Nigerian President
Muhammadu Buhari has been out of the country since May 7, seeking medical care
in London. He has not disclosed the nature of his condition, and official
updates about him have been rare.
It was only last week
that the government released a photo of Buhari, the first image of him since he
left Nigeria. This is Buhari’s second medical leave to the United Kingdom this
year; his previous trip was nearly two-months long.
Buhari’s poor health
and absence from the country raises questions about who governs when presidents
get sick. Some research I’ve done about presidential ill health in Africa – and
in Nigeria specifically – shows how important constitutions can be in dealing
with sick presidents.
Unfortunately, for
Nigerians, Buhari’s condition is a bit of deja vu.
Everyone gets sick –
even presidents – but in 2010, an ill Nigerian president died in office.
Suffering from kidney
and heart problems, former Nigerian president Umaru Yar’Adua sought emergency
treatment in Saudi Arabia in November 2009. Yar’Adua returned to Nigeria in
February 2010, but he died in office just three months after his return.
Following Yar’Adua’s
death in office, his Vice President Goodluck Jonathan assumed the presidency,
which is consistent with Nigeria’s constitution. More specifically, Section 146
of the Nigerian constitution (1999) states:
“The Vice-President
shall hold the office of President if the office of President becomes vacant by
reason of death or resignation, impeachment, permanent incapacity or the
removal of the President from office for any other reason.”
Rules on succession
following presidential death are not uncommon in African constitutions.
In an article I wrote
with University of Malawi political scientist Boniface Dulani, we examined what
happens when African presidents die in office. We surveyed all deaths in office
since independence and we examined closely successions following the deaths in
office of Umaru Yar’Adua in Nigeria in 2010, Levy Mwanawasa in Zambia in 2008
and Bingu wa Mutharika in Malawi in 2012.
Mutharika’s death in
office and the initial uncertainty surrounding succession in Malawi prompted us
in 2012 to look at other African cases. The timing was rather auspicious, as
2012 was the year when four African leaders died in office: Mutharika of
Malawi, Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia, John Atta Mills of Ghana and Malam Bacai
Sanhá of Guinea Bissau.
Our research identified
11 deaths in office of African leaders between 2008 and 2012. In nine of those
11 cases, the succession followed constitutional procedures, typically the
transfer of power from the leader to his deputy. (The two others were a coup
d’état in Guinea in 2008 and a revolution in Libya in 2011.) Constitutional
succession is much more common today than in the period between independence
and the third wave of democratization in Africa (1960 to 1990), when
presidential deaths were often followed by a coup d’état or the military
appointing a new leader. Our findings are consistent with work by political
scientists Daniel Posner and Daniel Young, who show that political institutions
became more important than personal relationships in shaping African politics
after the third wave of democratization.
Although rules about
succession are important, our research showed that a leader’s death did not
necessarily lead to uncertainty about succession.
Uncertainty and
inaction were more likely in cases of poor presidential health.
Like in the case of
Yar’Adua in Nigeria, Zambia’s Levy Mwanawasa had a prolonged absence from his
country while still holding the office and responsibilities of being president.
He had a stroke in June 2008 and it is unclear whether he engaged in any
governing after that stroke and before his death in a French hospital on Aug.
19, 2008.
In Nigeria – like in
Zambia and Malawi – there are provisions in the constitution for when a
president is too ill to carry out official duties. For example, Nigeria’s
constitution (specifically, Section 144) stipulates that the president “shall
cease to hold office” if a two-thirds majority of the Federal Executive Council
declares that he is “incapable of discharging the functions of his office”;
such a declaration would have to be verified by a panel of five medical
experts.
In our research,
however, we did not come across many African examples when constitutional
provisions for medical incapacity were invoked. One example emerged during Yar’Adua’s
long absence: Nigeria’s senate voted on Feb. 9, 2010, to delegate presidential
responsibilities to Jonathan and make him acting president. However, there was
never a declaration by a panel of medical experts that Yar’Adua was unfit to
govern, and he returned to Nigeria on Feb. 24, 2010, and resumed his office and
duties.

No comments:
Post a Comment