By Odita Sunday
The Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) has challenged Senate President Godswill Akpabio’s interpretation of the constitutional provisions governing presidential absence, demanding that the National Assembly address the controversy surrounding President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s continued stay abroad.
HURIWA’s position followed Akpabio’s recent declaration that there was no vacancy in the Presidency because Tinubu remained in power and could continue to direct government affairs remotely through modern communication technology. Akpabio also said he was not the Acting President.
In a statement signed by its National Coordinator, Emmanuel Nnadozie Onwubiko, on Wednesday, HURIWA argued that the central issue was not whether the President could communicate with officials or issue directives from outside Nigeria, but whether the constitutional procedure governing temporary presidential absence had been complied with.
The rights group cited Section 145 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, which provides that when 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 Speaker of the House of Representatives.
The provision further states that where the President fails or is unable to transmit the declaration within 21 days, the National Assembly may, by a simple-majority resolution of each chamber, mandate the Vice-President to perform the functions of President as Acting President until the President communicates his availability to resume his functions.
HURIWA therefore faulted what it described as the substitution of technological connectivity for the constitutional procedure.
The organisation said the ability of a President to communicate, hold virtual meetings or issue directives from abroad did not, in itself, answer the separate constitutional question of how presidential functions are to be handled during a temporary absence.
The group also challenged Akpabio’s reported statement that he was the only person who could declare a presidential vacancy, arguing that Section 145 does not confer such unilateral authority on the Senate President.
According to HURIWA, the constitutional provision specifically assigns the relevant action, after the 21-day period in the circumstances specified by the Constitution, to the National Assembly through a resolution supported by a simple majority in each chamber.
The group consequently called on Akpabio to identify the constitutional provision which, in its interpretation, gives the Senate President exclusive authority to determine whether the constitutional procedure relating to presidential absence has been triggered.
HURIWA said the controversy should not be treated as a personal dispute involving Tinubu but as a question of constitutional procedure and institutional responsibility.
The organisation also urged senators to scrutinise Akpabio’s handling of the matter and, where they believe he has failed in his constitutional responsibilities, consider the procedure provided under Section 50 of the Constitution.
Section 50(2)(c) provides that the President of the Senate may vacate office if removed by a resolution of the Senate supported by not less than a two-thirds majority of the members of the chamber.
HURIWA said the provision should be available to senators if they determine that circumstances warrant such action.
The group maintained that Tinubu does not automatically cease to be President merely because he is outside the country, but argued that his physical absence must be considered alongside the specific constitutional provisions governing the temporary discharge of presidential functions.
The statement comes amid public debate over Tinubu’s extended stay abroad and the simultaneous absence of Vice-President Kashim Shettima, who is in New York for the 81st United Nations General Assembly.
Akpabio has maintained that Tinubu remains in charge of the government despite his absence from Nigeria, describing the President’s trip as a working leave and arguing that modern communication allows him to continue directing government affairs remotely.
The Presidency had earlier announced that Tinubu’s stay abroad had been extended by a few days, with reports indicating that he was expected to return at the weekend.
HURIWA, however, called on the National Assembly to examine the circumstances against the text of Section 145 and provide Nigerians with clarity on the constitutional procedure.
The organisation urged lawmakers to place constitutional provisions above partisan considerations, insisting that no political office holder or institution should be treated as being above 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 group maintained that the National Assembly has a responsibility to ensure that questions concerning the temporary discharge of presidential functions are addressed within the framework of the Constitution.
About the Author
