A man in Lagos, Nigeria, reads newspaper headlines, including a story about President Muhammadu Buhari
meeting with ruling party governors in London. (Sunday Alamba/Associated Press)
hehehehe.......... Shortly
after CNN's Global Public Square hosted by Fareed Zakaria reported on
the absence of President Muhammdu Buhari from the country, another
foreign media, the Washington Post has reported on the issue again.
Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari has been out of the country
since May 7, seeking medical care in London. He has not disclosed the
nature of his condition, and official updates about him have been rare.
It was only last week that the government released a photo of
Buhari, the first image of him since he left Nigeria. This is Buhari’s
second medical leave to the United Kingdom this year; his previous trip
was nearly two-months long.
Buhari’s poor health and absence from the country raises questions
about who governs when presidents get sick. Some research I’ve done
about presidential ill health in Africa – and in Nigeria specifically –
shows how important constitutions can be in dealing with sick
presidents.
Unfortunately, for Nigerians, Buhari’s condition is a bit of deja vu.
Everyone gets sick – even presidents – but in 2010, an ill Nigerian president died in office.
Suffering from kidney and heart problems, former Nigerian president
Umaru Yar’Adua sought emergency treatment in Saudi Arabia in November
2009. Yar’Adua returned to Nigeria in February 2010, but he died in
office just three months after his return.
Following Yar’Adua’s death in office, his Vice President Goodluck
Jonathan assumed the presidency, which is consistent with Nigeria’s
constitution. More specifically, Section 146 of the Nigerian
constitution (1999) states:
“The Vice-President shall hold the office of President if the
office of President becomes vacant by reason of death or resignation,
impeachment, permanent incapacity or the removal of the President from
office for any other reason.”
Rules on succession following presidential death are not uncommon in African constitutions.
In an article I wrote with University of Malawi political scientist
Boniface Dulani, we examined what happens when African presidents die
in office. We surveyed all deaths in office since independence and we
examined closely successions following the deaths in office of Umaru
Yar’Adua in Nigeria in 2010, Levy Mwanawasa in Zambia in 2008 and Bingu
wa Mutharika in Malawi in 2012.
Mutharika’s death in office and the initial uncertainty surrounding
succession in Malawi prompted us in 2012 to look at other African
cases. The timing was rather auspicious, as 2012 was the year when four
African leaders died in office: Mutharika of Malawi, Meles Zenawi of
Ethiopia, John Atta Mills of Ghana and Malam Bacai Sanhá of Guinea
Bissau.
Our research identified 11 deaths in office of African leaders
between 2008 and 2012. In nine of those 11 cases, the succession
followed constitutional procedures, typically the transfer of power from
the leader to his deputy. (The two others were a coup d’état in Guinea
in 2008 and a revolution in Libya in 2011.) Constitutional succession is
much more common today than in the period between independence and the
third wave of democratization in Africa (1960 to 1990), when
presidential deaths were often followed by a coup d’état or the military
appointing a new leader. Our findings are consistent with work by
political scientists Daniel Posner and Daniel Young, who show that
political institutions became more important than personal relationships
in shaping African politics after the third wave of democratization.
Although rules about succession are important, our research showed
that a leader’s death did not necessarily lead to uncertainty about
succession.
Uncertainty and inaction were more likely in cases of poor presidential health.
Like in the case of Yar’Adua in Nigeria, Zambia’s Levy Mwanawasa
had a prolonged absence from his country while still holding the office
and responsibilities of being president. He had a stroke in June 2008
and it is unclear whether he engaged in any governing after that stroke
and before his death in a French hospital on Aug. 19, 2008.
In Nigeria – like in Zambia and Malawi – there are provisions in
the constitution for when a president is too ill to carry out official
duties. For example, Nigeria’s constitution (specifically, Section 144)
stipulates that the president “shall cease to hold office” if a
two-thirds majority of the Federal Executive Council declares that he is
“incapable of discharging the functions of his office”; such a
declaration would have to be verified by a panel of five medical
experts.
In our research, however, we did not come across many African
examples when constitutional provisions for medical incapacity were
invoked. One example emerged during Yar’Adua’s long absence: Nigeria’s
senate voted on Feb. 9, 2010, to delegate presidential responsibilities
to Jonathan and make him acting president. However, there was never a
declaration by a panel of medical experts that Yar’Adua was unfit to
govern, and he returned to Nigeria on Feb. 24, 2010, and resumed his
office and duties.
Despite the similarities between Buhari and Yar’Adua’s long medical holidays, there is an important difference.
Before he left the country to seek medical treatment, Yar’Adua did
not deputize his vice president to be acting president. Because he did
not deputize Jonathan during his absence, there was a lot of uncertainty
about who was in charge and even fear of a coup.
Buhari, on the other hand, deputized his vice president, Yemi
Osinbajo, as acting president before he left to seek medical care.
Although the rumor mill during Buhari’s absence is just as vibrant as it
was during Yar’Adua’s absence, there is no uncertainty about who is
governing. Nigerian and international media refer to Osinbajo as the
acting president and report on how he is governing.
In an interview with the BBC, Nigerian Governor Rochas Okorocha was
optimistic about Buhari’s recovery and forthcoming return to Nigeria,
saying he expects it will happen in the next two weeks. Nevertheless,
Buhari’s prolonged absence and ill health raise important questions
about who rules when a president is sick. Although formal rules
stipulate what should happen, the rules need powerful people to engage
them.
Source: Washington Post
No comments:
Post a Comment