The Senate yesterday averted what would have become a constitutional crisis over the absence of President Muhammadu Buhari who is on medical vacation in London and the role the Vice President is expected to play during the period.
Buhari had, in a letter addressed to the President of the Senate, Dr. Bukola Saraki, told the lawmakers that in his absence, the Vice President, Prof. Femi Osinbajo, would be coordinating activities of government.
The letter, dated May 7, read as follows: “In compliance with Section 145(1) of the 1999 Constitution as amended, I wish to inform the distinguished Senate that I will be away for a scheduled medical follow-up with my doctors in London. The length of my stay will be determined by the doctors’ advice.
“While I am away, the Vice President will coordinate the activities of the government. Please accept, the distinguished Senate president, the assurances of my highest consideration.”
But as soon as the letter was read, Senator Mao Ohaunbuwa (PDP Abia North) raised a point of order faulting the language of the letter. Ohuabunwa argued that contrary to the rule, the President did not state the appropriate designation of the Vice President as Acting President as stipulated in Section 145 of the 1999 Constitution.
According to him, the position of the “coordinator of government activities” does not exist in the constitution and should not have come up in the President’s letter. He, therefore, suggested that the letter should be rejected. “Mr. President, I don’t think we have anything like coordinating president or coordinating vice president in our constitution.
It is either you are vice president or you are acting president and any letter should be unambiguous and very clear.
“So, I am saying that this letter really does not convey anything because coordinator has no space or any place in our constitution.
We have been having letters like this before where the status of acting president was clearly stated for the Vice President and we know who to deal with as a Senate. “This is the highest legislative body of any country and if you are sending us a letter, it should be direct and unambiguous.
So, I am saying that this letter, for me, is not right and maybe should be sent back,” Ohuabunwa said. However, Majority Leader of the Senate, Ahmad Lawan, raised a counter argument that the letter should be accepted in principle as long as it was based on provisions of Section 145 of the Constitution.
“Let me say that the point of order raised by my colleague and the explanation that subsequently followed shouldn’t have been and my reasons are simple. “I still rely on the first paragraph of that letter which Mr. President wrote to this Senate and read by the President of the Senate and I will read section (145). It reads: “Whenever the President transmits to the president of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives a written declaration, but he is proceeding on vacation….
“Any other word in this letter, or indeed anywhere else, is irrelevant. I, therefore, feel that Mr. President has done what the constitution requires him to do and I urge this Senate not to go ahead to discuss this because it’s not an issue. We have the budget and so many other serious issues for us to discuss and Nigerians are waiting,” Lawan said.
At this point, the President of the Senate ruled that as long as the letter has referred to the Constitution, there was no ambiguity and no contest as to the position of the law on the designation of the Vice President whenever the President was absent and had duly communicated same to the parliament.
Saraki said: “In view of the fact that the letter quoted Section 145(1) of the Constitution which stipulated that the Vice President would work as Acting President, the word `coordinate’ should be disregarded. “I think it is a very clear issue and what should be guided by is the Constitution and I think that it is clear.
“The letter has referred to the Constitution and there’s no ambiguity in the Constitution.
So, I don’t think there’s any issue there. Let me rule you out if order, Senator Mao.’’ New Telegraph gathered that the motion and counter motion emanated from the speculations in some quarters that the letter from the President was deliberately structured to create some loopholes in the system.
A source in the Senate told New Telegraph that the debate on the letter was meant to set the records straight and avoid a situation where the cabal in the Presidency would exploit the so-called ambiguity in the letter to limit the powers of Osinbajo to take full charge and run the affairs of the government in the absence of the ailing President.
Meanwhile, a non-governmental organisation, Advocacy for Integrity and Economic Development (AIED), has described the designation of Osinbajo as Coordinator of Government Businesses a desecration of the office of the President and a complete aberration. In a statement issued by its Director of Research and Publicity, Comrade O’Seun John, the group accused the ‘cabal’ within the presidency of plotting to create confusion in the country by its continuous interference with the decision of the President.
According to AIED, “We are extremely saddened with the content of President Buhari’s letter where he neglected tradition and voice of sanity to dance to the tune of political vam-pires by importing a lexicon alien to our constitution. While we are aware of the unambiguous provision of section 145, we are frightened by signals such as this on the peace and unity of our country.
“The new designation of Professor Osinbajo can only be interpreted to mean that President Buhari does not trust him enough to act as the President in his absence. With this reality, we are now forced to ask: who does President Buhari truly recognise as the Acting President? “This act has put paid to any form of doubt that the powers controlling the affairs of the country have greater influence and perhaps, control than the Vice- President, Professor Yemi Osinbajo.”
