MID-WEEK ESSAY BY MOBOLAJI E. ALUKO, PH.D.
 
In Defence of the Vice-President, in the Failure of the President Doing the Right Thing
 
Burtonsville, MD, USA
 
 
December 31, 2009
 
 
INTRODUCTION
 
In the present no-see-no-hear-invalid-President-UMYA crisis in Nigeria, some blame for alleged timidity has been put on Vice-President Goodluck Jonathan [for example, see Sylvester Udemezue (Esq.), in "When the Vice President can act during President’s absence", The Sun, December 30, 2009]I believe that such criticism is unfair, and that he has been acting very prudently and constitutionally as his office requires.
 
In the absence of the invocation of Section 145 of the 1999 Constitution, there is no "Acting President" in Nigeria, and the Vice-President cannot and should not pretend to be one, EXCEPT under the Doctrine of Necessity - and he better be sure of that before he acts.  The difference between an "Acting President" and a "Vice-President" is really that there is NOTHING the Acting President CANNOT/SHOULD NOT do under the powers given to the substantive President, while there is NOTHING the substantive President CAN/SHOULD do (short of writing a letter to ask for his powers back) while the Vice-President is "Acting President." 
 
In short, there CANNOT be two persons "acting", directing the affairs of state,  as President at the same time.   
 
On the other hand, a Vice-President can ONLY do those things that are:
 
(1) STATUTORILY assigned to him in the Constitution (ie Deputy-Chairman of Council of State, National Defence Council, and National Security Council, and Chairman of National Economic Council)
(2)  specifically assigned to him by the President;
(3) TRADITIONALLY/OCCASSIONALLY done by the Vice-President in the past in the normal course of the presence OR absence of the President if, under some unusual circumstance, the President was UNABLE to specifically assign certain duties to him;
(4) under the Doctrine of Necessity.
 
There is no argument about the first two situations.  In the third case, the Vice-President MAY or MAY NOT choose to do those acts without specific designation by the President EVEN if he has done them before.  He may then be accused of cowardice or dereliction of duty, but cowardice is not unconstitutional, and the dereliction of duty charge, while political,  would probably not stand legal muster.
 
The fourth case is the dicey one, for this can be done either under legal advice from a designated officer (eg the Attorney-General)  and/or an assurance of acceptance by those who he must direct to obey him.
 
 
CASES IN POINT
 
Some three germane examples will suffice, all based on the premise that the substantive President is INCAPABLE of carrying out his normal function in each of the examples for whatever reason(s), and that the Vice-President, not being designated as "Acting President", has to make a determination whether to act or not.
 
Take the issue of chairing the Federal Executive Council's regularly-scheduled bi-weekly meetings. The Vice-President is not constitutionally charged to do so, but even a healthy president has designated the VP a number of times to chair the FEC.  So even if for whatever reason, he is not specifically mandated to chair a particular or set of FEC meetings, he acts within the reasonable expectation of his office as Vice-President to chair the meetings in the forced absence of the President.  It will be hard to sustain a charge that decisions from that meeting are illegal.
 
Consequently, I believe that the Vice-President has been acting properly and wisely and legally in chairing the FEC meetings.
 
Another example is the swearing in of the Chief Justice of Nigeria.  Since the President nominates the CJN, and he was confirmed by the Senate, it would appear trite that the Vice-President, already knowing the sentiment of the President, should be able to swear in the CJN if the President were the ONLY person permitted to swear the CJN in.   In this case, however,  the Oaths Act [see http://www.nigeria-law.org/Oaths%20Act%201990.htm ] designates either the President or the CJN (it can only be the CURRENT CJN) to swear in the CJN (this can only be an INCOMING CJN).  Now the VP is not constitutionally mandated to do so, and he has NEVER been specifically designated to do such an act before.  In fact, the language of the Second Schedule of the Oaths Act shows that the President CANNOT authorize ANYBODY - not even the Vice-President - to do this job of swearing in the CJN for him, since there is language in this Second Schedule for certain positions requiring oath-taking that specifies for the oath-tenderer to be  "officers authorised by the President" or "The President or a person authorised by him", a flexibility that is MISSING when it comes to the swearing in of the CJN.  If the law had intended that flexibility, it would have specifically mentioned it.
 
It therefore means in the absence of the substantive President or "Acting President" , it is ONLY the present CJN (or whoever is Acting CJN) - and no one else -  who can swear in the incoming CJN. The fact that no current CJN has sworn in an incoming one before in Nigeria is not a basis for its illegality.  After similar situations have occurred without crisis in the United States (for example, Warren Burgher swearing in William Rehnquist in 1986.  In the United States, the president NEVER swears in the Chief Justice; it is always an Associate Judge (as Acting CJN) or the current CJN).  
 
Now in order not to have two CJNs at the same time, clearly the TENURE of the outgoing CJN should and must AUTOMATICALLY cease the minute the incoming CJN completes his Judicial Oath with the statement "So Help Me God".  No constitutional crisis need be generated thereafter concerning the co-existence of two CJNs.  In any case, if any legal furore is raised over the matter as to a one-second, one-minute, one-day or thre-day co-existence of two CJNs, by the time the matter winds its way through the courts, the matter would be moot. In any case, what harm has been done? Furthermore, since it is conceivable that the matter could end up in the same Supreme Court, one wonders how or whether that court would rule in a matter so intimately concerning itself in which no harm has really been done.  
 
The bottom-line here is that it is not a battle worth fighting.  The current CJN Kutigi has sworn in the incoming CJN Katsina-Alu (on December 30), even if technically (according to the tenacious Kutigi) there were two CJNs during a 12-hour period; the Vice-President wisely stayed out of it, and we should let the matter rest.
 
The third example is the issue of signing a Budget Bill - either a Supplementary Budget Bill one or a substantive Annual Budget Bill. Again, the VP is not constitutionally mandated to sign any bill, neither has he done it once before under designation by the President.  He is therefore left at the mercy of the Doctrine of Necessity, which decision must have three components: time, urgency and consequence of inaction. 
 
Any Budget Bill covers a particular period of time, with the Annual Bill being over a 12-month period, and a Supplementary Bill over a shorter-period of that same 12-month period.  The urgency comes about with respect to whether the bill should (or is traditionally) passed BEFORE the period in question, early enough during the period in question - or has sometimes been the case in Nigeria - way into the period in question, sometimes as late as five or six months into the Annual Budget cycle.  The consequence of inaction might stem from the lack of a continuing expenditure clause which permits expenditures (for example) at the same level of the last budget UNTIL a new budget is passed.
 
What this means under the Doctrine of Necessity is that a Vice-President might not/ should not RUSH to sign a Budget bill if the TRADITIONAL or even one-time length of period over which past budgets have been negotiated before signing it has not been reached.  Under the Doctrine of Necessity, therefore, it is prudent to PUSH the time-limits of action, so that politically you are not perceived to be power-hungry and too eager to usurp the powers of the President.  When that time trigger occurs, it is then most likely that it will be at the urging of the official legal officers, and those who must obey your acts without legal question will be much more ready to do so.
 
In the particular case of Nigeria's supplementary budget, I understand that its time limit has been extended to March 31, 2010.  I would advise that by end of January, if the substantive President is still missing in action, the Vice-President should sign it under the doctrine of necessity, whether he has been designated Acting President or not.  However he should not sign the Annual Budget until April or May 2010 since Budget signings have been delayed that long even in the presence of healthy presidents.
 
 
WHY THE STRIFE?
 
It is unfortunate that our present PDP government and its Presidency are acting at the edges of the law, making reasonable people tear at each other all over the land, and causing the dissipation of so much energy over trite processes.   Not all that is legal is always prudent.   Forty-three days away today from Nigeria under a serious medical condition, the President should by now have invoked Section 145 to designate his VP as the Acting President - as President Regan did in the United States in 1985 and Bush did in 2002 - so that all of this second-guessing (eg "Is it because Jonathan Goodluck is a Niger-Deltan, that is why he has not been appointed Acting President?") and rage ("Is this not more evidence of Northern arrogance/hegemony/feudalism?")  and frustration ("See, no one to sign the Supplementary Budget, no one to swear in the Chief Justice, etc.") in the land would not have been necessary.  That is the responsible thing to do.  If he could not do so BEFORE he left for Saudi Arabia -  he reportedly suddenly took ill, collapsed and had to be rushed abroad, and so his departure for surgery, etc. was not pre-meditated - then certainly the same strength that he mustered to sign the Supplementary Budget  Bill two days ago should have been used to sign a hand-over bill once-and-for-all.
 
 
 
SOME RECOMMENDATIONS
 
Finally, although it should not have been necessary, it might require that for the future, a stipulation be put in our Constitution MANDATING a president to hand over to the Vice-President as "Acting President" if a medical procedure involving surgery and/or sedation is elected; or that a Vice-President automatically becomes Acting President whenever such a situation is determined to be the case.  Furthermore, since many of our bills have a 30-day deadline, if a President is away from Nigerian soil for whatever reason for more than twenty-one calendar days, an Acting President must be mandated by law.  We might also take a cue from the similar circumstances which surrounded Israeli Prime-Minister Ariel Sharon's own continuing incapacitation (see below),  where we may also wish to simplify our laws to avoid the FEC and National Assembly determinations of "permanent" or even "temporary" incapitance by allowing a technocratic Attorney-General (hopefully that position will be separated from Minister of Justice) and a technocratic Surgeon-General (not a Minister of Health) to do the medical certification and recommendation for incapacitance.
 
And while on the matter of Chief Justices, it is interesting to note that of our eleven indigenous CJNs since 1958, seven have been under the Colonials and the Military, for a total of 46 years out of 51 years and  four CJNs under civilians in 5 years!   That turn-over in CJNs under civilians is unhealthy, and has been because of the practice of choosing the most senior associate Justice willy-nilly as CJN, no matter how close he is to the retiring age of 70 years.  We may want to change our law or practice to require that if you cannot serve as CJN for 5 years, you will not be considered, even if you are the most senior Justice.  If you choose to retire, fine, but we will pay you CJN salary for the period you would otherwise have been CJN! :-)
 
I rest my case.
 
 
 
Bolaji Aluko, Esquare
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
 
http://www.nigerianmuse.com/20091221093338zg/essays/the-yar-adua-presidency-saga-and-whether-the-nation-is-really-stuck-mobolaji-aluko-phd
The Yar'Adua Presidency Saga - and Whether the Nation is Really Stuck - Mobolaji Aluko, PhD
(December 21, 2009)
 
 
___________________
 
 
APPENDIX I
 
 
QUOTE
 
Information on Ariel Sharon
 
 
Stroke of December 2005
 
On 18 December 2005 Sharon was sent to Hadassah Medical Center after suffering a mild stroke, specifically a relatively unusual type called a paradoxical embolism, in which a clot from the venous circulation crosses over into the arterial circulation through a hole between the right and left atrium called an atrial septal defect (or a patent foramen ovale) and goes to the brain, causing a transient speech and motor disturbance..............

Stroke of January 2006
 
On 4 January 2006, in the evening before his catheterization, Sharon suffered a second, far more serious stroke at his Sycamore Ranch in the Negev region. A "massive cerebral haemorrhage" led to bleeding in his brain which doctors eventually brought under control the following morning after performing two separate operations. After the first operation, lasting seven hours, Hadassah Director Shlomo Mor-Yosef reported Sharon's bleeding had stopped and his brain was functioning without artificial support.[32] After a second, 14-hour surgery, Sharon was placed on a ventilator and some reports suggested that he was suffering from paralysis in his lower body, while others said he was still fighting for his life. He was placed in an induced coma and his Prime Ministerial duties were handed over to his deputy, Ehud Olmert. On Friday, 6 January, Sharon was brought back into the operating theatre after doctors reviewed the results of a brain scan. Hospital officials declined to comment on these reports.
 
On the night of Sharon's stroke, in the wake of his serious illness and following consultations between Government Secretary Israel Maimon and Attorney General Menachem Mazuz, Sharon was declared "temporarily incapable of discharging his powers." As a result, Ehud Olmert, the Deputy Prime Minister, was officially confirmed as the Acting Prime Minister of Israel. Olmert and the Cabinet announced that the elections would take place on 28 March as scheduled.
 
On 9 January, Haaretz reported that while performing tests on Sharon while treating his second stroke, doctors had discovered he was suffering from undiagnosed cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA), a brain disorder which, in conjunction with blood thinners prescribed after his first stroke, greatly increased his risk of cerebral hemorrhage. Although some have insinuated that this news represents a failure on Hadassah's part to provide adequate care for Sharon, CAA can be very difficult to accurately diagnose, and is often only discovered after an individual suffers a brain hemorrhage. The following day, newspapers reported that Sharon's CAA had actually been diagnosed following his first stroke in December. This was confirmed by hospital director Mor-Yosef who commented that "Hadassah physicians were aware of the brain diagnosis, and no new diagnosis has been made during the current hospitalization." Mor-Yosef declined to respond to criticism of the combination of blood thinners and a CAA diagnosis, though Haaretz quoted some doctors as saying the medication led to the second stroke and that it would never have been given if doctors had known about his brain condition.[33]
 
Sharon underwent subsequent surgeries the following month. On 11 February 2006, doctors performed emergency surgery to remove 50-cm of his large intestine that had become necrotic, probably because of a blood clot.[34] On 22 February, he underwent an additional procedure to drain excess fluid from his stomach, discovered during a routine CT scan.[35]
 
Replacement by Ehud Olmert
 
According to Israeli law, an Acting Prime Minister can remain in office 100 days after the Prime Minister has become incapacitated. After 100 days, the Israeli President must appoint a new Prime Minister. At the time of his stroke, Sharon enjoyed considerable support from the general public in Israel.[38] The new centrist political party that he founded, Kadima, won the largest number of seats in the Knesset elections held on 28 March 2006. (Since Sharon was unable to sign a nomination form, he was not a candidate and therefore ceased to be a Knesset member.)
 
On 6 April, President of Israel Moshe Katsav formally asked Ehud Olmert to form a government, making him Prime Minister-Designate. Olmert had an initial period of 28 days to form a governing coalition, with a possible two-week extension.[39] On 11 April 2006, the Israeli Cabinet deemed that Sharon was incapacitated. Although Sharon's replacement was to be named within 100 days of his becoming incapacitated, the replacement deadline was extended due to the Jewish festival of Passover.[40] A provision was made that, should Sharon's condition improve between 11 April and 14 April, the declaration would not take effect. Therefore, the official declaration took effect on 14 April, formally ending Sharon's term as Prime Minister and making Ehud Olmert the country's new Prime Minister.
 
Subsequent care
 
On 28 May 2006, Sharon was transferred from the hospital in Jerusalem to a long-term care unit of the Sheba Medical Center in Tel HaShomer, a large civilian and military hospital. Ha'aretz reported that this move was an indication that Sharon's doctors did not expect him to emerge from his coma in the foreseeable future. Dr. Yuli Krieger, a physician not involved in Sharon's case, told Israel Radio that the chances of waking up after such a lengthy coma were small. "Every day that passes after this kind of event with the patient still unconscious the chances that he will gain consciousness get smaller," said Krieger, Deputy Head of Levinstein House, another long-term care facility.[41]
 
On 23 July 2006, CNN reported that Sharon's condition was deteriorating and his kidney function was worsening.[42] On 26 July 2006 doctors moved him to intensive care and began hemofiltration.[43] On 14 August 2006 doctors reported that Sharon's condition worsened significantly and that he was suffering from pneumonia in both lungs.[44] On 29 August, doctors reported that he had been successfully treated for his pneumonia and moved out of intensive care back to the long-term care unit.[45]
 
On 3 November 2006, it was reported that Sharon had been admitted to intensive care after contracting an infection, though doctors insisted that his condition was 'stable'.[46] He was moved out of the intensive care unit on 6 November 2006 after treatment for a heart infection. Doctors stated that "his heart function has improved after being treated for an infection and his overall condition has stabilised".[47]
 
In 2006, there were reports that Austrian and Israeli police were investigating Martin Schlaff and Robert Nowikovsky of illicit payments to Sharon.[48][49][50]
 
Sharon has remained in a long-term care centre since 6 November 2006.[51] Medical experts have indicated that Sharon's cognitive abilities were destroyed by the massive stroke, and that he is in a persistent vegetative state with slim chances of regaining consciousness.[52]
 
On 13 April 2007, it was reported that Sharon's condition had slightly improved and that according to his son, Omri, he was marginally responsive.[53] On 27 October 2009 his doctor reported that he is still comatose but in a stable condition.[54]
 
UNQUOTE
 
 
APPENDIX II

 
 
 
THE SUN
When the Vice President can act during President’s absence
 By Sylvester U demezue
Wednesday, December 30, 2009

 

Section 145 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria provides that “whenever the President transmits to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives a written declaration that he is proceeding on vacation or that he is otherwise unable to discharge the functions of his office, until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary such functions shall be discharged by the Vice-President as Acting President.”

The section does not say what happens in a situation where the President fails or refuses to transmit such written declaration, especially in view of the fact that there must never be a vacuum in the office —- nature abhors vacuum; Law abhors vacuum; even reason abhors vacuum? For instance, assuming the President suddenly takes ill and is rushed to a hospital in a coma, and he remains in that condition for long, should the affairs of State stand still as a result, until the President comes out of his coma, for the reason that he failed to transmit such written declaration as envisaged by section 145 and that the Federal Executive Council is yet to invoke section 144 of the Constriction, to empower a Panel to investigate whether the President has become permanently incapacitated? The answer, in my humble view is, No! In such situations, the true position is that in between the President`s absence without complying with section 145 and in the invocation of section 144 by the FEC, the VP is entitled and indeed does have a duty under the doctrine of necessity to stand in for the President and discharge the functions of the President`s office on the President`s behalf.

He performs such functions not as Acting President, for he has not been crowned one, but as a Vice President whom the Constitution envisages at all times to step into the shoes of the President if a vacuum is created by the action or inaction of the President; otherwise there would be no need in the first place for section 141 of the Constitution which states as follows — there shall be for the Federation a Vice-President. In fact, it is obvious that Vice President Goodluck Jonathan has been discharging some functions of the office of President since Alhaji Yar`adua departed Nigeria on medical grounds —- he has been presiding over FEC meetings, welcoming State House visitors, and attending to some other State functions all on behalf of the President.

The only problem is that the VP, either out of sheer cowardice or for fear of being accused of being too forward, has himself chosen not to perform certain functions of the President`s office, and quite erroneously so in my humble view. The VP has a duty as aforesaid to act for the President under the doctrine of necessity, to avoid a vacuum, especially as the Constitution does not provide for how to handle situations such as this one. This being the case, it would follow that no action of the Vice President while so acting is invalidated on grounds of non-compliance with section 145, as the very reason for the establishment of the office of Vice President for the Federation is to ensure no vacuum in the leadership of the nation.

My humble view therefore is that since there is a lacuna in the Constitution as regards the solution for a situation, such as the present one, where the President fails, due to ill-health, to comply with section 145. We already know that even as it is now, the President does not cease to hold office pursuant to section 144 until he is certified to be “suffering from such infirmity of body or mind as renders him permanently incapable of discharging the functions of his office,” under section 144 (2). However, if the FEC feels the President’s absence has stretched for so long as to make them believe he may no longer be able to continue as President, the FEC can then invoke the provisions of 144. But let me quickly point out that invocation of section 144 is entirely at the DISCRETION of the Federal Executive Council. It cannot be compelled by a court of law in this respect. But in the midst of the confusion created by the present situation, which is not contemplated by the Constitution, the VP is both entitled and in duty bound to act in the President`s stead, pending the action of the FEC or the President`s return.

Where the President has deliberately abandoned his duty-post, sections 144 or 143 would apply; the President cannot hold the nation to ransom — the nation is bigger than he. But where the situation is not deliberate such as it is now, the VP can validly act. If under section 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,” it necessarily and reasonably follows that where the President is for reasons of ill-health absent for a while, the Vice President must continue to act on behalf of the President, being the number two citizen, the second in command, pending the President`s return (in which case the President continues from where the VP stops) or pending the invocation of section of section 144 or until any of the events mention in section 146 happens, in which case the VP shall be sworn in as President.

There are therefore three scenarios in which the Vice president shall be in duty bound to perform the functions of the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The first is where the President complies with section 145; in this instance, the VP shall assume the status of Acting President and continues to perform the functions of the office of President until the President transmits a written declaration to the contrary.

The second is where the President is impeached or section 146 (supra) applies; here, the VP shall automatically assume the status of, and be immediately sworn in as, the Executive President, and appoint another VP. The third scenario, which is what applies in the instant case, is a situation where the President for any reason is absent and fails to transmit a written declaration as required under section 145; in such a case, which is not contemplated by the Constitution, either of two things must happen —- if the President is hale and hearty and has deliberately abandoned his duty post without complying with section 145, he may be impeached, except section 144 is invoked; but if his absence is on grounds of ill-health and his failure to transmit the written declaration is therefore not deliberate, the only reasonable thing to do is that the VP must stand in for him until he returns or until section 144 is invoked or the office of the President becomes vacant pursuant to section 146.

There are three reasons the VP must so act in the last scenario —- he alone is empowered to replace or stand in for the President in times like this; the fact that the President has failed to comply with section 145 and the FEC is yet to invoke section 144 has raised the doctrine of necessity, which empowers as well as imposes a duty on the VP to act till further notice, to avoid a vacuum, and so that the affairs of state are not ground to a halt. It was this same doctrine that necessitated General Agui-Ironsi`s taking over the mantle of leadership in 1966 in the aftermath of the Nzeogwu coup

In conclusion, it is my humble view that while the VP is in duty bound to automatically stand in for the President in situations such as this, it is high time the Federal Executive Council initiated moves under section 144 of the Constitution, so that a medical Panel can be constituted to look critically into the President`s present state of health with a view to determining whether or not the nature of his ailment is such as has rendered him permanently incapable of discharging the functions of his office, in which case the VP would be sworn in as President without any delay. In this way, and only in this way, the present tension, uncertainty and near-confusion foisted on the nation by the President`s present absence on health grounds would be defused once and for all.

This particular action has now more than ever before become indispensable in view of the Vice president`s refusal, though erroneously, to stand in for the President in certain matters while acting in some others. In the final analysis, it is the VP`s failure to discharge duties thrust upon him under the doctrine of necessity in a situation not covered by the 1999 Constitution, rather than the President`s ill health (any one can take ill at any time), that has put the Nigerian nation into the present quandary. So, rather than quarrel with the President for his failure to comply with section 145 of the Constitution (which we cannot even say was deliberate, considering the circumstances surrounding his departure for the Saudi Arabian hospital), Nigerians should hold their Vice President responsible for his deliberate refusal to do what he must do as the second in Command under the Constitution. Since under section 5 (1) of the Constitution, the executive powers of the country shall be discharged by the President of the Federal Republic either directly or through the Vice President and the Ministers, it would not be out of place to suggest that, as the next person to the President, the Vice President has a duty to act in any situation where the President is absent and unable to discharge the duties of his office.
By: Udemezue, Sylvester C Esq. (udems)
Lecturer, Nigerian Law School, Lagos
udemsyl@gmail.com, udemsyl@aol.co.uk, mrudems@yahoo.com