Yusha’u Sani Yankuzo, Esq.
Recent political discussions in Kano State have raised allegations and speculations about the possible impeachment of the Deputy Governor, reportedly linked to political disagreements and issues surrounding party defection.
While these discussions remain within the sphere of political debate and public commentary, they raise important legal and constitutional questions regarding whether a political office holder can lawfully be impeached for refusing to defect to another political party.
This situation highlights the need to examine both the constitutional provisions governing impeachment in Nigeria and the broader international legal principles that protect political rights and democratic governance.
The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) provides a detailed legal framework for the removal of a Governor or Deputy Governor through impeachment.
Section 188 of the Constitution sets out the procedure and grounds for such removal. Under Section 188(1), the Governor or Deputy Governor of a State may be removed from office if the State House of Assembly proves allegations of “gross misconduct” against the office holder.
The Constitution further defines gross misconduct as “a grave violation or breach of the provisions of this Constitution or a misconduct of such nature as amounts in the opinion of the House of Assembly to gross misconduct.”
The impeachment procedure under Section 188 is intentionally rigorous to safeguard against political abuse. Section 188(2) requires that a notice of allegation be signed by not less than one-third of the members of the State House of Assembly, clearly stating the particulars of the alleged misconduct.
Once the notice is presented, the Speaker of the House must serve the notice on the office holder, who must be allowed to respond to the allegations in line with the principles of fair hearing.
Furthermore, Section 188(5) mandates the Chief Judge of the State to constitute a panel of seven persons of unquestionable integrity who are not members of the public service, any legislative house, or political party.
The function of the panel is to investigate the allegations and determine whether they are substantiated. If the panel finds that the allegations are proven, the House of Assembly may proceed to remove the office holder by a two-thirds majority vote as stipulated under Section 188(9).
It is important to emphasize that refusal to defect from one political party to another does not amount to gross misconduct under the Nigerian Constitution. Political affiliation remains a matter of individual political freedom within a democratic system.
The Constitution does not impose any obligation on a Deputy Governor or other political office holder to follow the Governor or any political authority in changing party affiliation.
Therefore, initiating impeachment proceedings solely because an office holder refuses to join another political party would be inconsistent with the constitutional requirement of gross misconduct.
Beyond the Nigerian constitutional framework, international legal instruments also recognize and protect political participation and freedom of political association.
Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 1948 provides that everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
Similarly, Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 1966 guarantees the right to freedom of association, including the freedom to form and join political parties.
Any attempt to compel a political office holder to join a particular political party through coercive political measures may therefore raise concerns under international human rights law.
In addition, Article 13 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which has been domesticated in Nigeria through the African Charter (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, guarantees every citizen the right to participate freely in the government of their country either directly or through freely chosen representatives. This provision reinforces the principle that political participation must be voluntary and free from undue coercion.
Furthermore, Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria guarantees the right to fair hearing in the determination of civil rights and obligations.
Any impeachment process that is politically motivated or conducted without adherence to due process may be challenged in court for violating the principles of fair hearing and constitutional procedure.
Nigerian courts have in several cases demonstrated their willingness to review impeachment proceedings where constitutional provisions were not strictly followed.
If an impeachment were to occur on purely political grounds, the affected office holder would have the legal right to seek judicial review.
The courts may examine whether the constitutional requirements for impeachment were satisfied and whether the allegations genuinely amount to gross misconduct.
Where the courts find that the process was unconstitutional, they have the authority to nullify the impeachment and restore the office holder to office.
Beyond the legal implications, using impeachment as a political tool poses significant risks to democratic governance.
The impeachment mechanism was designed as a constitutional safeguard against abuse of office, corruption, and serious violations of the law.
When it is used to compel political loyalty or enforce party defection, it undermines democratic institutions, weakens the rule of law, and erodes public confidence in the political system.
In conclusion, both Nigerian constitutional law and relevant international human rights instruments impose clear limits on the removal of elected political office holders.
Section 188 of the Nigerian Constitution restricts impeachment to cases of proven gross misconduct, while international legal frameworks protect freedom of political participation and association.
Consequently, any attempt to impeach a political office holder solely on the basis of refusal to defect to another political party would raise serious constitutional and international legal concerns and may ultimately be declared unlawful by the courts.
