The deteriorating health of President Muhammadu Buhari and consequential medical pilgrimage to the United Kingdom, which has repeatedly kept him away from the country, has been a source of serious debate in recent times.
While some have argued that his absence has not created any vacuum, having transmitted the requisite notice to the National Assembly before his departure, and the Vice President validly acting in such capacity, others argue that somehow, the President’s continued absence has affected the smooth sail of government, since certain categories of executive functions cannot be validly delegated.
The latter school of thought has gone further to posit that should the President be absent for a continuous period of 90 days, he stands removable. The issue is no longer strange in our polity, as a similar controversy had marred his earlier absence at the beginning of the year.
Also, the drama that heralded the demise of Umaru Yar’Adua bears a comparable storyline. It is therefore undeniable that the same is deserving of a thorough consideration.
This article, therefore, sets out to, amongst sundry things, consider the legal plausibility of the various positions with a view to objectively analysing the relevant provisions of the law as they relate to the current quagmire. It shall also attempt to answer the following questions: