Impeachment is one word that some executive members of government do not like to hear because of its implications, even though it is provided for in the 1999 Constitution (as amended) for a reason. There is nowhere the word, impeachment, is specifically mentioned in the Constitution. The Constitution talks about removal from office of the President or vice president and a governor or a deputy governor for gross misconduct vide Sections 143 and 188. So, how did the word creep into our political lexicon?
It is a term borrowed from the American presidential system of government which we copied in 1979 during our first missionary return to democratic rule. It is a tool to check the excesses of the President or the vice president and a governor or a deputy governor. Much of these days, however, deputy governors have been falling under the impeachment hammer because their governors cannot tolerate them.
The governors want their deputies to be lackeys taking instructions from them and acting like zombies and when this is not the case, they resort to impeachment. Impeachment is not a vendetta tool. The President is not supposed to use it via the National Assembly to bring down the vice president and a governor is not expected to deploy it too against his deputy through the House of Assembly.
Since impeachment is a serious business which ends the tenure of a president or vice president; and a governor or a deputy governor abruptly once carried out, it is, therefore, an instrument to be used responsibly and only when necessary. It is not to be thrown at the President or the vice president; a governor or a deputy governor as it catches the legislature’s fancy.
It should also not be brandished by the lawmakers at the instance of the President or of a governor against the vice president or a deputy governor whenever there is a disagreement between occupants of the executive mansion.
The framers of the Constitution never envisaged the way impeachment is being used today. The Constitution clearly states how and when the President or the vice president and a governor or a deputy governor can be removed from office.
It does not include using the tool to settle personal scores between the President and vice president or a governor and his deputy. Unfortunately, this most important tool which should be used as a weapon of last resort has been reduced to that. The framers of the Constitution never meant that it should be abused the way it is being done these days by some governors. Any little misunderstanding, they get their Houses of Assembly, which are beholden to them to impeach their deputies.
The end-result of any dispute between a governor and his deputy is predictable, if not resolved amicably. The deputy governor is impeached by the lawmakers. A governor and his deputy are not supposed to be sworn enemies; they were conjoined right from when they entered the race. The governorship ticket is incomplete without a running mate who eventually becomes deputy governor if they are elected.
What happens after election, in most cases, is a different ball game. The joint ticket becomes single and the duo stop acting jointly, leaving room for outsiders to see through the crevices and cause further damage. People who started out as friends will no longer see eye to eye as the public saw in the case of Edo State Governor Godwin Obaseki and his former deputy, Philip Shaibu. Obaseki and Shaibu joined forces to defeat their political leader, Senator Adams Oshiomhole, at the Edo governorship polls four years ago.
This should have strengthened their bond, but unfortunately what united them then has now divided them. You cannot build a political alliance on quicksand and expect it to stand. The impeachment of Shaibu on Monday marked the climax of the rift between him and the man he fondly called ‘my governor’ when the going was good. As witnessed in past related cases, Shaibu’s impeachment was hurriedly done to pave the way for the coming of the new man, Omobayo Godwins, in whom Obaseki is well pleased, for now..
There is no dispute about the power of the national and state legislatures to impeach the president or the vice president; a governor or a deputy governor. What one is saying is that the legislature should not lend itself out to be used by either the President or the governor to deal with their deputies during a feud. To some pundits, a deputy governor is a spare tyre, but the Constitution which created the office never intended it as such.
The political class, the governors especially, reduced the stature of deputy governors so that it would become a sinecure office. Their deputies must kowtow to them or be impeached. Since they have the Houses of Assembly in their pockets, nothing can save a troublesome deputy, except their lordships, the governors change their minds and allow the deputy to “go and sin no more”. We cannot continue to run our democracy on the whims and caprices of some power-sottish governors.
The Houses of Assembly must rise above the kind of pettiness that some governors have introduced into our politics. It is their job to check the governors and ensure that things are done properly. The impeachment of a deputy governor, if necessary, must follow strictly the constitutional process and should be done without the governor’s influence. Even though I weep not for Shaibu, it is a shame to the Edo State House of Assembly that his impeachment bears Obaseki’s imprimatur. The lawmakers will deny this, but nobody will believe them. They know the truth too.
Shaibu may be gone for good, but what happens to the integrity of the House of Assembly, which shamelessly did the bidding of the governor? Our Houses of Assembly must retrace their steps and face squarely the task of making laws for the good governance of their states instead of taking sides in political duels between a governor and his deputy. They should remember that what goes around, comes around.
Comments