President Buhari On Another Illegal And Unconstitutional “Private Visit”? By Festus Ogun

Barely two days after returning to Nigeria from Russia, President Muhammadu Buhari is again on another trip to Saudi Arabia to attend the Economic Forum of the Future Investment Initiative. As if that is not enough, Mr. Femi Adesina, the President’s Special Adviser on Media and Publicity said “at the end of the summit, President Buhari will on Saturday, November 2, 2019 proceed to the United Kingdom on a private visit. He is expected to return to Nigeria on November 17, 2019.” In effect, the President be on a “private visit” to UK for good two weeks.

I have always wondered if Nigerians elected a President or tourist. The level at which President Buhari embark on fruitless travels that are in no way contributing meaningfully to the lives of ordinary Nigerians should give every genuine lover of Nigeria a cause to worry. Whereas the economic situation right here in Nigeria is getting worse on a daily basis, the only thing the President does is to keep moving from a country to the other. With due respect, that doesn’t show seriousness in leadership.

You cannot expect quality governance from a leader who doesn’t stay at his “duty post”. Governance is beyond embarking on jamboree trips that add little or nothing to the deplorable condition of the State. With Buhari, the Aso Rock Villa is now more of cosmetic value. Or if you argue that it is not a necessity for him to stay in his office and get things properly done, what is the essence of the Office of the President in the first place? Ours is everything but a serious President.

It is on record that Buhari, during his first term, was away from the country for about 404 days (a year and 39 days) as reported by The Punch. That is spending over a year away from a country you govern – out of the four allotted years. In my estimation, that is not responsible enough. This is Buhari’s second term and he appears to be putting all efforts in place to outscore his first term’s scoresheet on, rather useless, foreign trips. Only an enemy of the Nigerian State would cheer-up such a leader caught guilty in such leadership misdemeanor. A nation in crisis like ours needs a leader who will be at home to work out the challenges currently rocking the country. Sadly, we have an Ajala Travel as President.

Embarrassingly, the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is yet again embarking on a private visit to the UK without observing the provisions of laws in this regard. The house, right at home, is burning and the President is embarking on another trip to UK on a mission that is not known to Nigerians whereas we are going to foot the bills through our collective resources. Apart from being illegal and unconstitutional, the private visit to UK is immoral.

Under our law, the President cannot embark on a vacation or any “private visit” whatsoever without formally informing the National Assembly. Section 145(1)(2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, amended 2011 (herein referred to as “the Constitution” or “1999 Constitution”) provides that:
(1) WHENEVER the President is proceeding on vacation or is otherwise unable to discharge the functions of his office, he SHALL transmit a written declaration to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives to that effect, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, the Vice-President shall perform the functions of the President as Acting President.
(2) In the event that the President is unable or fails to transmit the written declaration mentioned in subsection (1) of this section within 21 days, the National Assembly shall, by a resolution made by a simple majority of the vote of each House of the National Assembly, mandate the Vice-President to perform the functions of the office of the President as Acting President until the President transmits a letter to the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives that he is now available to resume his functions as President.

The purport of this provision is very clear and has raised no ambiguity of any sort. As subsection 1 provides, it is mandatory for the President to formally inform the National Assembly when he wishes to proceed on vacation or when he is unable to discharge his function. Notably, the provision also wears the Vice President with the Presidential robe once the letter has been transmitted to the National Assembly, regardless of whether the President included it in his letter or not.

The word “shall” used in the section means must. In John v. Igbo-Ekiti LGA (2013) 7 PT.1352 P.1 at 16, it was held that whenever the word “shall” is used in an enactment, it connotes imperativeness and gives no room for discretion on the part of the person whom the Constitutional duty is imposed. Importantly, the Supreme Court in Rabiu v. State (1981) 2 NCLR 293 held the need for a liberal and purposive approach in constitutional interpretation.

The question that should agitate the mind is whether the two week private visit amounts to vacation as captured under section 145(1). Wikipedia defines vacation to mean “a leave of absence from a regular occupation”. The President, leaving his official and constitutional duties for good two weeks cannot be regarded as a “relatively short absence” but a vacation. The unjustifiable absence from office for days cannot be given any other meaning than vacation as used in the section. It is a constitutional infraction for the President to vacate the country – leaving his official duties – to a private mission for more than a week. There is a huge difference between embarking on an official assignment that lasts for days and merely jetting out of the country for reasons best known to him. The former cannot be treated as vacation and no letter is required to the National Assembly. But, in the latter, the letter must be written and constitutes vacation.

Again, does a public servant has a right to ‘private visit’ under our Constitutional jurisprudence?

The right to private and family life of all citizens are guaranteed under Section 37 of the Constitution. However, public servants and officials are public properties. In this sense, it means that once they assume political offices, they are now public personalities whose lives and activities are matter of public knowledge. Instructively, the critical moves and actions of public officials that are of national importance and relevance are not to be treated personal but public. They no longer just represent themselves but the electorates and their constituencies. So, their lives and activities, especially with regard to the office being held, should not be kept private to the public.

The learned scholar, N. Dimgba argued that “being public figures, such citizens have freely waived their right to privacy by necessary implication”. Although, there is yet to be any statutory provision to this effect, it is humbly canvassed that public officials should by implication of their status lose their “official” privacy and this does not necessarily open the floodgate for defamatory publications against them.

Matters of public interest should not be kept private and should be seen as a strong defence to an action for breach of privacy.

The President’s vacation is not just illegal but also shows a high level of insolence and embarrassment on the persons of Nigerians. President Buhari owes the people of Nigeria explanations about his unauthorized visit since he is carrying about the emblem of the entire citizenry. Additionally, the bills of his travels, accommodation and all incidental costs are footed by our collective resources. Why then should the vacation be shrouded in secrecy?

By the time our leaders learn to respect laws and treat citizen with utmost regards, the Nigeria of our dream will become achievable.

Festus Ogun is a Lawyer-in-equity, human rights activist and Constitutional Law enthusiast. festusogunlaw@gmail.com; 09066324982.