HURIWA Faults Akpabio Over Tinubu’s Prolonged Stay Abroad

Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) has challenged the position of Senate President Godswill Akpabio that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu can continue to exercise presidential powers from outside Nigeria.

HURIWA argued that technological connectivity cannot replace the constitutional procedure governing presidential absence.

Akpabio, who spoke in Akwa Ibom State, dismissed concerns over Tinubu’s continued absence from the country, insisting that the President remained in charge and that there was no vacancy in the Presidency, as he could continue to direct government affairs from abroad.

In a statement issued to journalists yesterday in Abuja, its national coordinator, Comrade Emmanuel Nnadozie Onwubiko, said Akpabio’s position failed to address what it described as the central constitutional question under Section 145 of the 1999 Constitution.

According to the organisation, the constitutional procedure governing presidential absence is not dependent on whether a President can make telephone calls, attend meetings virtually or issue instructions through the internet.

The organisation said, “Section 145(1) provides that whenever the President proceeds on vacation or is otherwise unable to discharge the functions of his office, he is to transmit a written declaration to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

“The provision states that the Vice-President shall thereafter perform the functions of the President as Acting President until the President transmits a written declaration to the contrary.”

HURIWA further drew attention to Section 145(2), which provides that where the President is unable or fails to transmit the required declaration within 21 days, the National Assembly shall, by a resolution supported by a simple majority of each chamber, mandate the Vice-President to perform the functions of the President as Acting President until the President communicates that he is available to resume his functions.

The organisation therefore argued that the issue should be addressed within the framework of the Constitution rather than through political interpretations or assurances about the President’s ability to communicate from abroad.

Akpabio said in Akwa Ibom that he was not acting President because Tinubu remained in power and maintained that there was no vacancy in Aso Rock.

He also argued that the President was on working leave and continued to run the country’s affairs from abroad.

The remarks came after the Presidency announced that Tinubu had extended his stay abroad by a few days. The President left Nigeria on 30 August for a working vacation and was expected to return at the weekend, according to the Presidency.

Vice-President Kashim Shettima has also been outside Nigeria, having travelled to New York to represent Nigeria at the 81st United Nations General Assembly. The Presidency said other officials would represent Tinubu at some engagements during his continued absence.

HURIWA acknowledged that travelling outside Nigeria does not, by itself, mean that a President ceases to hold office.

It, however, argued that the constitutional question was whether the procedure established under Section 145 had been complied with once the circumstances contemplated by the provision arose.

“The answer cannot be supplied by political assurances, personal interpretations or the availability of the internet. It must be determined by the Constitution itself,” the organisation said.

HURIWA also questioned Akpabio’s reported assertion that he was the only person who could declare a vacancy.

The organisation argued that Section 145 does not confer on the Senate President a unilateral power to determine whether the constitutional procedure for presidential absence has been triggered.

Instead, it pointed to Section 145(2), which provides for action by the National Assembly through a resolution supported by a simple majority in each chamber where the President fails or is unable to transmit the required declaration within 21 days.

HURIWA, therefore, challenged the Senate President to identify the constitutional provision that gives him exclusive authority to determine whether a presidential vacancy or constitutional absence exists.

The organisation said the National Assembly has a responsibility to uphold constitutional checks and balances rather than provide political cover for the Executive.

HURIWA further called on senators to examine Akpabio’s conduct and public statements in relation to his constitutional responsibilities as President of the Senate.

It cited Section 50(2)(c) of the Constitution, which provides for the removal of the President of the Senate by a resolution supported by not less than two-thirds of the members of the Senate.

The organisation urged any senators who believe that Akpabio has failed in his constitutional responsibilities to use the procedure provided by the Constitution.

“This is not about President Tinubu personally. It is about whether Nigeria is governed by constitutional provisions or by political interpretations of those provisions,” HURIWA said.

The organisation maintained that Tinubu could retain his office while outside the country, but argued that the Constitution provides a specific procedure for circumstances in which the President is on vacation or otherwise unable to discharge the functions of his office.

It consequently called on the National Assembly to determine whether the requirements of Section 145 have been satisfied and to provide Nigerians with clarity on the exercise of presidential functions during the President’s prolonged absence.