The Federal Government’s silence on the alleged travel restriction placed on two state governors has sparked off debate, Fisayo Falodi writes
A recent report claiming that President Muhammadu Buhari has placed two governors on security watch list and subsequently banned them from travelling abroad without clearance from the Director-General of the Department of State Service has continued to fuel debates among socio-political analysts, lawyers and opposition politicians.
Though the Federal Government has yet to deny that it issued the directive or confirm it, the report had claimed that the activities of the two governors, one from the South-West and another from the South-South, were considered to have security implications for the country.
According to the report, the governors, whose names were not mentioned, should seek clearance from the DSS Director-General before travelling outside the country.
The signals for the travel restriction were also said to have been sent to security officials at all entry and exit points in Nigeria by the DSS.
The decision, the report said, was not meant to curtail the affected governors’ rights, but that they would be prevented by security operatives from boarding aircraft, a ship or vehicle with the intent to travel out of the country if they refused to comply with the government’s directive.
But this drew the ire of the Ekiti State Governor, Mr. Ayodele Fayose, who is believed to be an unrepentant critic of Buhari – a fact the Ekiti State governor himself admitted.
The Ekiti State governor, who is an ardent critic of the President, insinuated that the directive was meant to cow him and his Rivers State counterpart, Mr. Nyesom Wike.
While reacting to the travel ban by his Special Assistant on Public Communications and New Media, Lere Olayinka, Fayose had given an indication that the decision was meant to infringe on the fundamental human rights of state governors even when they have immunity.
Fayose therefore dared the President to stop him whenever he wished to travel out of the country, adding that he would travel abroad in the full glare of the public.
In Fayose’s view, Buhari’s travel ban was dictatorial and a disrespect for the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which gives immunity to state governors like the President.
He had said, “I am not surprised or disappointed by this latest plot of the Buhari’s government because the President that we know is a man without any atom of respect for the rights of Nigerians as enshrined in the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and this he demonstrated as a military dictator and now demonstrating as a democratically elected president.”
According to him, only a valid court order can restrict the movement of anyone, not a mere directive by the President. He therefore asked the President to be mindful of the fact that in a federal system of government, the states and national government both enjoy some autonomy with sovereign power formally divided between them.
This is just as the Osun State chapter of the Peoples Democratic Party tackled Buhari over the alleged travel restriction.
The state PDP said the President’s action was capable of plunging the country into a civil war.
The latest development, some followers of political activities in the country, said was a potential indicator that the pre-election political differences between Buhari and Fayose might not abate any moment from now.
The Ekiti State governor, who did not limit his virulent campaign against Buhari’s candidature to the 2015 general elections era, has vowed to continue to criticise the Buhari-led Federal Government, claiming that the President lacks the capacity to govern a nation like Nigeria.
Commentators said the Ekiti State governor’s resolve to always criticise Buhari’s policies, including the recent visit by the President to China, might have accounted for the reason the President placed the two governors on security watch list.
A social scientist, Mr. Adelanke Olomola, said though it is unconstitutional for state governors elected by the people to be denied exit from the country, some of the governors’ failure to behave orderly might have annoyed the President to the marrow.
While recalling one of such behaviours, Olomola said, “When the President went to China recently, Fayose also decided to travel to China and started deprecating the Federal Government and the President in particular.
“Fayose’s action affected the image of Nigeria as an undisciplined country. It was obvious that given the kind of person Buhari is, there would be consequences for such an action. One of the consequences may now be the alleged travel ban.”
But the Osun State PDP appears not to have seen anything new in Fayose’s action.
The PDP recalled that the current Osun State Governor, Rauf Aregbesola, did worse to former President Goodluck Jonathan while he was in office and therefore urged Buhari to drop the idea of placing travel ban on the two governors because they enjoy immunity under Section 308 of the constitution.
Olomola, however, emphasised this point. He said the law presumes that a governor cannot commit crime so long as he is in office, saying it is unnecessary for the Federal Government to check perceived excesses of any governor by placing travel ban on him.
The best way the excesses of a President or governor could be checked, Omolola said, is through impeachment proceedings.
He said, “According to the constitution, the President and the governor cannot commit any crime while they are still in office. In case they commit any crime, it is the National Assembly and the state House of Assembly that are empowered to caution them through impeachment proceedings, which is the only punishment allowed by the law. So, as far as the Nigeria’s constitution is concerned, the President and the governor cannot commit any crime.”
But Olomola explained that issuance of passport and other diplomatic privileges accorded high profile officials are on the exclusive list of the government.
He said, “Foreign affairs issues are on the exclusive list in the constitution and as such, they are managed by the Federal Government. In these days when debts are being incurred by different levels of the government and the states are becoming insolvent, looking up to the Federal Government for bailout to perform the basic functions of their offices, this has given undeserved power to the Federal Government to check the states and their governors.”
On the claim by the report that some activities of the governors were considered to have security implications, Olomola said, “Behind every constitution, there is an assumption that those who occupy high offices of state such as the President, vice-president, governors and deputy governors are men of integrity, mature, patriotic and responsible.
“If this is so, then the conflict between the Presidency and some governors as we are beginning to see would have been unnecessary. In other words, if all of them are committed to project Nigeria and meet this basic assumption, then their relationships and actions would have been governed by the law of the land.”
A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Chief Emeka Ngige, doubted that the Federal Government actually issued the directive because it has yet to issue any statement to deny it even days after. So, the hoopla surrounding the issue is unnecessary, according to him.
While stating that the directive to subject the two governors to security clearance before they travel abroad could be speculation or rumour, Ngige said the Federal Government could only restrict the movement of anyone that had committed an offence.
He said, “Ordinarily, the Federal Government cannot restrict the movement of anyone in and out of the country, let alone state governors because there is freedom of movement in the constitution.
“But that freedom is not unlimited; it is not something that one enjoys without restriction, especially if that person is suspected to have committed a criminal offence.”
Ngige said though the constitution prevents state governors from being arrested and prosecuted, they could still be investigated if their actions were inimical to national interests.
Citing the cases of a former Bayelsa State Governor, the late Diepreye Alamieyeseigha, and a former Plateau State Governor, Joshua Dariye, who were arrested abroad for criminal offences as examples, the SAN said, “State governors have immunity against arrest and prosecution, but there is no immunity against investigation.
“One thing we should bear in mind is that if any governor has an issue bordering on corruption and security, the Federal Government can, in collaboration with foreign security agencies, arrest such a governor as soon as he travels out of the country.
“So, governors’ immunity ends at the Nigeria’s international airports. As soon as they fly out of the country, there is no immunity for them. Even if they have issue bordering on terrorism, the governors can only be arrested abroad, not in Nigeria. But that does not exempt them from being investigated at home.”
An observer, Mr. Salau Bashiru, also doubted the existence of such a directive; he nevertheless urged the Presidency and Fayose to resolve their differences in the interest of the country.
He said, “In the interest of Ekiti State, Fayose should be cautioned by elder statesmen as his actions and utterances are bound to attract reaction from the Federal Government, especially in lopsided federal arrangement like Nigeria.
“The President too appears to be the most powerful president in the world because the institutions that could check his excesses are weak. In older federations like the United States, the institutions there are strong and can rein in the President.
“Therefore, in the interest of Nigeria, the President has a duty to work within the parameter of law. In this case, he should not easily deploy state power to belittle governors.
“The reckless use of the DSS and other agencies of government is unnecessary. When people go wrong, the first thing to do is to caution them verbally as a father does to his children.
“All the officials of the states should also realise that they hold their offices but for a while. The ultimate judge of their action is history.”
Source: punch
No comments:
Post a Comment