Akeredolu should step aside, or be removed
Akeredolu should step aside, or be removed
PRESENTED with another opportunity to raise the bar of democratic governance to global standards, Nigeria’s political leadership, instead dug the country further into a rut. For six months, governance has alternated between abeyance, inertia, and auto-pilot in Ondo State, following the illness of Governor Rotimi Akeredolu, who has been absent from duty and the state capital, Akure. Whereas decorum, and respect for the five million residents of the state demand that the governor step down, party leaders, led by President Bola Tinubu, have elevated party conviviality over public interest.
The charade is nauseating; the governor should immediately surrender the reins of government to tend to his health, failing which the state executive council or the legislature should remove him in accordance with the provisions of the constitution.
The drama is another setback for Nigeria’s democracy. For over one year, Akeredolu has been very ill. For some time, he relocated to Ibadan, Oyo State, from where he and his inner circle were running Ondo. Later, he flew to Germany for treatment, spending three months in the European country.
On his return, his family and aides took him to Ibadan, from where they are pretending that he is running Ondo State.
The crisis has deepened with the harassment of the Deputy Governor, Lucky Aiyedatiwa, by Akeredolu’s supporters over internal disagreements, including attempts to impeach him by the Ondo State House of Assembly.
Akeredolu, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, and former president of the Nigerian Bar Association, should respect the law. The 1999 Constitution is clear; he has the option of handing over to his deputy and transmitting that he is taking medical leave of absence to the ODHA. In the alternative, he should resign to tend to his health.
Public office calls for selfless public service. His exit now on account of his incapacitation is more beneficial to the state than the current intrigues and administrative gridlock at a time of grave economic, security and social adversity.
The constitution provides for the House or the state executive council to initiate the removal of a governor or deputy governor on medical incapacitation grounds.
Tinubu’s and the ruling party’s intervention however elevated party interest above public interest, and global best democratic practices. Their ‘resolution’ asking the Ondo partisans to maintain the status quo; retain the absentee Akeredolu as governor, and stop impeachment moves against Aiyedatiwa, resolves nothing.
Governance in Ondo remains in abeyance. Nigerian politicians fail to learn from past mistakes. Nigeria witnessed political gridlock in 2009 when the late Umaru Yar’Adua’s aides and some family members similarly hijacked the Presidency during his sojourn in foreign hospitals. Eventually, it was the invocation of the “doctrine of necessity” that facilitated the elevation of his deputy, Goodluck Jonathan, to the presidency.
His successor, Muhammadu Buhari, similarly took frequent foreign medical trips without transmitting power to his deputy, whose sterling performance during the first two trips impressed Nigerians, but infuriated Buhari’s exclusionary inner circle. In one instance, he was away for 171 days. Former Governors Sullivan Chime (Enugu), and Liyel Imoke (Cross River), also each departed their states for long periods.
This ghoulish spectacle should be terminated. Illness can afflict anyone. Everyone sympathises with Akeredolu and wishes him full recovery. But it is time to step down from the exacting functions of governor for everyone’s sake. As NBA leader, student union, and civil society activist, he had always insisted on governance best practices.
The NBA stoutly called on Yar’Adua to step down in 2009/2010; its recent backing of Akeredolu therefore amounts to double standards.
Akeredolu should step aside. Failing that, the ODHA, and the SEC should remove him.
