In Athens, 510 BC, Cleisthenes instituted democracy to foster greater: accountability of institutions
and leaders to citizens and the law. Today, the tenet is being flouted with impunity, especially in
developing nations, where most of the heads of parliament are puppets of the president. Nigeria tops
the list. While her legislature is failing in oversight and overlooking misconducts, that of the United
States (US) prosecuted President Donald Trump and almost removed him from office. This piece
evaluates the two countries legislative conduct, based on the proceedings of Trump’s impeachment
trial.
Process and History of US and Nigerian President Impeachment
Article II, section 4 of the US Constitution empowers Congress - comprising the House of
Representatives and Senate - to remove the president from office for, and conviction of, treason,
bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. The House and Senate gets to remove the president in
two separate trials. First, the House would deliberate and approve the articles of impeachment through
a simple majority vote. The second trial occurs in the Senate, where conviction on any of the articles
requires a two-third majority vote, which if gotten, results in the president’s removal from office.
Trump’s impeachment succeeded in the House, but failed in the Senate, denoting he remains
president.
Only three presidents has been impeached throughout US over 230 year old democracy. First, Andrew
Johnson was impeached in 1868 for violating the Tenure of Office Act. Then, Bill Clinton was
impeached in 1998 for perjury, obstruction of justice and having an inappropriate relationship with
White House intern, Monica Lewinsky. Lastly, Donald Trump was impeached December 2019. Each
of the three - Johnson, Clinton and Trump - escaped removal from office through Senate’s acquittal.
Impeaching Nigeria’s president is a difficult, almost impossible task. The lengthy, extremely
cumbersome process is contained in Section 143 of the 1999 Constitution. No Nigerian president has
been impeached, despite their gross incompetence and serial abuse of power.
Allegations against Trump and the Buhari Comparison
Trump’s impeachment trial was a straight confrontation between the ruling Republican, and
opposition Democratic Party. The president was tried on two articles of impeachment for abuse of
power and obstruction of Congress. The abuse of power bothers on alleged solicitation of foreign
interference in the 2020 US presidential election. Trump allegedly withheld $391million aid to
Ukraine; upon which he secretly pressurized President Volodymyr Zelensky (of Ukraine) to start
investigating former US vice-president Joe Biden for Corruption. Trump only released the aid to
Ukraine after a whistle-blower complaint.
Biden was ex-president Barrack Obama’s deputy and currently one of the Democratic Party’s
presidential aspirant. Trump wants Biden and son, Hunter investigated for alleged corrupt practices
during the Obama presidency’s (2009-2017) aid supply to Ukraine. The US president allegedly
pressured his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate Biden, despite being aware that the US Prosecutor
General had cleared him and his son of corruption in May 2019.
To ensure Biden is investigated, Trump allegedly refused to allow Zelensky visit the White House at a
time Ukraine urgently needs the meeting to send fears to its aggressors - particularly Russia - that it
has US backing. The Democrats insist Trump undermined US interests by his action, and must be
removed for conditioning congressionally mandated aid on ‘quid pro quo’ – meaning ‘favor for favor.’
Nigeria’s President Muhammadu Buhari is an adherent of ‘quid pro quo.’ His declaration that the
Northern region, which gave him 95% votes would be favored than the Southeast that gave him 5% is
‘quid pro quo’ – conditioning governance favoritism on votes; favor for favor. Presidents are expected
to govern with equity and fairness, but Buhari promised sectionalism and delivered as pledged. The
proscription of IPOB, while killer herdsmen are operating unchecked, apparently because they’re
among the 95% is a dangerous ‘quid pro quo’ adherence that can lead Nigeria into another civil war.
Aside Trump’s hold on aid, the second article of impeachment - obstruction of Congress - bothers on
the president’s deliberate blockage of formal legislative inquiries. Trump allegedly instructed all
government officials to ignore House subpoenas for testimonies and documents. He ensured no piece
of paper or email was turned over to the House. Certainly Trump would have done worse if he’s a
Nigerian.
If Trump is a Nigerian president, he would have ordered the police to lay siege on US House Speaker,
Nancy Pelosi’s residence as President Buhari repeatedly did to former Senate President Bukola Saraki.
Pelosi would have been distracted with false asset declaration charges till she’s acquitted by the
Supreme Court. The Dino Melaye’s in her camp would have been hounded and arraigned on several
trumped-up charges. If Trump is a Nigerian president, masked, heavily-armed State Security Service
(SSS) operatives would have obstructed the legislators from entering the chambers to carry out
impeachment.
The Democrats resolve to impeach Trump is perhaps comeuppance, but certainly an insult to
Nigerians. The same legislators rebuking Trump supported Obama’s interference in Nigeria’s 2015
presidential election. The poll, as Obama desired, resulted in the first-in-history defeat of then
incumbent president, Goodluck Jonathan. It is at best surprising, and at worst annoying that the same
Democrats who backed Obama’s action on Nigeria are scolding Trump for trying to aid his win
through foreign interference. How miserable for them to live with their own nemesis!
Unlike the US, foreign interference in Nigerian elections attracts no legislative criticism, let alone
impeachment. Nigerian legislators took no action when two state governors from Niger Republic
crossed into Nigeria to join Buhari’s 2019 reelection campaign in Kano State.
The abuse of power charges against Trump can’t fly for impeachment in Nigeria. Successive
presidents have committed greater offenses without reprimand. Ex-president Olusegun Obasanjo spent
heavily on electricity provision without result and ordered the Odi massacre. The legislature never
summoned him. President Buhari has more than once repressed free speech, disobeyed court orders
and spent without legislative approval. Yet the Senate has never cautioned him. Indeed, what the US
lawmakers see as ‘abuse of office’ is what their Nigerian counterpart rank as ‘executive grace.’
US often punishes, but Nigeria rewards wrongdoing. The former’s first citizen, arguably the strongest
man in the world was made to face a tough trial for abuse of office. His record is tainted even though
he’s acquitted. Nigeria works the other way round. In the 8 th Senate, suspended Senator Ovie Omo-
Agege invade plenary with thugs, who took away the mace right before the cameras. Rather than
prosecute him to serve as a deterrent, the ruling party rewards him with the exalted position of deputy-
senate president in the subsequent, current 9 th Senate. Omo-Agege is currently leading the same
chamber he desecrated. Such can’t occur in the US.
Trial Debate: Democrat vs. Republican
The US senate impeachment trial of Trump was a pure intellectual, thrilling and rigorous debate. The
House Managers, comprising mainly the Democrats argued that Trump deserves to be sacked for
obstructing Congress investigation; promoting foreign interference in US election; and withholding
economic, diplomatic and military aid to a strategic US ally (Ukraine) in need.
Defending the allegation, Trump’s defense team, comprising the Republicans, contend that the
Democrats are trying to upturn Trump’s mandate in order to prevent him from contesting the next
election. They argued that Trump withheld aid to Ukraine because 1) he wants a burden sharing
agreement with Europe; and 2) he was unsure of its efficient use, due to the high level of corruption in
Ukraine.
Opposing the submission, the Democrats argued that Trump showed no interest in Ukraine’s
corruption before Biden announced his presidential ambition. The Republicans disagreed, and accused
the Democrat caucus of using impeachment to shield Biden from corruption investigation. They insist
Biden has a case to answer over his actions on Ukraine when he was vice-president.
Contesting the obstruction of Congress article, Trump’s team argued that the president has the power
to assert immunity on his top aides, and he did so against Congress to protect the sensitive operations
of government from getting to the public. Citing former presidents that have used such privilege, the
Republicans argued that the Democrat-sponsored articles of impeachment is wholly based on
presumptions, assumptions and unsupported conclusions. The Democrats, however refused to back
down; they insist they have a “mountain of evidence” to prove Trump is guilty.
To support their arguments, both the House Managers and Trump’s defense team went deep into the
archives; they went as far as referencing what happened in 1796, during the administration of the first
US President George Washington. Several Supreme Court judgments, dating back to 1893 were cited.
Both parties showed resourcefulness as they used historical, legal and rational arguments to establish
their case. Their knowledge of history, politics and law in astounding.
Sadly, majority of Nigerian legislators lack such proficiency. Their contribution to motions are often
based on partisan, personal interests and their arguments are often shallow, uninformative and
irrational. While watching the trial, I couldn’t help but crave for power to order Nigerian legislators
into the US Senate to learn functional legislative practice.
Plenary Session: Nigeria-US Comparison
Both the US House and Senate displayed exceptional commitment to public involvement. Many
nations won’t permit the live airing of a sensitive issue such as the impeachment trial of a president.
But the US stands out. Every minute of the trial was aired live to the local and global population.
Nigerian House and Senate are not doing badly in this regard. Most of their sessions are aired live,
including the election of principal officers. However, as being done in the US, the Nigerian legislature
needs to make public the details of her income, constituency projects and budgetary allocations.
US senators are more open than their Nigerian counterpart. They boldly reveal their planned vote and
the reasons for their decision. Many disclosed that they would vote on the impeachment based on
personal conviction and desired legacy. Nigerian senators understandably can’t be that outspoken out
of the fear of being hounded. This doesn’t however rob off the fact majority of them vote ‘aye’ or
‘nay’ based on financial gain, ethnic and religious sentiments, party instruction, and ‘quid pro quo.’
Public interest is not always primary to politicians, including the US senators. Most of the Republican
senators were more interested in acquitting Trump than ensuring a fair trial. They denied the public
access to crucial information by voting against the admission of additional witnesses and documents.
Voting in favor of the motion would have made the Senate evaluate the leaked indicting videos and
testimonies of crucial anti-Trump witnesses such as John Bolton, the ex-national security adviser.
Without a doubt, Nigerian progressive senators would have done same to save Buhari.
The US legislators conduct at plenary and commitment to national service need to be emulated by the
Nigerian Senate. The US Senate leaders and the Chief Justice, John Roberts coordinated the sessions
impartially. They, unlike their Nigerian counterpart, acted neutral, even though they too (as humans)
have their own viewpoint and desires. They set rules that would make everyone listen and participate
such as prohibiting the use of phones.
Rather than deploy speech interjection, shout-match and walk-out as commonly done in Nigerian
chambers, the US legislators acted responsibly. No one spoke without being recognized and they yield
back time promptly. More than once they sat for about twelve hours on the impeachment and everyone
stayed on strong. If the impeachment trial took place in Nigeria, the senate president would have
hurriedly adjourn sitting or ‘dabaru’ the process in favor of his party. Moreover, the senators, many of
whom are old and lazy, would have yelled for adjournment or sleep off.
End Note
Trump’s acquittal by the US senate sets a bad precedence for succeeding presidents to solicit foreign
interference in US election and obstruct the investigation of Congress. Conversely, conviction would
have opened the door for future sharply partisan, malicious impeachments.
Both the United States and Nigeria need more executive-legislature synergy. The frosty relationship
between Trump and Pelosi has worsened over the impeachment trial. They must be reconciled for the
benefit of the American people. It’s difficult, but not impossible to have intergovernmental synergy
and a vibrant legislature under the Buhari administration. Perhaps Senate President Ahmed Lawan and
House Speaker Femi Gbajabiamila need to attend classes on ‘how to function without being a puppet.’
US democracy is not perfect, but Nigeria has a lot to learn from it. The latter must adopt the former’s
positive deeds and embrace attitudinal change. One may blame the large efficiency gap between US
and Nigeria’s democracy on the year of adoption. US democracy is over 230 years old, while
Nigeria’s current democratic experiment is only 20 years old. But then, if Nigeria’s systemic failure is
anything to go by, it will take us over a thousand years to achieve the progress US made in 230 years.
The reason is not far-fetch. US has what Nigeria lacks: Transparency, accountability and leadership
commitment to growth and development.
*Omoshola Deji is a political and public affairs analyst. He wrote in via moshdeji@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment