The Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) has expressed concerns over Senate President Godswill Akpabio's comments that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu can continue to exercise presidential powers from outside Nigeria. According to HURIWA, technological connectivity cannot replace the constitutional procedure governing presidential absence. The organization argued that Akpabio's position failed to address the central constitutional question under Section 145 of the 1999 Constitution.
Akpabio, speaking in Akwa Ibom State, had dismissed concerns over Tinubu's continued absence from the country, insisting that the President remained in charge and that there was no vacancy in the Presidency. He claimed that Tinubu could continue to direct government affairs from abroad. However, HURIWA's national coordinator, Emmanuel Nnadozie Onwubiko, said in a statement that Akpabio's position was flawed. Onwubiko emphasized that the constitutional procedure governing presidential absence is not dependent on whether a President can make telephone calls or attend meetings virtually.
HURIWA drew attention to Section 145(1) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides that whenever 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 the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The provision states that the Vice-President shall thereafter perform the functions of the President as Acting President until the President transmits a written declaration to the contrary.
The organization further highlighted Section 145(2), which provides that where the President is unable or fails to transmit the required declaration within 21 days, the National Assembly shall, by a resolution supported by a simple majority of each chamber, mandate the Vice-President to perform the functions of the President as Acting President. HURIWA argued that the issue should be addressed within the framework of the Constitution rather than through political interpretations or assurances about the President's ability to communicate from abroad.
Akpabio had maintained that he was not acting President because Tinubu remained in power and that there was no vacancy in Aso Rock. He also argued that the President was on working leave and continued to run the country's affairs from abroad. The remarks came after the Presidency announced that Tinubu had extended his stay abroad by a few days. Tinubu left Nigeria on 30 August for a working vacation and was expected to return at the weekend.
Vice-President Kashim Shettima has also been outside Nigeria, having travelled to New York to represent Nigeria at the 81st United Nations General Assembly. The Presidency said other officials would represent Tinubu at some engagements during his continued absence. HURIWA acknowledged that travelling outside Nigeria does not, by itself, mean that a President ceases to hold office. However, the organization emphasized that the constitutional question was whether the procedure established under Section 145 of the Constitution had been followed.
The issue has sparked a debate about the interpretation of the Constitution and the limits of presidential power. HURIWA's challenge to Akpabio's position highlights the need for clarity on the procedures governing presidential absence. The organization's concerns are likely to resonate with many Nigerians who are eager to see the country's leadership operating within the bounds of the Constitution.
Key points
- HURIWA challenges Akpabio's claim that Tinubu can exercise powers from abroad
- The organization argues that technological connectivity cannot replace constitutional procedures
- The issue has sparked a debate about presidential power and constitutional interpretation
