A constitutional lawyer has argued that President Bola Tinubu could face impeachment proceedings if he is found to have failed to comply with constitutional requirements governing the exercise of presidential powers during his prolonged absence from Nigeria.
The lawyer spoke amid growing controversy over Tinubu’s extended stay in Europe, which the Presidency has described as a “working vacation”.
Tinubu left Nigeria on August 30 for his annual leave and was initially expected to return after three weeks. The Presidency later announced an extension, with the President expected back in Nigeria during the week.
The controversy centres on Section 145 of the 1999 Constitution, which provides for the President to transmit a written declaration to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives when proceeding on vacation or when otherwise unable to perform the functions of his office.
The provision also states that where the President fails to transmit such a declaration within 21 days, the National Assembly may, by a simple majority in both chambers, mandate the Vice-President to perform the functions of President as Acting President.
The lawyer’s position is that failure by the President to comply with a constitutional obligation could have serious legal consequences, including impeachment proceedings where the relevant constitutional requirements are met.
However, lawyers have offered differing interpretations of Section 145, particularly over the relationship between the requirement to transmit a declaration and the 21-day provision.
One interpretation holds that the President is required to notify the National Assembly immediately upon proceeding on vacation, while another view is that the 21-day provision creates a threshold before the National Assembly can intervene.
The issue has also reached the courts. The African Action Congress has filed a suit at the Federal High Court in Abuja challenging Tinubu’s handling of his extended absence and asking the court to determine whether he was required to transmit a written declaration to the National Assembly.
The party also wants the court to determine whether the National Assembly failed in its constitutional duty by not taking steps to enable Vice-President Kashim Shettima to act as President after the applicable period.
No date had been fixed for the hearing of the suit as of the latest reports.
The legal dispute therefore remains unresolved, with the court expected to provide an authoritative interpretation of the relevant constitutional provisions if the case proceeds.
