October 08, (THEWILL) – The fractious relationships that have plagued many Nigerian presidencies and governorships in the Fourth Republic can be traced back to the lack of clear constitutional definitions around the roles and responsibilities of vice presidents and deputy governors. Since the return to democracy in 1999, personal conflicts and power struggles at the highest levels of government have significantly impeded effective governance in numerous states.
One of the earliest and most prominent examples was the strained partnership between President Olusegun Obasanjo and Vice President Atiku Abubakar from 1999 to 2007. Their frequent public disagreements over key policy issues and Obasanjo’s botched third term ambition created friction which rocked the administration. Atiku was eventually isolated after voicing his own presidential ambition, showing how such discord can spill over into high-stake national politics.
The Obasanjo-Atiku experience set the tone for many conflicts to follow at both the federal and state levels. In Lagos, the long-running power tussle between Governor Bola Tinubu and his deputy, Kofoworola Bucknor, which began shortly after their victory in the 1999 general election, comes to mind. A major source of disagreement was Tinubu’s 2003 creation of 37 new local council development areas, which Bucknor opposed as unconstitutional and a political power grab. She accused Tinubu of sidelining her from governance and orchestrating attacks on her supporters.
In the next election, Bucknor defected to the PDP and challenged Tinubu’s re-election bid, though he won handily. The conflict polarised voters along religious lines, exposed the fragility of Lagos’ democracy and strained relations between Lagos and the Federal Government under President Obasanjo. Ultimately, the Tinubu-Bucknor fallout had lasting impacts on Lagos politics.
This was not helped by even more conflicts between Tinubu and Bucknor’s successor, Femi Pedro, who deputised in Lagos State between 1999 and 2007. The conflict started when Pedro declared his intention to run for the governorship election in 2007 against Tinubu’s wish.
Pedro competed to become the AC candidate for governor, but he withdrew his name on the eve of the party’s nominations. He then resigned from his position as deputy governor after learning of his imminent impeachment, but the Lagos State House of Assembly rejected his resignation and impeached him instead.
Having fallen out with Tinubu and his party, Pedro joined the Labour Party initially and then later defected to the PDP, before returning to the APC in 2014.
Similar clashes between governors and their deputies have played out in other crucial states like Edo and Ondo States among others.
In Edo, tensions erupted in August 2023 when Governor Obaseki accused Deputy Governor Shaibu of plotting against him and trying to engineer a legislative coup. Shaibu denied the allegations and affirmed his loyalty. The feud seemed to cool in September when he withdrew a lawsuit against Obaseki to prevent his impeachment.
However, relations deteriorated further days later when Obaseki locked Shaibu out of the Government House and relocated his office, alleging the deputy was trying to destabilise the administration. Despite the deputygovernor’s continued denials and professions of loyalty, the clashes exposed divisions between the top two officials in Edo state.
The Ondo State House of Assembly has initiated impeachment proceedings against Deputy Governor Lucky Aiyedatiwa over allegations of gross misconduct, including undermining the governor, contravening his oath of office, and financial improprieties.
Aiyedatiwa was accused of giving negative interviews against the governor, acting against government interests, illegally engaging in business activities, falsifying travel claims, and misusing state funds for vehicles. He denied the allegations and obtained a court injunction to halt the impeachment process, pending a hearing. The clashes have sparked a political crisis between Aiyedatiwa and Governor Akeredolu, with the former now fighting to defend himself against removal from office.
You will agree with me that these bickering and quarrels are a huge distraction on the quality of governance hence there is an urgent requirement to find a lasting fix to it.
While there are no easy solutions, one place to begin will be dialogue and reconciliation for already strained relationships. Creating opportunities for governors and deputies to directly communicate, air grievances and find common ground is vital. Party leaders, elders, and other respected figures can mediate these discussions and help mend broken relationships.
Furthermore, there is the necessity for respect and mutual loyalty because they both ran and were elected on a joint ticket. Presidents and governors and their deputies must respect each other’s constitutional roles and mandates.
However, the root of the issue lies in the vague constitutional definitions of the vice presidency and deputy governorship. As extensions of executive authority rather than independent oversight offices, vice presidents and deputies inherently rely on the discretion of the president or governor for relevance and influence. I don’t think it should be so. This power imbalance breeds contempt and opens the door for internal power plays.
To remedy the problem, several reforms could promote healthier working partnerships with a constitutional review long overdue to help in explicitly clarifying the powers, responsibilities and limits of both offices to prevent future conflicts. Assigning explicit roles with distinct portfolios will minimise overload and potential friction at the apex. Amending impeachment procedures can also add stability and check the abuse of the process by a President or a Governor. The fact is that there are people that casted their votes for the ticket because of their preference for the deputy.
More significantly, reconsidering the origins of ticket pairing may help. Allowing presidents or governors a say in choosing respected, compatible running mates based on merit might foster working relationships anchored on mutual respect rather than strenuous dominance.
The Nigerian presidential system of government under the current set of politicians is too weak to allow the President and state governors wield so much political power unchecked to the extent that they see themselves as emperors and dictators. A president or governor should not have the influence or power to arbitrarily influence the legislature and judiciary to remove their deputies over political disagreements or quarrels.
With smart institutional and political changes, Nigeria can cultivate a culture where collective leadership surmounts ego-driven squabbles. By streamlining duties and encouraging cooperation, governance throughout the federation can become more robust, stable and people-centred and less vulnerable to the slippery slope of internal strife. Overall, such measures will enhance confidence that Nigerians’ votes indeed translate to cohesive, responsive governance.
About the Author
