AKUNYILI’S STANDPOINT

Newsflash

Editorial

AKUNYILI’S STANDPOINT

Monday, 15 March 2010

AFTER participating in a brief meeting of the Executive Council of the Federation (EXCOF), the first after the alleged return of President Umaru Yar’Adua to the country, the Minister of Information and Communications, Professor Dora Akunyili, called on those who had been managing President Yar’Adua and issuing statements on his behalf to advise the

president to speak to Nigerians in a live broadcast. She insisted that these people were not only holding the ailing president hostage, they were also causing confusion and instability in the polity by failing to make the health status of the president known to Nigerians. Professor Akunyili said this had become necessary because the cabal had prevented cabinet members and the Acting President, Goodluck Jonathan, from seeing President Yar’Adua since his purported arrival in the country.

THE statement by the minister raised some eyebrows among some government officials. The House of Representatives promptly issued a statement urging government officials to refrain from making statements that could heat up the polity. Some advised the minister to resign if she was dissatisfied with the way the EXCOF was managing the “Yar’ Adua affair”.

Indeed, some people rebuked the minister for thinking that she could talk as a citizen and as a minister in one press briefing. The action, they argued, smacked of irresponsibility. But Some Nigerians believe that Professor Akunyili has been a consistent voice that represents the concerns of ordinary Nigerians. She appeared to be a lone voice in the midst of ministers whose commitment to self-interest overshadowed their commitment to the constitution and the welfare and interest of the generality of Nigerians.

WE think the statement of the minister holds great merit. This is not so much in the manner and the occasion on which the statements were made, but the fundamental character of the issues raised. The minister made several important points. The first is that the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Federal Republic of Nigeria symbolises the country. The health of the president is, therefore, neither the personal responsibility of the president nor the prerogative of his immediate family. Indeed, it is the responsibility of the government and people of Nigeria. This is the case not because the president’s immediate family members are not critical to his life, but because the highest office of state occupied by Yar’Adua is very strategic and his action and inaction have critical consequences for over 150 million Nigerians.

THE second point made by the minister is that from the hierarchy of the executive arm of government, the acting president (formerly vice-president) is supposed to be among the few, if not the first, to know about developments concerning the health status of the president. This is clear from the fact that it is the vice-president that assumed office as acting president, rather than the president’s wife or any other individual. Therefore, the fact that information concerning the health status of the president has been kept from the acting president is extremely strange. It shows that the presidency has not been run as envisaged by the constitution. The ensuing communication problems show very clearly that the presidency is not institutionalised.

THE third point relates to the position and role of the EXCOF. This body is saddled with the (constitutional) responsibility to act in matters concerning the health of the president. Though members of the EXCOF are expected to be loyal to the president and promote the success of the government, they swore on oaths to discharge their duties “in accordance with the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and always in the interest of the sovereignty, integrity, solidarity, well-being and prosperity of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.” That this body is not informed of the health status of the president is a great failure of the executive arm. Indeed, if FEC as a body is not adequately informed about the health of the president how can it fulfill the provisions of Section 144 of the constitution?

THE last and perhaps most difficult point made by the minister has to do with the mobilisation of soldiers to provide cover for the surreptitious return of ailing President Yar’Adua without the knowledge of the acting president and commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces. This portrays the country as a state in distress. It is an unacceptable breach of security that should never happen again.

WE call on the acting president and other key public personnel to recognise the dangers of informalising power and disregarding the values that underline the provisions of the constitution. They must recognise that the abuse of office and disregard for constitutionalism are recipes for disaster. To play politics with security is to work towards the demise of democracy.