Constitutional clarity on removal of elected officials in Nigeria

By Sadiq Muhammed

The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) is the supreme law governing the political and legal framework of the country. One of its key strengths lies in its deliberate clarity regarding the processes through which elected officials be they the President, Vice President, Governors, Deputy Governors, legislators, or state assembly members can be removed from office. These procedures are carefully detailed, ensuring that due process, rule of law, and democratic principles are upheld at every stage.
For the removal of the President and Vice President, the Constitution provides explicit mechanisms designed to prevent arbitrariness and abuse. The process begins with a notice in writing, signed by no fewer than one-third of the members of the National Assembly, alleging gross misconduct. This notice must be investigated by a panel of seven persons of unquestionable integrity, appointed by the Chief Justice of Nigeria. If the panel’s findings uphold the allegations, the removal can only proceed with a two-thirds majority vote of the National Assembly. Similarly, the Constitution provides that a President or Vice President can be removed on medical grounds if declared incapable of performing the functions of office, supported by a resolution passed by two-thirds of the National Assembly.
Governors and Deputy Governors are protected by similar constitutional safeguards. The removal process starts when one-third of the members of a State House of Assembly sign a notice of gross misconduct. A panel of seven impartial individuals is then appointed by the Chief Judge of the state to investigate the claims. If the panel confirms the allegations, removal requires a two-thirds majority vote of the State House of Assembly. This procedure guarantees that Governors and Deputy Governors cannot be dismissed without adhering strictly to due process.
Legislators, including Senators, members of the House of Representatives, and members of the State Houses of Assembly, are also subject to well-defined removal procedures. Their seats become vacant in cases of resignation, death, disqualification, or defection from the political party under whose platform they were elected, except in situations explicitly allowed by the Constitution. In addition, the Constitution provides for their recall by their constituents. This process requires a petition signed by more than half of the registered voters in the affected constituency, verified by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). A referendum is then conducted, and if a majority of the voters support the recall, the legislator is removed from office.
One constitutional provision that is often misinterpreted in discussions about the removal of elected officials is Section 305. A close reading of this section reveals that its purpose is strictly limited to empowering the President to declare a state of emergency in specific circumstances such as war, natural disasters, or a breakdown of public order and governance. This declaration is subject to approval by the National Assembly within two days and can last initially for six months, after which it may only be extended with legislative consent. Section 305 does not, at any point, authorize the removal of Governors, Deputy Governors, or members of the state legislatures. Its function is purely administrative and intended to allow the federal government to intervene temporarily to restore public order, without violating the tenure or legal protections of elected officials.
The Constitution’s clarity in this regard underscores its framers’ commitment to democratic governance, rule of law, and institutional integrity. It carefully balances the need for accountability with the necessity of protecting public officials from arbitrary or politically motivated removal. The procedures are transparent, requiring legislative scrutiny, judicial impartiality, and, in some cases, the direct participation of the electorate. Misapplying or misconstruing Section 305 to bypass these removal mechanisms undermines constitutional order and threatens the democratic stability of the country.
Lastly, the Nigerian Constitution provides an unambiguous and lawful framework for the removal of elected officials. Every step is explicitly laid out to ensure fairness, transparency, and adherence to democratic principles. Any attempt to circumvent these provisions, especially through the misuse of emergency powers under Section 305, is not supported by the Constitution and contradicts its fundamental objectives of democratic governance and the rule of law.

Muhammed can be reached at sadiqu2013@gmail.com