When the whole drama started, it looked more like one of those beer parlour jokes. Expectedly, people, especially the media, quickly dubbed it, rather derisively, “Chicken Impeachment”. That underscores the degree of scorn and bewilderment with which the entire comedy of the absurd was held. But those who were hell-bent on turning logic on its head were not prepared to blink at all. After all, there was a supreme agenda that must be executed at all cost without paying the least attention to whatever the ‘uninitiated’ might think about. The uninitiated, this time, are the majority of Nigerians who are still astonished by the tragi-comedy that played out in Enugu State, a place regarded as the political capital of South-east Nigeria. Remember, Enugu was the capital of the old Eastern Region from whence all other states in the South-east zone of the country today, were born.
Anyway, the agenda was simply just to lynch a political foe of an imperial governor, using the instrumentality of the impeachment clause as enshrined in Section 188 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria. That section lays down procedures for the appointment and removal of governors of every state in the country. This provision of the constitution is sacrosanct and provides the only acceptable procedures for removal, or more commonly termed “impeachment”, of a sitting governor or in some instances, the deputy governor, as we have witnessed in the country. Section 188 lays down procedure for possible removal on grounds of “Gross Misconduct”.
The truth is that, on Tuesday, August 26, Sunday Onyebuchi, the deputy governor of Enugu State, was impeached by the Enugu State House of Assembly. This latest development orchestrated by the members of the assembly, who merely pandered to the whim and caprice of the governor, presented a new plot in the recent wave of impeachments and “attempted impeachments” in the country. This ‘novel’ case of impeachment, as the deputy governor himself would later attest, was unique because of the puerile charges on which it was anchored. Controversial as it was, with obvious legal issues raised, the episode has now been safely etched into the dark recesses of our history books. Whatever anybody might say now falls in the realm of conjectures as the deed has been done.
Now, let us examine the legal points of this impeachment. Section 188 (1) – (11) of the 1999 Constitution stipulates the provisions which we must assume were followed by the Enugu House of Assembly in carrying out the impeachment of Onyebuchi. According to sub-section (2) (b) of that section, the process is begun as in this case when the Speaker of the House of Assembly is presented with charges “stating that the holder of such office is guilty of gross misconduct in the performance of the functions of his office, detailed particulars of which shall be specified”.
The charges drawn up against Onyebuchi include his continuous operation of a poultry farm within his official quarters even though “by a resolution of the Enugu State House of Assembly at its plenary on Tuesday, February 12, 2013, the House of Assembly prohibited the maintenance and operation of commercial livestock and poultry farms within residential neighbourhoods in Enugu metropolis in promotion of public health standards; which resolution was further accepted by the government for implementation”. Added to the charge was his refusal to perform state duties assigned to him by the governor pursuant to section 193 (1) of the Constitution which gives the governor authority to do so.
In the somewhat comical episode, the only real legal issue is whether the conduct of the deputy governor, as alleged in the charges, constitutes “gross misconduct” envisaged by the Constitution in section 188 (2) (b). This question could have simply been addressed by the provisions of section 188 (11), which defined the meaning of “gross misconduct” in that section as “a grave violation or breach of the provisions of this Constitution or a misconduct of such nature as amounts in the opinion in the House of Assembly to gross misconduct”. That particular provision has been widely held to be ambiguous, but the fact that cannot be denied is that the provision has left the determination of what constitutes “gross misconduct” under that section largely in the hands of a House of Assembly. This means simply that “gross misconduct” in that section is what the state legislators in their discretion say it is. That is where the problem is, both for the constitution in this regard and in Onyebuchi’s case presently.
On the poultry-rearing charge, the Enugu State House of Assembly stated that it was continued even after a resolution of the House against it, “which was further accepted by the government for implementation”. If the intendment of those who drafted the charges was to prove that the deputy governor broke a law, then from an objective point of view, the attempt has failed. Section 100 (1) of the Constitution states that the power of a State House of Assembly to make laws shall be exercised by bills passed by the House of Assembly, which may then be passed into law by assent by the governor or two-thirds majority of the House. A mere resolution of the House, as indicated in the charges against Onyebuchi, is not law and does not have the legal force that the legislators suggest it has. This weakens the case of “gross misconduct” against Onyebuchi to a large extent.
For argument sake, and this is a genuine argument, one can say that Onyebuchi’s refusal to perform state functions as directed by the governor, if it can be proved, is in violation of section 193 (1) of the constitution. Whether it constitutes a “grave violation” is another matter entirely, which brings back the issues of ambiguity. The legislators may also have included this in the charge to boost the weight of the charges and create an increased notion of legality. Whether it succeeds in pushing the scales is left to anyone’s imagination as, according to that section, the legislators have the final say.
While we may continue to debate the legal issues from the impeachment and highlight the ambiguity of the constitutional provisions, one should also remember that the contemplation of the drafters of the constitution and the very spirit of the constitution in this matter, hinges on the expectation that elected legislators will be objective and upright members of the society capable of making sound and fair judgments. The constitution cannot be expected to contain or envisage all possible scenarios or definitions known to man, but the human mind, which is responsible for its propagation and implementation, also needs to be trusted to do so diligently without fear or favour and in line with the spirit of the law contained in the constitution.
It is perhaps no news to the Enugu people and others beyond the borders of Enugu that the relationship between the governor and his deputy was declining before the impeachment saga. The way it played out also left little doubt that the governor’s loyalists, yes-men or surrogates, who form the bulk of the House of Assembly, including the Chief Judge of the state, whose appointment is largely based on the governor’s discretion, have played out a well-written script to get rid of the errant deputy. We can blame the constitution, its draftsmen or the legislators. The blame in a democracy must, however, always falls back on the people who elect their representatives. This is because our choice of leaders is always a reflection of our character as a people.
What the Enugu State legislators have done is tantamount to lynching a man at the market square on mere suspicion that he may have committed an offence. Well, Onyebuchi has resolved to head to the courts. But one thing is that the courts cannot directly contravene the constitution. If the constitution says the House of Assembly has the discretion to determine what constitutes “gross misconduct”, then the courts cannot fetter this discretion except the legislators’ interpretation is so biased, and against logic and common sense, that it will be clear to a common man that it is absurd and against the spirit of the constitution.
