 |
Some
of Nigeria’s State Governors
|
The Federal Government’s
silence on the alleged travel restriction placed on two state governors has
sparked off debate, Fisayo Falodi writes
The
Punch report continues:
A
recent report claiming that President Muhammadu Buhari has placed two governors
on security watch list and subsequently banned them from travelling abroad
without clearance from the Director-General of the Department of State Service
has continued to fuel debates among socio-political analysts, lawyers and
opposition politicians.
Though
the Federal Government has yet to deny that it issued the directive or confirm
it, the report had claimed that the activities of the two governors, one from
the South-West and another from the South-South, were considered to have
security implications for the country.
According
to the report, the governors, whose names were not mentioned, should seek
clearance from the DSS Director-General before travelling outside the country.
The
signals for the travel restriction were also said to have been sent to security
officials at all entry and exit points in Nigeria by the DSS.
The
decision, the report said, was not meant to curtail the affected governors’
rights, but that they would be prevented by security operatives from boarding
aircraft, a ship or vehicle with the intent to travel out of the country if
they refused to comply with the government’s directive.
But
this drew the ire of the Ekiti State Governor, Mr. Ayodele Fayose, who is
believed to be an unrepentant critic of Buhari – a fact the Ekiti State
governor himself admitted.
The
Ekiti State governor, who is an ardent critic of the President, insinuated that
the directive was meant to cow him and his Rivers State counterpart, Mr. Nyesom
Wike.
While
reacting to the travel ban by his Special Assistant on Public Communications
and New Media, Lere Olayinka, Fayose had given an indication that the decision
was meant to infringe on the fundamental human rights of state governors even
when they have immunity.
Fayose
therefore dared the President to stop him whenever he wished to travel out of
the country, adding that he would travel abroad in the full glare of the
public.
In
Fayose’s view, Buhari’s travel ban was dictatorial and a disrespect for the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which gives immunity to state
governors like the President.
He
had said, “I am not surprised or disappointed by this latest plot of the
Buhari’s government because the President that we know is a man without any
atom of respect for the rights of Nigerians as enshrined in the 1999
Constitution of Nigeria, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and this he demonstrated as a
military dictator and now demonstrating as a democratically elected president.”
According
to him, only a valid court order can restrict the movement of anyone, not a
mere directive by the President. He therefore asked the President to be mindful
of the fact that in a federal system of government, the states and national
government both enjoy some autonomy with sovereign power formally divided
between them.
This
is just as the Osun State chapter of the Peoples Democratic Party tackled
Buhari over the alleged travel restriction.
The
state PDP said the President’s action was capable of plunging the country into
a civil war.
The
latest development, some followers of political activities in the country, said
was a potential indicator that the pre-election political differences between
Buhari and Fayose might not abate any moment from now.
The
Ekiti State governor, who did not limit his virulent campaign against Buhari’s
candidature to the 2015 general elections era, has vowed to continue to
criticise the Buhari-led Federal Government, claiming that the President lacks
the capacity to govern a nation like Nigeria.
Commentators
said the Ekiti State governor’s resolve to always criticise Buhari’s policies,
including the recent visit by the President to China, might have accounted for
the reason the President placed the two governors on security watch list.
A
social scientist, Mr. Adelanke Olomola, said though it is unconstitutional for
state governors elected by the people to be denied exit from the country, some
of the governors’ failure to behave orderly might have annoyed the President to
the marrow.
While
recalling one of such behaviours, Olomola said, “When the President went to
China recently, Fayose also decided to travel to China and started deprecating
the Federal Government and the President in particular.
“Fayose’s
action affected the image of Nigeria as an undisciplined country. It was
obvious that given the kind of person Buhari is, there would be consequences
for such an action. One of the consequences may now be the alleged travel ban.”
But
the Osun State PDP appears not to have seen anything new in Fayose’s action.
The
PDP recalled that the current Osun State Governor, Rauf Aregbesola, did worse
to former President Goodluck Jonathan while he was in office and therefore
urged Buhari to drop the idea of placing travel ban on the two governors
because they enjoy immunity under Section 308 of the constitution.
Olomola,
however, emphasised this point. He said the law presumes that a governor cannot
commit crime so long as he is in office, saying it is unnecessary for the
Federal Government to check perceived excesses of any governor by placing
travel ban on him.
The
best way the excesses of a President or governor could be checked, Omolola
said, is through impeachment proceedings.
He
said, “According to the constitution, the President and the governor cannot
commit any crime while they are still in office. In case they commit any crime,
it is the National Assembly and the state House of Assembly that are empowered
to caution them through impeachment proceedings, which is the only punishment
allowed by the law. So, as far as the Nigeria’s constitution is concerned, the
President and the governor cannot commit any crime.”
But
Olomola explained that issuance of passport and other diplomatic privileges
accorded high profile officials are on the exclusive list of the government.
He
said, “Foreign affairs issues are on the exclusive list in the constitution and
as such, they are managed by the Federal Government. In these days when debts
are being incurred by different levels of the government and the states are
becoming insolvent, looking up to the Federal Government for bailout to perform
the basic functions of their offices, this has given undeserved power to the
Federal Government to check the states and their governors.”
On
the claim by the report that some activities of the governors were considered
to have security implications, Olomola said, “Behind every constitution, there
is an assumption that those who occupy high offices of state such as the
President, vice-president, governors and deputy governors are men of integrity,
mature, patriotic and responsible.
“If
this is so, then the conflict between the Presidency and some governors as we
are beginning to see would have been unnecessary. In other words, if all of
them are committed to project Nigeria and meet this basic assumption, then
their relationships and actions would have been governed by the law of the
land.”
A
Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Chief Emeka Ngige, doubted that the Federal
Government actually issued the directive because it has yet to issue any
statement to deny it even days after. So, the hoopla surrounding the issue is
unnecessary, according to him.
While
stating that the directive to subject the two governors to security clearance
before they travel abroad could be speculation or rumour, Ngige said the
Federal Government could only restrict the movement of anyone that had
committed an offence.
He
said, “Ordinarily, the Federal Government cannot restrict the movement of
anyone in and out of the country, let alone state governors because there is
freedom of movement in the constitution.
“But
that freedom is not unlimited; it is not something that one enjoys without
restriction, especially if that person is suspected to have committed a
criminal offence.”
Ngige
said though the constitution prevents state governors from being arrested and
prosecuted, they could still be investigated if their actions were inimical to
national interests.
Citing
the cases of a former Bayelsa State Governor, the late Diepreye Alamieyeseigha,
and a former Plateau State Governor, Joshua Dariye, who were arrested abroad
for criminal offences as examples, the SAN said, “State governors have immunity
against arrest and prosecution, but there is no immunity against investigation.
“One
thing we should bear in mind is that if any governor has an issue bordering on
corruption and security, the Federal Government can, in collaboration with
foreign security agencies, arrest such a governor as soon as he travels out of
the country.
“So,
governors’ immunity ends at the Nigeria’s international airports. As soon as
they fly out of the country, there is no immunity for them. Even if they have
issue bordering on terrorism, the governors can only be arrested abroad, not in
Nigeria. But that does not exempt them from being investigated at home.”
An
observer, Mr. Salau Bashiru, also doubted the existence of such a directive; he
nevertheless urged the Presidency and Fayose to resolve their differences in
the interest of the country.
He
said, “In the interest of Ekiti State, Fayose should be cautioned by elder
statesmen as his actions and utterances are bound to attract reaction from the
Federal Government, especially in lopsided federal arrangement like Nigeria.
“The
President too appears to be the most powerful president in the world because
the institutions that could check his excesses are weak. In older federations
like the United States, the institutions there are strong and can rein in the
President.
“Therefore,
in the interest of Nigeria, the President has a duty to work within the
parameter of law. In this case, he should not easily deploy state power to
belittle governors.
“The
reckless use of the DSS and other agencies of government is unnecessary. When
people go wrong, the first thing to do is to caution them verbally as a father
does to his children.
“All the officials of the states should also realise that they hold their offices but for a while. The ultimate judge of their action is history.”
No comments:
Post a Comment