Hon. Yakubu Dogara represents Bogoro, Dass and Tafawa Balewa Federal Constituency in the Federal House of Representatives. The Chairman, House Services Committee recently spoke with some journalists on a number of national issues in Abuja. OLUGBENGA SALAMI brings the excerpts:
You and three other members recently sponsored a Bill widely thought to ease the impeachment of the President and Vice President, what informed this Bill?
Several reasons, I am sure time and space will not allow me to catalogue them. But let me highlight a few of them. Section 146 of the Constitution mentions impeachment as one of the grounds by which the Vice President may assume the office of the President but shockingly the Constitution does not provide for how the President or Vice President can be impeached. Section 143 which the Bill seeks to amend provide for the removal but not impeachment of the President and Vice President. So that is a huge lacuna in the Constitution that needs to be filled.
Another defect of Section143 of the Constitution is that it only provides for the removal of the two office holders on account of gross misconduct in the performance of the functions of their offices. That means unofficial conduct is not a ground for the removal of the two office holders, even such unofficial conduct amounts to betrayal of the nation or serves to seriously undermine the offices they occupy. This is clearly unacceptable.
Also, a fundamental requirement of our legal system is that no one can be punished for an offence until he has been tried and found guilty of that offence. The trial is supposed to be open and transparent in accordance with the requirements of the principles of natural justice. Section 143 of the Constitution fails to provide for any form of trial. It talks only of an investigative Panel of seven. Section 143 therefore violates a fundamental pillar of our jurisprudence by requiring that the president or Vice President can be punished by removal from office without any form of trial.
Section143 of the Constitution also fails to clearly separate the body that accuses from the body whose province it is to determine the accusation. Between the National Assembly and the Panel of 7 who investigates, it is not clear who the accuser is and who the judge is. This also is a clear violation of fair hearing which is the cornerstone of our jurisprudence.
The must dumb provision of Section143 is the requirement that a Panel of 7 appointed by the Chief Justice of the Federation, himself an appointee of the office holder who is facing removal; has the constitutional powers to make a determination which is binding on the National Assembly and the Courts. This is repugnant to the very philosophy of popular government. I can go on and on because the issues are endless.
Let me concede that the defects of Section 143 of the Constitution are as highlighted by you, are these defects enough to warrant the proposals you have tabled before the House?
In the context of the many paradoxes and lacunas I have spoken about; absolutely, yes. In addition, we must come to see that the root cause of endemic and erosive corruption in our dear country is Section 143 of the Constitution. I make this statement with all sense of responsibility. Successive Nigerian Presidents have studied and analysed this section very well and have come to the conclusion that it cannot be carried out in practical terms that’s why they operate like the medieval kings of whom it was said, “lived of themselves”. Our laws don’t count at all. Few examples will suffice. Section 80 of the Constitution is never complied with.
This is the challenge we are faced with as a nation. Civil rule has come but democracy is still a mirage. How do we ensure that our leaders obey our laws in the absence of sanctions that can guarantee effective deterrence? Unless our leaders sit up and unless we refashion the democratic tools of deterrence by making impeachment and removal from office more probable than likely, we will sadly keep groping in the dark. We have an opportunity to effect these changes now and that is what compels this Bill.
In summary, how has the Bill you have sponsored attempt to make the process of impeachment and removal more probable rather than likely as you have said?
In summary, the Bill proposes that the House will have the sole powers to impeach the president or the Vice President as the case may be in line with the tenets of representative democracy. However, the impeachment by the House would amount to no more than an indictment. After the impeachment the Matter will be referred to the Senate for trial where a select group of members of the House will serve as prosecutors. To guide against procedural injustice, the Chief Justice of the Federation will preside over the trial after which the Senate will debate a verdict and vote to convict. A two third vote of the Senate will suffice to convict and remove the office holder from office failing which the office holder survives the impeachment and retains his office.
In addition, the Senate is also required to vote to bar the removed office holder from holding any position of trust in the country. If the impeachable offence involves a crime, the regular Courts will additionally prosecute the removed office holder. This naturally eliminates the CJN’s panel of 7 which is no more than meddlesome interloper in the political process. This process is in tandem with our body of laws and guarantees fair hearing. It separates the body that accuses, the House of Representatives from the body that tries and convicts, which is the Senate.
This begs the question. You seem to be against concentration of powers, yet you appear to be advocating for absolute powers to be vested in the Parliament for impeachment purposes. Is it not a paradox or a contradiction?
It is neither a paradox nor contradiction, but it is an accepted democratic practice. Impeachment is a political process involving political offences committed by politicians with political punishments. It does not fall within the sphere of ordinary jurisprudence where the normal courts hold sway.
In America, it is the House that impeaches while the Senate tries and convicts. In Britain it is the province of the House of Commons to prefer the impeachment and of the House of Lords to determine it. There is no civilised democracy that has in its Constitution the kind of draconian provisions in Section143 of our Constitution.
For our democracy to be first class, we must first of all do away with second class provisions in our Constitution and Statutes. There is no better way to guarantee our place in the comity of civilised democratic nations. This we owe to our children and posterity.
Why should we always borrow from America and other countries instead of developing our own home-grown solutions to national challenges?
Unfortunately, we borrowed presidential democracy from America. It is the single most important contribution of America to the art of government. We can modify only to the extent that we do not touch the roots in order not to end up with something else or less. You cannot borrow an American Lincoln and attempt to use Toyota, Mercedes or Range Rover manual to interpret and maintain it. That will be a sure recipe for disaster. Impeachment goes to the roots of democracy in that it keeps those who wield overwhelming constitutional powers in check. It checks corruption at the highest level and guarantees the fidelity of our leaders to our Constitution and laws. Any country that does not effectively provide for it risks having despots as leaders. The outcome in Nigeria is not any different.
The Bill has been severally criticised for wrong timing. Some have said President Goodluck Jonathan is the target. Some have alleged that it will be wrongly interpreted no matter the good intentions because of the challenges of governance at the moment. What is your take on this?
It is ludicrous and even wicked to impute this kind of improper motive on our part without looking at the merits of what is on the table. Of course with the culture of sycophancy which our civilian rule promotes, there is hardly anything one does that will be interpreted to be objective. Some in the opposition have claimed that we are doing the bidding of PDP by sharpening the tool of impeachment in preparation of when the opposition will produce the president. All these claims pander to vanity. How can the Parliament alter a section of the Constitution just to target an individual?
I addressed the issue of timing while leading the debate on the Bill. I will still let the timeless admonishment by the Late Dr King Jnr speak to this puerile objection. It was Dr King who said, “Time itself is neutral. We must come to see that human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability. It comes through the tireless efforts and persistent work of men willing to be co-workers with God, and without this hard work time itself becomes an ally of the primitive forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, and forever realize that the time is always ripe to do right.
The question therefore is whether what we have proposed is right or wrong. If it right, then the time is ripe now to provide for it. There will never be a time when such a radical proposal like this will not be misinterpreted. We must abandon caution and embrace courage without which our democracy will always remained nascent.
Would you be disappointed if eventually the Bill fails to scale through all the hurdles of Constitutional amendment?
I hope and pray it does. Naturally, I should be disappointed if the Bill fails. The Executive will continue to violate our laws and the culture of impunity will not abate. But there something in the character of truth that never dies. I am sure one day we will return to it. May that day not come when the overwhelming majority of our people would favour removing a President or Vice President from office. That is when they will know that S.143 of the Constitution cannot be carried out because of its self defeating nature and there is nothing the National Assembly can do about it.
If our people know the revolution this amendment will bring to our flight against corruption, lawlessness and mis-governance, there will be another round of occupy Nigeria to compel this amendment. Imagine President Obama or Prime Minister David Cameron violating the Constitution or laws of their Country. The consequences are such that they cannot contemplate it. But if they were Nigerian Presidents they violate our Constitution and laws because as a people we have accepted the lie that it is normal for the President to violate the law. This is unacceptable and time has come to halt this madness that has stultified our advancement as a nation.