Home arrow Authors arrow Mobolaji Aluko arrow On the Mother of All Illegalities - The "Sacking" of Vice-President Atiku Abubakar
On the Mother of All Illegalities - The "Sacking" of Vice-President Atiku Abubakar Print E-mail
Written by Mobolaji Aluko   
Sunday, 24 December 2006

On the Mother of All Illegalities - The "Sacking" of Vice-President Atiku Abubakar

by Mobolaji E. Aluko, PhD
alukome@gmail.com

Burtonsville , MD , USA
Christmas Day, December 25, 2006  


Table of Contents:

Introduction
A Cocktail of Illegalities
A Cacophony of Legal Opinions
What the Constitution Says
Atiku's AC Candidacy and His Probable "Refugee" Status
Epilogue

INTRODUCTION

These are most interesting times in Nigeria , so interesting that Nigerians and keen watchers of Nigeria with implanted heart pacemakers had better be very careful.

Well, according to a recently quoted statement over this President Olusegun Obasanjo/Vice-President Atiku Abubakar imbroglio:

QUOTE

....[the] National Publicity Secretary, Alhaji Lai Muhammed, AC said "just when we thought this lawless party [THE PDP] and its visionless leaders have reached rock bottom in their acts of brigandage, they over-reached themselves by perpetrating the mother of all illegalities."

UNQUOTE

He was referring to the announced declaration by the Obasanjo PDP administration that Atiku had "technically resigned" his position as Vice-President by opting last Tuesday December 19 to become the presidential flag-bearer for the opposition party the Action Congress (AC), and that hence the position had been declared "vacant" and would soon be filled upon "wide consultations."

If, according to Lai Muhammed,  this is the "mother of all illegalities:, then the "father of all illegalities" in this case may be for the Vice-President to in turn "sack" the President by ORCHESTRATING his expulsion from the PDP!   Then this "father" and this "mother" of illegalities would have really given constitutional natural birth to the twins of "confusion" and "chaos", rather than the adopted child that we now have: "consternation."

"Na wa o!,"  to exclaim in Nigerian vernacular !

A COCKTAIL OF ILLEGALITIES

Any one who states that there is no justification for sacking Atiku in the 1999 Constitution is absolutely right.   The fact of the matter is that President Obasanjo and the PDP have shown quite some contempt for the constitution, and displayed a CONTINUING PATTERN of illegalities in their desperate bid to nail Atiku's bid to succeed Obasanjo.   It is in fact bizarre, the kind of vindictiveness being visited on a man (Atiku) who loaned some of his enormous resources to the party efforts in Election 1999 and Election 2003 - even joining in the cutting of a National Victory Cake after this rigged latter election.   He  has had no substantial policy difference with the government save in its undemocratic efforts at term extensions (both second-term in 2003 and third term in 2006.)  

In a compedium that I recently compiled titled "STAR COMPENDIUM: The Court Entanglements of Vice-President Atiku Abubakar vis-a-vis EFCC and President Obasanjo", I documented 7 RULINGS by judges ALL OVER NIGERIA, coming from DIFFERENT ETHNIC BACKGROUNDS IN NIGERIA slamming down ALL THE ACTIONS taken against Atiku by this administration so far.   I repeat them in summary here, all favoring Atiku:

1. OCTOBER 20, 2006 - A favorable ruling at an Abuja High Court by Justice Goodluck

2. NOVEMBER 6, 2006 - A favorable ruling at an Abuja Federal Court by Justice Augie

3. NOVEMBER 6, 2006 - A favorable ruling at an Abuja Federal High Court by Justice Anwuri Chikere

4. NOVEMBER 28, 2006 - A favorable ruling at a Lagos High Court by Justice Inumidun Akande

5. DECEMBER 1, 2006 - A favorable ruling by Justice Adekeye at Abuja Court of Appeal

6. DECEMBER 8, 2006 - A favorable ruling at an Abuja FCT High Court by Justice Oniyangi

7. DECEMBER 20, 2006 - A favorable ruling at a Federal High Court in Abuja by Justice Anwuri Chikere

If it had been only in a Lagos High Court, we could have said that the judge was under Governor Tinubu's subornation.   If the rulings in Abuja had been by   only Yoruba judges, Obasanjo, a Yoruba himself, might have said that they were people who did not like him anyway.   If they were ONLY by Igbo judges or Northern judges, the irony is that he could have said the same thing!   But the eclectic nature of the ethnicity and geography of the rulings is clear.

Thus that this administration has demonstrated a CLEAR PATTERN OF ILLEGALITIES when it comes to the affairs of Atiku is incontrovertible.

A CACOPHONY OF LEGAL OPINIONS

The irony is that different LEGAL EXPERTS have started to come out of the woodworks with various interpretations, as they always will in cases that they term to be "complex."

In this respect, we should forget Chief Gani Fawehinmi (SAN) who claims that the actions of the government so far are constitutional on this matter. I am on record for 13 years now since the pro-democracy June 12 days as stating that Fawehinmi is a legal show-boat,   a very brave but dangerous legal luminary, always looking  for legal opinion to suit his most current biases.     Yes, sometimes one may favor those biases, at other times one may not, but they are ALWAYS his biases, never yours, and when they violate yours, they can be pretty annoying howlers.

I am not a lawyer, but I am a law afficionado.  I have a private LAW maxim: the more "complicated" a case looks, the easier non-legal minds can cut through the deal and come up with a verdict which, in general, will be the correct one.

EVERY ONE keenly following the Obasanjo/Atiku imbroglio, and having a dispassionate view of things KNEW that all the above 7 rulings

would be in Atiku's favor because the processes that he complained against were quite palpably biased, just as the present cases protesting this "mother of illegalities" will also be ruled in his favor in the law courts.

WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS

But what does the Constitution actually say?

A very simple study of the relevant Sections 141-146 of the Nigerian Constitution will make it clear that outside of five reasons [resignation, death,

medical incapacity, impeachment, accession to presidency (due the president's own resignation, death, medical incapacity or impeachment)], the Vice-President cannot be removed from his present position.

Follow me here:

  • Section 141 simply establishes the VP's office.
  • Section 142 has to do ONLY with "candidacy" for "nomination", not "tenure" for "continuation in office."
  • Section 143 spells out a CLEAR and DETAILED ROLE for the  National Assembly BEFORE any such declaration of vacancy can even be made, and that it must involve "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......'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." . This states ."PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNCTIONS OF HIS OFFICE," not in his VIEWS OR ACTIONS INVOLVING PARTY AFFAIRS. The section spells out days for institution of panel hearings, right to defend himself before such panels, etc.
  • Section 144 is inapplicable because it refers to medical grounds for both the VP and President's removal.
  • Section 145 is applicable only to the President proceeding on vacation and leaving matters to the VP.
  • Section 146(1) is crucial: "The Vice-President shall hold the office of President if the office of President becomes vacant by reason of death or resignation, impeachment, permanent incapacity or the removal of the President from office for any other reason in accordance with section 143 of this Constitution..."
  • Also 146(3)(a) is also critical: "(a) by reason of death or resignation, impeachment, permanent incapacity or removal in accordance with section 143 or 144 of this Constitution.   Again, note that it states...."IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 143 or 144......" - so these two sections refer BACK to Section 143 in particular almost in a recursive manner, and do not stand on their own.

    The section which certain constitutional thugs wish to refer to, viz: 146((3)(c) which states that "(c) for any other reason....."  is in fact already taken care of in Section 146(1), which states "...any other reason must be in accordance with Section 143.

    So I rest my case on the Constitution, and I am POSITIVE that the new legal filings which Vice-President Atiku Abubakar has done on his own behalf will positively vindicate him.   He will therefore remain as Vice-President, with all the rights, responsibilities and privileges attached thereto.  He will then still be under immunity, and will not be "arrestable".   He would still be "de jure" Vice President, if not "de facto."  Even our own Fayose is still "de jure" Executive Governor of our Ekiti State, even though he is a fugitive hiding from his own shadow, and is still being sought to come and explain himself briefly to the Ekiti people.

    ATIKU'S AC CANDIDACY AND HIS CURRENT PROBABLE "REFUGEE" STATUS  

    As to the presidential candidacy of Atiku within the Action Congress AC, that remains interesting.   My verdict is that it remains INTACT provided his name has been submitted to INEC, as it has; provided it has not been withdrawn by the AC or by himself, and provided he is not DISQUALIFIED by INEC, which can ONLY be due to any subsequent IMPEACHMENT or otherwise INDICTMENT from this date onwards.    None of the charade that went on before - i.e. the EFCC investigation, the Bayo Ojo panel, the Federal gazette, the latest ridiculous "expulsion" in the PDP leading to his "sacking", hold water, because they have ALL been thrown out by the 7 rulings that I quoted above, and would be thrown out soon by new legal rulings.

    Is there ANY provision in the 2006 Electoral law that says that the candidate must be PHYSICALLY PRESENT in Nigeria during the elections?  Absolutely not!  His Vice-Presidential partner and his other well-wishers can campaign on his behalf.   He can do so via video- and audio-links, if he believes that he will be unduly harassed by the powers-that-be, even if he is under immunity. 

    So I believe that if Atiku wishes to stay in the US - or at some other friendly refuge - until election day April 21, 2007, that act by itself does not disqualify him from the elections.   I stand to be corrected.

    Now, it does look as if the battle will be between PDP's surprise Yar'Adua/Jonathan ticket, ANPP's repeat Buhari/Ume-Ezeoke ticket and AC's controversial   Atiku/XYZ,  where the last two tickets will not be fullly decided until February 21, 2007 pending the working out of the AC/ANPP Memorandum of Political Understanding.  Of those three, theYar'Adua ticket is the weakest in terms of experience and clout, but has going for it only the might of the incumbent rigging ability of the ruling party machinery.  

    There may yet be great surprises if the opposition works hard to severely limit rigging through voter education and mobilization, voting process documentation and other vote protection means..

    Now if people do not vote for the AC presidential ticket because they don't see their Presidential candidate PHYSICALLY around inside Nigeria, then fine.   But if Omisore can win his Senatorial seat from prison, surely a candidate tucked away abroad in safety from fascist harassment can also win, if that is God's will.   The history of the world is filled with candidates who have won from abroad and returned home triumphant - if that is what the Lord wills.

    But understand this point:  even if Atiku loses at the polls - or if, as it is quite possible and most probable, eventually AC makes a deal to ask voters to support ANPP Buhari's presidency rather than its own - which would be consistent with the AC/ANPP Memorandum of Understanding - then Atiku will at least have proved one point:   that OBASANJO and the PDP, despite all their machinations, did not PREVENT him from running for the Presidency.   He would have shown manly balls. Yes, they may have successfully prevented him from running under the PDP; they may have successfully prevented him from becoming president;   but fortunately there are OTHER parties under which he was able to run, try as they mightily did to prevent him completely.

    EPILOGUE

    Let no one MISTAKE my statements above for personal SUPPORT for Atiku Abubakar, even if he is the presidential flag-bearer of a political party that I support.   After all, 18 people voted "No" AGAINST his flag-bearing aspirations on his "coronation" day last Tuesday ( December 19, 2006 ) out of about 6,000 delegates at the AC convention at the Tafewa Balewa Square .  Who is to tell that I was not one of those 18 by proxy, ehn?  :-)

    In any case, this macabre political drama is still in Act 1, Scene 1, and the plot is still unfolding.   Let us keep to our seats - although this is a drama in which some of us onlookers should periodically get onto the stage to force certain directions of the script:   the matter is TOO SERIOUS for us ALL to be mere onlookers!

    Finally, I just returned from church, where we sang this last verse of the popular carol "O Come, O Come, Emmanuel"

    QUOTE

    O come, Desire of nations, bind 
    In one the hearts of all mankind;
    Bid Thou our sad divisions cease;
    And be Thyself our King of Peace.

    UNQUOTE

    It struck me as a very appropriate prayer for these times, both for Nigeria .

    Please you all have yourself a Merry Christ-mas and a very prosperous New Year - even under the present macabre political circumstances!

    Bolaji Aluko, Esquare

    Quack Constitutional Lawyer

    Shaking his head and scratching it

    And asking "What the...?"

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 




RobotRobot is offline 
Villager

avatar
 # 1

Any one who states that there is no justification for sacking Atiku in the 1999 Constitution is a...Read the full article.

Posted by Robot| 24.12.2006 23:07

Reply Quote



AristarchyAristarchy is offline 
Villager

avatar
 # 2

Oga Proffesor,
As much as i like to read your charts, analysis and admire your passion for Naija, you miss road on this one. You miss road no be small. Which one is more important. Atikus victory or his corrupt nature. His favourable judgement or his profligacy. His rights or his immoral nature. Abeg put your energy into something else. He is not the president. Since has the judiciary being credible. Obasanjo may not be the best thing since sliced bread. Only a crazy man with a dictatorial edge can rule Nigeria, anything else is KAKA.The most archaic remnant of colonial intrusion(JUDICIARY). JUDICIARY KO JUDICIARY NI. Make we talk better one. Good riddance to smelly rubbish.OBJ GETS 60% in my books. Whoever comes in May 2007 can take us to the next level. OBJ thank you thank you(NOT VERY MUCH BUT THANK YOU). ATIKU KO ATIKU NI.
MERRY XMAS

Aristarchy
Honorable Charles Sogbesan

Posted by Aristarchy| 25.12.2006 03:05

Reply Quote



igweigwe is offline 
Villager

avatar
 # 3

If the National Assembly and the Judiciary succeed in teaching OBJ that there are laid down procedures for removing a Vice President, they would have gone a long way towards dimilitarizing the Nigerian polity and politics.

The rule of law is a sine qua non for any sane society.

Ka Chineke mezie okwu.

Posted by igwe| 25.12.2006 03:42

Reply Quote



AbraxasAbraxas is offline 
Villager

avatar
 # 4

Hi, folks!

There is NO provision whatsoever in the 2006 Electoral law of the Federal Republic of Nigeria that makes it MANDATORY for His Excellency Alhaji Atiku ABUBAKAR (GCON; Turakin Adamawa) to be PHYSICALLY PRESENT in Nigeria before, during, or after the 2007 presidential elections: Absofukcinglutely NOT, especially as he believes very strongly that he is being unduly harassed by General Olusegun OBASANJO (GCFR) and friends, even NOW, when he is under immunity. If anything else, he has a fool-proof alibi to qualify him for political asylum overseas, on grounds of overt political victimization and personal persecution!

So, like Professor Mobolaji ALUKO, I too believe that, if Atiku ABUBAKAR wishes to stay in the US of A, or at some other friendly refuge, like northern Cameroon, or Saudi Arabia, until April 21, 2007, that does not necessarily disqualify him from the 2007 presidential elections. This fact is NOT trivial.

But, as observed, if Distinguished Senator Omisore of Osun State could win a seat from prison, even as a prime suspect of murder, sequel to the gruesome assassination of the Attorney General of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, surely an Atiku ABUBAKAR, tucked away safety from the fascist harassment of General Aremu Matiyu Olusegun Okikiolakan OBASANJO, can also win an election from Maryland, USA, insha Allah! What is good for the assassin is good for the treasury looter too, chikena: abi, I lie?

Muchas gracias.

Don Juan Carlos ABRAXAS (III)

Posted by Abraxas| 25.12.2006 04:23

Reply Quote



tonsoyotonsoyo is offline 
Villager

avatar
 # 5

Oga Professor you Misfired - Please Teacher Don't Teach Me Nonsense!

Hey Prof,

I have listened to you or do we say read you on this forum for quite some time, and until now have had a lot respect for your opinions which is usally unbiased, even when I don't agree with you somtimes, I always agree thaT you were as objective as you can, but this time around you MISFIRED!

You should have restricted your "verdicts" to areas you are trained on, and not foray into an area where you are lay man to give "verdicts".
What you have exhibited in this article is the working of a non legal mind or an untrained mind trying to be a lawyer, lawyer-wannabe.

First of all, it is very wrong for you to call anybody at all a "constitutional thug" talkless of a lawyer of Chief Gani Fawehinmi status. You may not always agree with him but he is definitely "primus inter pares"

Whereas Section 143 took care of processes for removal of VP, reasons for removal were spelt out under Section 146 (1) (2) (3) (a) (b) with subsection (c) standing alone why? because specific references are made to Sections 143 and 144.

Under section 146 there was a link by specific reference of subsections (1) (2) (3) (a) (b), to sections 143 and 144 and "for any other reason" statement of subsection (c) was made without any link or specific reference to the processes of section 143 and 144 as it was done with the other.

The fact that a link was made with other subsections and (c) was left alone means it was meant to be alone. That "any other reasons" means unforseeable and absurd circumstances like this. A VP who wants to remain under the same Presidency and create his own rules is constructively out.

This Constitution created not by people's referendum or input, but was khaki oriented and bullet sanctioned is full of land mines laid with military precision which I believe were deliberate, unfortunate we missed an opportunity of totally overhauling it.

I will also like to add that even if Atiku has won one million cases in succesive order, it dose not make every other action taken by him legal, for a PhD, even if you are not a lawyer, you know what fallacy is.

Another surprising part of this article unlike your previous write up is that it is not clear from what perspective you are arguing from, whether from legal or political stand point, you went from being Atiku's lawyer to his political adviser in the same article that is the real "Na waa oo" to exclaim in vernacular.

Well since Atiku lives in Maryland now, and that is probably not too far from you, it is not impossible that you have been cornered too. The last statement from one of Atiku's aide is that they have put their "legal and MEDIA teams" to work.
This article is too passionate to be objective, and to call people and even lawyers that disgree with your view point "constitutional thug" is to say the least suspicious.

Feel free to put froward your own viewpoints, but please pocket your "verdicts" and please TEACHER DON'T TEACH ME NONSENSE!!!

Posted by tonsoyo| 25.12.2006 04:38

Reply Quote



tonsoyotonsoyo is offline 
Villager

avatar
 # 6

I am copying the relevant sections of the Constitution here for easy reference.





"146. (1) The Vice-President shall hold the office of President if the office of President becomes vacant by reason of death or resignation, impeachment, permanent incapacity or the removal of the President from office for any other reason in accordance with section 143 of this Constitution.

(2) Where any vacancy occurs in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (1) of this section during a period when the office of Vice-President is also vacant, the President of the Senate shall hold the office of President for a period of not more than three months, during which there shall be an election of a new President, who shall hold office for the unexpired term of office of the last holder of the office.

(3) Where the office of Vice-President becomes vacant:-

(a) by reason of death or resignation, impeachment, permanent incapacity or removal in accordance with section 143 or 144 of this Constitution;

(b) by his assumption of the office of President in accordance with subsection (1) of this section; or

(c) for any other reason,

the President shall nominate and, with the approval of each House of the National Assembly, appoint a new Vice-President."








"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.

(8) 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.

144. (1) The President or Vice-President shall cease to hold office, if -

(a) by a resolution passed by two-thirds majority of all the members of the executive council of the Federation it is declared that the President or Vice-President is incapable of discharging the functions of his office; and

(b) the declaration is verified, after such medical examination as may be necessary, by a medical panel established under subsection (4) of this section in its report to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

(2) Where the medical panel certifies in the report that in its opinion the President or Vice-President is suffering from such infirmity of body or mind as renders him permanently incapable of discharging the functions of his office, a notice thereof signed by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall be published in the Official Gazette of the Government of the Federation.

(3) The President or Vice-President shall cease to hold office as from the date of publication of the notice of the medical report pursuant to subsection (2) of this section.

(4) the medical panel to which this section relates shall be appointed by the President of the Senate, and shall comprise five medical practitioners in Nigeria:-

(a) one of whom shall be the personal physician of the holder of the office concerned; and

(b) four other medical practitioners who have, in the opinion of the President of the Senate, attained a high degree of eminence in the field of medicine relative to the nature of the examination to be conducted in accordance with the foregoing provisions.

(5) In this section, the reference to "executive council of the Federation" is a reference to the body of Ministers of the Government of the Federation, howsoever called, established by the President and charged with such responsibilities for the functions of government as the President may direct."



Processes of Sections 143 and 144 is only necessary for removal by section 146 (1) (2) (3) (a) & (b) not for (c)

Posted by tonsoyo| 25.12.2006 04:54

Reply Quote



tonsoyotonsoyo is offline 
Villager

avatar
 # 7

Another issue that I will like to quickly address is the issue of Section 142.

The basic duty of the Court is to not to interprete the law because the English or the language is too difficult to understand but to look into the minds of the drafters of the relevant laws and bring out the rationale for the provision as it is applicable to any issue(s) at hand.

I challenge anybody who thinks that Section 142 relevance ends at nomination and not tenure of office to give a plausible rationale for the provision, when one can be a member of a party to become a VP today and decamp the day after election.

The purport of that section of law is to make it a pre-condition to becoming a Vice - President, I think it is common sensical that if it is a pre -condition for getting there at all, then your continued membership depend on it. It is self-serving to separate the two, because it would render the provision meaningless.
It is like a party invitation that says you need a Tuxedo to get in. Let's say Alhaji Bala now wore his Tuxedo to get into the party, and quickly head for the restroom to change into his "Babaringa" saying afterall I only need a Tuxedo to get in.
O ti o Alhaji Bala don miss am.

Posted by tonsoyo| 25.12.2006 05:29

Reply Quote



docokwydocokwy is offline 
Villager

avatar
 # 8

We Won’t Impeach Atiku – Senators
25th December
By Habib Aruna (Lagos) Paul Mumeh and Adetutu Folasade-Koyi (Abuja)


Senators are determined to resist President Olusegun Obasanjo’s sack of his Deputy, Atiku Abubakar, for defecting to the Action Congress (AC) and picking its ticket for the Presidential ballot.

They vowed to stop the process, if it is ever initiated in the Senate, and to ensure that the two thirds majority required to impeach Atiku is not achieved.

The National Executive Committee (NEC) of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) expelled him from the party at the weekend, while Obasanjo withdrew his official apparatuses.

But senators cutting across the political divide have vowed to resist any call for his impeachment.

They deliberated the implication of the action at the weekend and said it would be treated like the probe of the Petroleum Technology Development Fund (PTDF).

One participant from the North East said: "Forget any move by Obasanjo to impeach Atiku here in this Senate. He will never get two-thirds majority in both Houses. We have met and we are resolute in out decision. In taking that decision, we have the understanding of some aggrieved PDP senators. The impeachment will never happen. When Jigawa State Governor, Saminu Turaki, crossed over to the PDP, did anyone say anything about removing him from office?

"On the floor of this Senate, more than 10 Senators have moved from one party to another and their seats have not been declared vacant. So, why is Atiku’s case different?

"Let us get our facts right. Number one, what offence has Atiku committed in moving to the AC? Number two; is his move to the AC going to threaten the peaceful conduct of the 2007 elections? Why didn’t the President seek interpretation within the ambit of the Constitution before sacking Atiku?"

He alleged that, to arm-twist legislators, Senator Jibril Aminu (from Adamawa like Atiku) is being considered as his replacement.

Regardless, the source reiterated that he and his colleagues have resolved that Obasanjo would not remove Atiku.

Senators Farouk Bello-Bunza and Omar Hambagda, both of the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP), urged the President to respect the Constitution, the rule of law and not to overheat the polity ahead of the elections.

Said Bello-Bunza: "We should rule by respecting the rule of Law or we can either disregard the rule of law and invite chaos. It is true that the Vice President is there at the behest of the President but when has the office of the Vice President become the Vice President of the PDP?

"The Vice president is the Vice President of Nigeria first and foremost. After winning the election on the ticket of a party, the office becomes that of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, recognised by the Constitution. It shouldn’t be reduced to a party affair."

Hambagda insisted that Atiku’s movement to another party "is a constitutional issue. I am not a lawyer and I cannot interpret that action. But I don’t know if crossing over to another party is one of the impeachable offences."

Despite the criticism, the Presidency appears bent in nominating Atiku’s replacement.

Sources said the national caucus of the PDP has narrowed the slot to the North East to factor in Aminu and Bauchi Governor, Adamu Muazu, as his successor.

Governor Umaru Musa Yar’adua of Katsina, the PDP Presidential candidate, is also mentioned.

Obasanjo is expected to forward the name of the nominee to the Senate this week for confirmation, even though Atiku insists he is still in post.

In its own reaction, the AC called on Obasanjo to immediately resign or be impeached for exposing Nigeria to ridicule through his continuous abuse of office, as evident in his alleged misuse of the PTDF and his serial violation of the Constitution.

"The President has, to date, failed to satisfactorily address the weighty allegations contained in … Atiku’s Senate testimony that he used the PTDF as a slush fund," the AC stressed in a statement issued in Abuja on Sunday by its National Publicity Secretary, Lai Mohammed.

The AC said the tepid defence of Obasanjo by his acolytes has failed to exonerate him, especially as the documents tendered by Atiku have knocked the bottom off the weak defence.

"In a decent society, which we believe Nigeria is, when a President, especially one that touts the fight against corruption as a mantra, is confronted with such a serious and incontrovertible allegation, he will apologise to the citizenry and resign from office in atonement."

Posted by docokwy| 25.12.2006 06:13

Reply Quote



olootuolootu is offline 
Villager

avatar
 # 9

@Prof Aluko
Prof Aluko, I am 100% with you and you have virtually said ALL that I wanted to say on this issue. Atiku may not be the president Nigerians (including myself) want for 2007, but this man has got a constitutional rights to contest, whether Obasanjo likes it or not.
I have studied this man called Atiku for the last few months and all I could feel for him is pity and admiration. He has portrayed himself to be different from the likes of Obasanjo and co. He has shown respect for the rule of law and maturity and civility in handlings of issues and with that alone, he have continue to win more hearts and sympathies across Nigeria. I believe Atiku is a man that will understandably give up his presidential ambition if there was a true and honest round table discussion (devoid of intimidation and harassment as it is currently being witnessed) btw him and his boss on the need to give new hands a chance in moving Nigeria forward. But Obasanjo is not against Atiku bcos of corruption, he is not against him cos of incompetence, Obasanjo is only out to take revenge and trying to muscle his power as the Alfa and Omega of Nigeria which Atiku is not ready to accept. That is why I agree with your points below:
• “But understand this point: even if Atiku loses at the polls - or if, as it is quite possible and most probable, eventually AC makes a deal to ask voters to support ANPP Buhari's presidency rather than its own - which would be consistent with the AC/ANPP Memorandum of Understanding - then Atiku will at least have proved one point: that OBASANJO and the PDP, despite all their machinations, did not PREVENT him from running for the Presidency. He would have shown manly balls. Yes, they may have successfully prevented him from running under the PDP; they may have successfully prevented him from becoming president; but fortunately there are OTHER parties under which he was able to run, try as they mightily did to prevent him completely. “

ON MORALITY

I will agree with most commentators on this and other forums that morality demands that Atiku resigns his position if he is not comfortable with his party and boss. I should point out that every situation demands different approach. This type of approach (resignation) would only be possible if you are dealing with a person that is civil and law-abiding. We have seen many examples of Obasanjo craze of power, the latest being the raid of Atiku’s homes in Nigeria, even when the position of the VP have not been constitutionally declared vacant. One would then imagine what would have befallen Atiku if he had resigned long before now. I believe that it is not that Atiku is not morally aware of what is required of him but I think it more tactical strategy. If any one is immoral, it is the PDD and its leaders. They should first ask the decampees to their party to quit the seats b4 making big noise about Atiku.
If the NA and HOA know their right, this is the right time for them to start impeachment proceedings against Obasanjo for GROSS violation of the Nigerian constitution and for bringing the office of the President and VP into ridicule.
God bless you Prof Aluko for logical analysis.

Merry Xmas to all Villagers!!!

Posted by olootu| 25.12.2006 09:24

Reply Quote



pukpabipukpabi is offline 
Villager

avatar
 # 10

Oga Professor,

Thank you for your submission. But, I beg to disagree with you.

From my little knowledge of the law, Sec. 146((3)(c) provides for removal of VP for "any other reason". This provision, however must be consistent with Sec. 143.

The sirit of the law should not be ignored. It has more to do with the intent of the framers of the constitution.

Here, "any other reason" simply means any other act of the VP that is inconsistent with his position as VP. Abandoning his duties as VP, and joining another party is one of such reasons. Remember, he was elected as a VP, not as President. He possesses no executive powers, unlike Orji Kalu who possesses executive powers.

All reasonable minds can differ on this, but I bet you, Atiku is finished by the time the courts decide.

Thanks,

Paschal Ukpabi, J.D.
Michigan, USA

Posted by pukpabi| 25.12.2006 09:32

Reply Quote


Last Updated ( Thursday, 24 April 2008 )
 
< Prev   Next >