentiments will only hasten the National Assembly to use the powers at its disposal.

September 2002