The impeachment of the Deputy-Governor of Zamfara State, Mr. Mahadi Ali Gusau has elicited reactions from Nigerians in the last couple of days with Nigeria’s main opposition Party, the People’s Democratic Party reportedly referring to the impeachment as illegal and unconstitutional and stating that same would be challenged in Court. The reasons for the impeachment remain controversial as it appears to have reportedly stemmed from the refusal of the Deputy-Governor to toe the line of his Superior, the Governor to defect to the All Progressives Congress from the People’s Democratic Party. Curiously, the impeached Deputy-Governor was immediately replaced by a serving Senator Hassan Muhammadu (Also known as Nasiha).
The question is whether the Deputy-Governor’s impeachment has any implication for the Governor who was elected into office with him on a joint ticket. The other issue is whether a serving Senator can be nominated, screened and appointed to serve as a Deputy-Governor of a State. Regarding the latter, section 68 of the Constitution states that a Senator shall vacate his seat if he becomes the President, Vice-President, Governor, Deputy Governor, Minister, Commissioner or a Special Adviser. It follows that the seat of Senator Hassan Muhammadu has become vacant and should be filled by a bye election.
Nigeria’s Constitution makes adequate provision for the impeachment of a Deputy-Governor of a State and if the said procedure is followed, the outcome does not affect the position of the Governor. Rather, the vacant position of the Deputy-Governor created by the impeachment would be filled. The procedure for impeachment of a Governor and Deputy-Governor are the same and as outlined in section 188 of the Constitution is as follows:
- A notice of allegation against the Deputy-Governor by not less than one-third of members of the House of Assembly stating that the Deputy-Governor is guilty of gross misconduct in the performance of his duties with details of such gross misconduct (which is defined by the Constitution as a grave violation or a breach of the provisions of the Constitution or a misconduct of such a nature as amounts, in the opinion of the House of Assembly to gross misconduct);
- Speaker of the House of Assembly shall within 7 days of receipt of such a notice cause a copy to be served on the Members of the House of Assembly and the Deputy-Governor and shall also distribute any response to the allegations to the Members of the House of Assembly;
- Within 14 days of the presentation of the notice to the Speaker of the House of Assembly, the House shall decide by a motion by votes of at least two-thirds majority if the allegation should be investigated, whether or not the Deputy-Governor responded;
- Within 7 days of the passage of the motion to investigate, the Chief Judge of the State shall at the request of the Speaker appoint a Panel of seven persons who in his opinion are of unquestionable integrity and who are not members of any public service, legislative House or political party to investigate the allegations against the Deputy-Governor who shall have the right to defend himself or be represented before the Panel by a legal practitioner of his choice. The Panel shall have and exercise powers and functions in line with procedures laid down by the House of Assembly and report its finding to the House within 3 months of its appointment;
- If the Panel reports to the House of Assembly that the allegation has not been proved, no further action shall be taken in respect of the matter.
- Where the report of the Panel is that the allegation against the Deputy-Governor has been proved, then within 14 days of the receipt of the report, the House of Assembly shall consider the report, and if by a resolution of the House of 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.
Clearly, from the above provisions of the Constitution, the office of the Deputy-Governor is recognized as distinct from that of the Governor upon their assumption of office. Moreover, section 186 of the Constitution provides for the office of the Deputy-Governor for each State of the Federation. This is different from their positions as flag-bearers of a political party prior to their election (in which case, the disqualification of one automatically affects the other).
Curiously, the constitution forecloses the challenge of the process leading up to an impeachment in a Court. See section 188(10) of the Constitution which states that:
“No proceedings or determination of the Panel or of the House of Assembly or any matter relating to such proceedings or determination shall be entertained or questioned in any court”
This provision effectively prevented the Courts from deciding cases on impeachment until the case of Inakoju & Ors v. Adeleke & Ors which set the tone for the new stance of the Judiciary regarding impeachments that did not comply with the law. The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal have rightly held that the provisions of section 188(10) of the Constitution which is intended to oust the jurisdiction of the Court in an impeachment proceedings can only apply if the proper procedure was complied with. In this regard, the statement of the Supreme Court per Ngwuta, JSC is instructive as follows:
Impeachment of elected politicians is a very serious matter and should not be conducted as a matter of course. The purpose is to set aside the will of the electorate as expressed at the polls. it has implication for the impeached as well as the electorate who bestowed the mandate on him. whether it takes one day or the three months prescribed by law, the rules of due process must be strictly followed. if the matter is left to the whims and caprices of politicians and their panels, a State or even the entire Country could be reduced to the status of a banana republic. the procedure for impeachment and removal must be guarded jealously by the Courts.
See the case of Danladi v. Dangiri & Ors (2014) LPELR 24020 (SC)
Based on the above principle, the impeachment of some former Governors, Mr. Rashidi Ladoja of Oyo State, Peter Obi of Anambra State and Joshua Dariye of Plateau State were nullified and the Governors reinstated.
It is not surprising that many impeachment attempts (and there have been several since 1999) are controversial because arguably, they are mostly politically motivated and it appears that those behind it want to get rid of the office holder sought to be impeached as quickly as possible. Thankfully, the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances have been applied to forestall the abuse of powers by the legislative arm of Government which is usually at the centre of impeachment proceedings. Impeachment itself is a tool to check to check the abuse of power by the Executive and it is only logical that where the Legislative Arm of Government fails to exercise its power to impeach in accordance with the law, then the Judiciary should be given an opportunity to review the process as a way of also checking the possibility of abuse by the Legislative Arm.
Overall, the decision of the impeached Deputy-Governor of Zamfara State, Mr. Mahadi Ali Gusau as well as the PDP to challenge the impeachment in court is in order and it is expected that the Judiciary will ensure that the rule of law and the supremacy of the constitution are upheld as with previous cases of impeachment, in the event that the proper procedure was not complied with.
Legally Yours 