Looking Beyond Nigeria’s President’s Health

Agaptus Anaele is a graduate student at Ohio University and a Nigerian


The cry over the absence of Nigeria’s President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua from office is not waning. The endorsement of his Vice President, Goodluck Jonathan, by the Legislative Assemblies is unable to calm the furor stirred by the failure of Yar’dua to transmit power to Jonathan before his medical trip to Saudi Arabia on November 23, 2009. The frenzy assumed a crescendo with the alleged dichotomy among the Federal Executive Council members loyal to Yar’Adua and supporters of Jonathan. The situation is shrouded in arguments and counter arguments, altercations, intrigues, and permutations as politicians jostle for supremacy. This is not the best of times in Nigeria’s political history, and certainly does not help its global image. The crux of the matter is that Nigeria’s ailing president Umar Musa Yar’Adua failed to transmit power to his vice before his medical trip to Saudi Arabia. By his act, Yar’Ardua has allegedly violated provisions of section 145 of the Nigerian constitution.



Nigerians expected the Federal Executive Council, and the National Assembly to declare President Yar’Adua unfit in accordance with Section 144(1) of the Nigerian constitution, which stipulates that the President or his deputy shall cease to hold office if two-thirds majority of the members of the executive council declared that the President or Vice-President was incapable of discharging his functions . The declaration is followed by a medical examination, which will be made available to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives for the incapacitated officer’s removal. This process is being hampered by the cloak of secrecy around the president’s health status.


The controversy generated by Nigeria’s political situation is understandable given the demands of public office, and Nigeria’s prominence in Africa.The state of health of every individual should be a private affair, but not when it concerns a president of a country like Nigeria with 150 million people. Nigerians deserve to know, more so since his absence is over heating the political system.
The trend in Nigeria is somewhat disturbing given that the imbroglio might distract leadership from tackling the challenges facing the country. While, I share in this genuine concern, I also recognize that this is a trend in the democratic developmental process.


It may seem like the macabre dance, one-step forward and two steps backwards, but I believe it is a learning process. Political and constitutional developments in Nigeria are best understood within a three- dimensional perspective which assumes that every democratic nation passes through three main phases of development, the early years or the classical phase; the later years or neo-classi- cal or human relations phase; and, the years of maturity and full development. It assumes also that political and constitutional experience and developments, though connected in several ways, are distinct and so can be isolated. What is happening in Nigeria is an epoch-making development stage.


In spite of its chequered experience, Nigeria has made considerable progress in political and constitutional development since independence in 1960. Some aspects of these developments are worth highlighting. Nigeria has experimented with five constitutions, the 1960, 1963, 1979, 1989 and 1999 constitutions. The 1999 Constitution gave birth to the present Fourth Republic, though with problems for which it faces that require amendment.


Some of the lessons learned by Nigerians during these exercises are enduring. The lessons have been taught and learned that no constitution is perfect; that ineffective constitutions can be amended or completely altered that constitution making, whether under a military or civilian regime, calls for adequate consultations and experimentation. Any constitution hurriedly drawn up and not tried stands the risk of failure when subjected to the pressure of political, legal, economic and social forces.


Also worth mentioning is that hitherto, the Nigerian media was gagged, but the trend has changed. Numerous media organizations have emerged in Nigeria and the number continues to increase. This indicates that freedom of speech has improved. Recently, Nigerian newspapers were awash with the imprisonment of influential individuals, detention, and prosecution of past governors. Similarly, there are many landmark judgments where opposition camps dethroned incumbent governors who stole electoral mandates. Again, this symbolizes restoration of hope in the judicial system. Nigeria’s anticorruption agency, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, and the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control, are both household names in Nigeria. We need to stop seeing only the negative sides in African governments and begin to focus on solutions. As Africans, every criticism we receive should propel us to a realization that there is an urgent need to do more.


The decadence and the many years of military rule, which was characterized by infrastructural decay, may not be turned around in ten years. It is important to recognize that there has been some stability in the effort which started in 1999, when Nigeria regained democratic governance. There are still problems, but the intensity and the scope differ. The world over, there are challenges. These challenges, as long as the human race remains, will task the minds, the skills, and the intellect of leaders across the world.


I am optimistic that Nigeria will actualize its huge potentials, a safe home for all those who choose to make it home, a country that will retain its pre-eminent position in the sub-region, in the continent, and globally. Like many democracies that have undergone stages of development, Nigeria is undergoing ‘democratic metamorphosis.’ I am very optimistic that it will overcome these challenges. Long live Nigeria.!!!