A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, and constitutional lawyer, Dr Ehiogie West-Idahosa, has said President Bola Tinubu can continue to exercise executive authority while away from the country, arguing that the Nigerian Constitution does not expressly prohibit a president from combining vacation with official duties.
Following President Tinubu’s prolonged stay abroad, the constitutional lawyer argued that the President remains in charge of government and can continue to perform his duties while on vacation, noting that presidents around the world maintain official responsibilities while away on what he termed “workation”, and that Tinubu’s executive powers allow him to continue acting in the overall interest of the country.
“There is somebody in charge—the President is in charge. Now, the question would be: Can a President go on vacation and at the same time be working? The current global practice worldwide is that Presidents are really unable to take a vacation because at all times the command structure is with the President. The decision on what happens and what does not happen is with the President. And so when most Presidents worldwide travel abroad for whatever reason, they remain in working touch, which is now called a ‘workation’. A workation simply means that the President, while on leave, is still in charge of the activities of government.
“Does the Constitution prohibit it? There is no mention in the Constitution prohibiting it. It’s one of those silent parts of the Constitution where the President, under Section 5, has what we call implied executive powers. As long as it is for the overall interest, what he’s doing is not a violation of the National Assembly’s power, it’s not a violation of pronounced judicial authority that I’m not aware that there’s been a Supreme Court decision on this prohibiting him from having a workation, nor am I aware that there’s been any resolution of the National Assembly,” he said.
West-Idahosa, however, noted that Section 145 places an obligation on the President to notify the National Assembly when travelling or unable to perform his duties, adding that if he fails to do so within 21 days, the National Assembly can, by resolution, authorise the Vice President to assume his functions.
He questioned why the National Assembly had not exercised that constitutional power if it believed the President was acting in breach of the Constitution.
“Section 145 of the Constitution is clear. It says where the President desires to go on vacation or where he is unable to perform his duties, he should send a letter or what we call maybe a declaration to the National Assembly informing them about that development. On this occasion, there hasn’t been such a development.
“And then the second point is, where he doesn’t do that within 21 days, and this incidentally, one of these two occasions has taken place, then the duty shifts to the National Assembly to use a simple resolution and ensure that the Vice President takes charge. So, the compelling force is the National Assembly.
“The question you should ask, assuming without conceding, that indeed he was doing something extremely and violently against the Constitution: What stops the National Assembly, that has since been given the powers, to invoke that power by resolution? Why is it standing by and watching? Why is it incapacitated—voluntarily incapacitated? What stops the National Assembly from doing its job? But on the whole, I am unable to pin a constitutional violation or breach.”
Speaking on who should compel the National Assembly to act, West-Idahosa said citizens could approach the courts for judicial interpretation, adding that Section 5 empowers the President to continue performing official duties while abroad.
“Citizen advocacy. Ideally, it’s for citizens to test this scenario in court. And that’s why the judiciary is there to make these pronouncements.
“But get something clear: It’s not every action of the President that can be put under scrutiny, because if you do that, as long as it does not violate the express powers set out for other arms of government in a constitutional democracy—do not also forget that there are clear separations of power. By Section 5 of the Constitution, executive powers—including the maintenance of law and order and a host of others—are vested in the President.”
Addressing concerns over the President’s absence at the 81st UNGA and the delegation of duties to Vice President Shettima, Dr. West-Idahosa said Tinubu’s directives on key government matters showed that he remained in command, even while outside the country.
“Let’s be clear on the question of who addresses UNGA and who does not. A number of countries perennially have their Foreign Ministers do that.
“Of course, it shows that somebody is in charge. Who delegated the Vice President to go there? There must be a delegation of authority. The Vice President does not ordinarily have the power to address UNGA. There must be that delegation of authority, and that’s Mr. President. You can’t send a Vice President to UNGA, I can’t do so, no one can except the President. So if that happens, it shows that there is active directive going on.”
He also cited the President’s directive for an investigation into the deaths of alleged illegal miners in DSS custody, arguing that such decisions demonstrated that Tinubu could exercise executive authority without being physically present in Nigeria.
“About the Niger scenario where people died, I understand that there’s been an investigation ordered, and that command came from the top. So, he may not have to be physically here to make those decisions.”
Favour Odima
Follow us on:
