Reps’ Plot to Impeach Jonathan; Why It Will Fail

 

It was nothing short of theater of the absurd; yes, it contained some theater all right, but it was the absurdity of it all that galled Nigerians. Last week, the National Assembly was supposed to reconvene from recess to consider just one item, President Jonathan’s request to extend the State of Emergency imposed on Bornu, Yobe and Adamawa states – the North-East geo-political stronghold of  Boko Haram terrorists.

Instead, what the world saw was the absurdity entailed in full-fledged members of Representatives scaling the fence that defined the National Assembly perimeters – agabda and babariga Nigerian garbs flying in the air as their wearers scrambled up the fence and jumped into the National Assembly. It was a total desecration of the respect and authority that belonged to that hallowed legislative institution – and that desecration was done by the legislators themselves.

Already, the sordid act has launched a thousand and one jokes on the internet; but everyone knows that those who created those jokes are actually laughing at tragedy.  Worse still, while the Theatre of the Absurd designates particular plays of absurdist fiction, the absurd made-in-Abuja drama which the world watched last week was, tragically enough,  factual and enacted by those who preface their names with the highly elevated title of “Honorable”.     

.

Often, says the Wikipedia, the Theatre of the Absurd “expresses happenings when human existence has no meaning or purpose and therefore all communication breaks down, alerting their audiences to pursue the opposite. Logical construction and argument gives way to irrational and illogical speech and to its ultimate conclusion, silence”. Critic Martin Esslin coined the term in his 1960 essay "Theatre of the Absurd."

Last week in Abuja, the Theater of the Absurd was in full swing not only in the scaling of the fence by old men who behaved like school urchins, but in the very legislative actions that followed; the gathering of signatures by some members of the House of Representatives to …to do what really? To impeach President Goodluck Ebele Azikiwe Jonathan, they announced with glee as though they were embarked on some great nationalist venture that should point Nigeria on the way to true greatness.

Unfortunately for Nigeria, the Representatives that were embarked on that demented impeachment road refused to acknowledge that nothing in their threat of impeachment concerns the very reason why the National Assembly reconvened; to debate about the need to extend the State of Emergence in the three states where Boko Haram terrorism has made life a hell on earth for fellow Nigerians.  

Yet, as much as the “I” word (impeachment) has remained prominent in the news media since it was first mentioned, its practicability has only an ice cube’s chance of remaining whole in hell. First, what has taken place is the threat or plan to INITIATE AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING against the President. The real process has not even started; the Constitution demands that “ 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 Senate President, then the process would begin”. Now, where will Tambuwal and his team get such a large number of signatures from? And that is just the first process in the terribly labourous, winding and thorny impeachment road. So the process has hardly started at all. And when it begins, grave accusation of serious crimes must be raised against the President and a panel has to be set up … all this have to take place before the question of how many legislators from both chambers could vote for or against the President might be addressed.

So on the issue of impeachment, the President could actually go to sleep. The constitution demands a two-thirds majority voting power from both Houses of the National Assembly before a President can be impeached – and the All Progressives Congress (APC) do not have such voting strength in any of the chambers. In fact, the person that runs the risk of being impeached or removed from office based on the voting power of the parties in a chamber of the National Assembly, is ironically, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the arrow head of the present impeachment talks.   .  

So why was the “I” word brought up in the first place? Well, people love fighting yesterday’s battles. So, the Representatives had to reach back to the first four years of the present democratic dispensation, 1999 -2003 when the House of Representatives under Ghali Na’Abba used the impeachment threat to keep former President Obasanjo in check. But while Na’Abba then had the Representatives under tight control, the present Speaker, Aminu Tambuwal lacks such authority and respect from his fellow Representatives. Moreover, Na’Abba had the numbers on his side, as he was not only a member of the PDP his last day in the National Assembly, he also even had the opposition on his side; so his position was as solid as Olumo Rock.  

In a sharp contrast, Tambuwal is no Na’Abba! And his party does not even command the majority in the House – and even then, a simple majority is not enough to impeach anyone in Nigeria; the only thing that could do is nothing but two-thirds majority. Even if Tambuwal could muster that in the House of Assembly, everyone knows that the scheme will fall flat in the Senate.

In this case, Tambuwal and his supporters must have decided that attack is the best form of defence; so they had to raise the impeachment threat against the President who may want to avoid the disrespect that the word invokes – especially just months before a general election, to buy freedom from facing impeachment himself. So, they may have thought that the President might prevail on the PDP to let Tambuwal remain in office as a payback for not broaching the “I” word.

Most of all, it has to be stated that the matter of whether Tambuwal remains the Speaker of the House of Representatives after he has dumped the PDP, on whose platform he was elected to join the APC, is  for the courts to decide. But none should blame the PDP for demanding that the Speaker’s high office Tambuwal was elected into as a PDP member should remain in the party.

Impeachment is easy to mention but difficult to carry out; thus far in the history of the United States there has been three Presidential impeachment proceedings -- in 1868 against President Andrew Johnson for his removal of Secretary of War Edwin Stanton in violation of the Tenure of Office Act - 1974 against President Richard Richard Nixon for the Watergate coverup (106 years after Johnson) - 1998-99 against President Bill Clinton for concealing an extramarital affair (24 years after Nixon).

 

 

 

Box: To Remove a President: - Constitutional  Impeachment Proceddure

143. (1) The President or Vice-President may be removed from office in accordance with the provisions of this section.

(2) Whenever a notice of any allegation in writing signed by not less than one-third of the members of the National Assembly:-

(a) is presented to the President of the Senate;

(b) stating that the holder of the office of President or Vice-President is guilty of gross misconduct in the performance of the functions of his office, detailed particulars of which shall be specified,

the President of the Senate shall within seven days of the receipt of the notice cause a copy thereof to be served on the holder of the office and on each member of the National Assembly, and shall also cause any statement made in reply to the allegation by the holder of the office to be served on each member of the National Assembly.

(3) Within fourteen days of the presentation of the notice to the President of the Senate (whether or not any statement was made by the holder of the office in reply to the allegation contained in the notice) each House of the National Assembly shall resolve by motion without any debate whether or not the allegation shall be investigated.

(4) 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.

(5) Within seven days of the passing of a motion under the foregoing provisions, the Chief Justice of Nigeria shall at the request of the President of the Senate appoint a Panel of seven persons who in his opinion are of unquestionable integrity, not being members of any public service, legislative house or political party, to investigate the allegation as provide in this section.

(6) The holder of an office whose conduct is being investigated under this section shall have the right to defend himself in person and be represented before the Panel by legal practitioners of his own choice.

(7) A Panel appointed under this section shall -

(a) have such powers and exercise its functions in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed by the National Assembly; and

(b) within three months of its appointment report its findings to each House of the National Assembly.

(Where the Panel reports to each House of the National Assembly that the allegation has not been proved, no further proceedings shall be taken in respect of the matter.

(9) Where the report of the Panel is that the allegation against the holder of the office has been proved, then within fourteen days of the receipt of the report at the House the National Assembly shall consider the report, and if by a resolution of each House of the National Assembly supported by not less than two-thirds majority of all its members, the report of the Panel is adopted, then the holder of the office shall stand removed from office as from the date of the adoption of the report.

(10) 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.

(11) In this section -

"gross misconduct" means a grave violation or breach of the provisions of this Constitution or a misconduct of such nature as amounts in the opinion of the National Assembly to gross misconduct.