Abiola Olajide Ogunsakin & Gbade Olomu Akinrinmade
Abstract
This paper evaluates the powers and qualification of the Deputy Governor of a state to hold office under the Constitution. It examines the process of their nomination and their role in government. It concludes with findings about gaps in the law and suggests measures to redress the situation.
Introduction
The office of the Deputy Governor of a state is one of the most important positions any public office holder can occupy. This is in view of the pivotal role they are expected to play in the exercise of the executive powers vested in the Governor of the state by the Constitution[1]
Being next in rank to the Governor[2], the Deputy Governor should have a measure of authority under the law to carry out his responsibilities. Sadly, in Nigeria, the situation has been short of this ideal. The facts would appear to show that some of the Deputy-Governors in the thirty six States of the Federation serve at the pleasure of their principals and/or the political parties they represent. The reason for this state of affairs might not be unconnected with the gap in the Constitution regarding the duties of the Deputy Governor.
The essence of this inquiry is to revisit the provisions of Constitution and reappraise them as they relate to the powers, functions and qualification of the Deputy Governor vis-à-vis the rule of the thumb currently in place. It will also look into judicial decisions on the subject, culminating in suggestions that should shape the law in this area from the chimera it is, into a more effective instrument of governance.
Establishment of the Office of the Deputy Governor and Qualification to Hold Office
The Office of the Deputy Governor of the States of the Federation exists by virtue of the Constitution. According to Section 186 ‘There shall be for each state of the Federation a Deputy Governor’. This provision gives the office of the Deputy Governor its most important flavor – recognition by the Constitution. Like Governors, the Deputy Governors serve as part of the State Executive charged with the responsibility of the execution and maintenance of the Constitution and all Laws made by the House of Assembly[1], in furtherance of the political and developmental aspirations of the State.
As can be seen, the establishment of the office of the Deputy Governor is the sole subject of Section 186. Even if this may not be out of place since Section 187(2) appears to indirectly take care of them,[2] still, it is curious that the Constitution is silent on every other fundamental detail that should be specifically stated in view of their importance.
For example, nothing is mentioned about how old the Deputy Governor should be in order to hold office unlike the Governor who is required to be at least thirty five years old before he qualifies[3].
The Deputy Governor, it would seem might just need to be an adult in order to serve[4]. The omission appears to leave the age qualification of a person seeking the Office of a Deputy Governor to chance and probably to some arbitrary, non-constitutional standards. A requirement as germane as the age of the holder of the office under review is too fundamental to leave out. It would have been better if it was stated to be thirty five years like the Governor’s.
The same would apply to the academic qualification of the Deputy Governor which ought to have been explicitly mentioned as is the case under Section 177(d) where the academic qualification of the Governor with whom he will work is stated.
Notably, issues have arisen in the past about the academic qualification and records of former and serving public officers, even when the requirements were known and met in some ways[5]. In the present situation of the Deputy Governors of the states, the natural and more serious question is why the framers of the Constitution decided to omit the requirement of age for this category of public office holders. In the absence of prescriptions to the contrary, a person might find reason to conclude that anyone who has attained majority and who is picked[6], can occupy the Office of the Deputy Governor without the usual concern about age.
The lack of uniformity of approach to the subject suggest that the Deputy Governor can be of any age that is deemed appropriate in the subjective view of society and not by stipulation.
The same is true of the citizenship status of the holder of the Office, which is unlike the clear and specific provisions of the Constitution on the subject in respect of the Governor[7]. Since the law does not state specifically that the Deputy Governor should be a citizen of the country by birth like the Governor or by other approved means[8], there is an added reason to think that the Office of the Deputy Governor does not stand on its own. Its existence is tied inexorably to the Office of the one that matters. This much is clear from the provisions of Section 187(1) of the Constitution, which states that:
…The provisions of this chapter relating to qualification for election, tenure of office, disqualifications, declaration of assets and liabilities and Oath of Governor shall apply in relation to the office of the Deputy Governor as if references to Governor were references to Deputy Governor.
The literal implication of this provision is that to qualify to hold office as Deputy Governor of a state in Nigeria, the holder of the office must be a citizen of Nigeria by birth and has to be at least 35years old like the governor. He is also expected to be a member of and sponsored by a political party[9] recognised by law and must be educated up to a least School Certificate level or its equivalent in Nigeria. It is a complete fusion with the qualifications of a Governor and a subtle approbation of the secondary status of the office of the Deputy Governor.
From a further look at Section 187, the emergence of the holder of the Office of the Deputy Governor is not through a popular democratic process.
According to the Section[10]:
In any election to which the foregoing provisions of this part of this chapter relate, a candidate for the office of Governor of a state shall not be deemed to have been validly nominated for such office unless he nominated another candidate as his associate for his running for the office of Governor, who is to occupy the office of Deputy Governor and that candidate shall be deemed to have been duly elected to the office of the Deputy Governor if the candidate who nominated him is duly elected as Governor in accordance with the said provision…
This law can be summed up to mean that:
- A candidate for the office of a Governor shall not be deemed to have been validly nominated unless he nominates another candidate who is to occupy the office of the Deputy Governor, and
- The Deputy Governor shall be deemed to have been duly elected if the candidate who nominated him is duly elected as Governor.
As indicated in the high points, both the nomination and subsequent placement of the Deputy Governor depend on the trajectory and electoral success of the governor. It would seem by the arrangement that the office and its holder are appendages or at best footnotes to the career of the Governor.
As Attahiru Jega noted[11]:
It is not for nothing that the concept of “spare tyre” came to be applied to the Deputy Governor
…In Nigerian discourses, (he) is somebody that only becomes functional briefly, when the car run a ground!
He added that:
In the relationship (between governors and their deputies) as it correctly obtains, in spite of the legal provisions for a “joint ticket’ and requirements of courtesy and common decency, there’s often no delegation of authority, no power sharing, no inclusive participation[12].
The “licence” that the Governors need to refuse delegation of authority, power sharing and inclusive participation as noted above, is granted by the Constitution itself. According to Section 193(1) ‘The governor may in his discretion assign to the Deputy Governor… responsibility for business of the government of that state…’
Since it is a discretion and the governor is not and cannot be compelled, authority may not be delegated, power may not be shared and participation in governance may not include the Deputy Governor. This provision is inherently open to abuse, principally because the nature of discretion is not prescribed, giving the impression that the Governor can do whatever he considered necessary for the business of governments or administration of agencies and departments. It is by far the most obvious reason why Deputy Governors are considered ‘spare tyres’ in the estimation of analysts.
It also explains why the Deputy Governor cannot exercise any form of authority even in an acting capacity, unless the governor is absent, on vacation or is otherwise unable to discharge the functions of his office[13].
Also, Section 191(1) suggests that the Deputy Governor can only hold the office of the Governor of a state if the office of the latter becomes vacant by reason of death, resignation, impeachment, permanent incapacitation or removal from office. It means that the Constitution recognises the ‘right’ of the Deputy Governor to occupy the office of the Governor when anyone of the developments above occurs and the business of government is threatened by the non-availability of the holder of the office of the Governor. Only then can the Deputy Governor serve by default. It will be business as usual for the holder of the office in other cases.
Functions of the Deputy Governor
Whereas it confers the executive powers of the state on the Governor in clear, unambiguous terms,[1] the Constitution makes no similar grant of authority to the Deputy Governor. Rather, it provides that the holder of the office will perform functions made subject by law to the whim of the State’s Chief Executive. In this regard, reference is made to Section 193(1):
The Governor of a state may in his discretion assign to the Deputy Governor… responsibility for the business of the government of that state, including the administration of any governor or department of government.
The discretion[2] referred to herein empowers the governor to determine what the place of his deputy is in his administration. It might be an active one if the governor decided to see his deputy governor as a co-pilot, or a passive one if he chooses to see him as a subordinate.
Either way, the Governor is the director of the orchestra.
As former President Jonathan observed:
Everything a Deputy Governor does depend on the instructions from the governor. In some cases, it is so bad that if the Governor is out of the state or country and there are pressing issues to be attended to, the Deputy still has to get permission from the Governor who is somewhere enjoying himself before the issues are addressed[3].
It is clear therefore that the Deputy Governor has a say in the affairs of the state only to the extent that he is permitted by the Governor and not by virtue of the Constitution. Even the provisions of Section 193(2) of the Constitution to the effect that the Governor shall hold regular meetings with the Deputy-Governor and all Commissioners of the government for the purposes of determining the general direction of the policies of government of the state[4] does not lessen the discretion of the Governor or his strangle hold on the executive powers of the state in relation to the Deputy Governor. Many state Governors do not hold meetings with their deputies, let alone consult them or seek their views in the discharge of executive responsibilities.
As it is, it will take a Governor with a heart of benevolence to use his discretion to delegate a few functions to his deputy in the country[5].
Disputes between Governors and their Deputies in Nigeria
Nigeria’s constitutional democracy has been marked in the last 24years by a hail of allegations of misconduct, impeachments and actual removals of Deputy Governors owing to the frosty relationship most of them had with the Governors.
Prior to the period previously referred to; major disagreements defined the relationship between Governors and their deputies especially in some of the states in the South West. For example in the old Oyo state, the late Chief Bola Ige had a most dramatic fall out with his deputy, the late Chief Sunday Afolabi, despite winning an election together months earlier on the platform of the defunct Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN). The same scenario played out between the then Governor of Ondo State, Chief Michael Ajasin and the Deputy Governor at the time, Akin Omoboriowo. Their disagreement led to a historic blood shed in the state.
Also, Bola Tinubu (now the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria) as Governor of Lagos State, enjoyed a less then an ideal working relationship with Kofoworola Bucknor-Akerele, his deputy. Their disagreement led to an allegation of misconduct and as usual, it was the Deputy Governor that paid.
Today, it is the same story of Governors leveling accusations of disloyalty, insubordination and betrayal against their deputies, and the latter countering with allegations of incompetence, high handedness and victimization against the State executives, who obviously have the power to leave them out of the political equation.
It is the reason why governors would openly reprove and disparage their deputies or render them completely redundant by giving them nothing to do. Those not totally stripped of state functions were reduced to menial duties by power driven governors exercising their discretion[1].
Such is the case at the moment with the Deputy Governor of Edo State Mr. Philip Shaibu, who is being accused of desperation and of plotting a coup against the Governor of the State. Because he filed a suit at the Federal High Court Abuja to protect himself from impeachment by the State’s House of Assembly, the Governor disbanded the media crew attached to his office, reduced radically budgetary allocation to the Deputy Governor’s office and relocated him to a new office outside the State’s Secretariat without prior notice[2]
In extreme cases, the Governors, with the collaboration of State legislatures have orchestrated moves to level allegations of misconduct against their deputies in order to impeach and subsequently remove them from office. It is a fact that Deputy Governors have had this experience in at least half of the total number of states in Nigeria.
It is either they are being removed on trumped up charges, or are suffering the humiliation of responding to queries about their conduct, with most ending up on the wrong side of the divide. Recent developments in Bauchi, Enugu, Imo, Kogi, Ondo, Oyo, Rivers and Zamfara States are illustrative. Here, the Deputy Governors were removed from their positions[3] after long drawn battles with Governor who would rather be seen as bosses than partners. This would explain the unceremonious removal of the late Garba Gadi, Peremobowei Ebebi, Sunday Onyebuchi, Alli Olanusi, Eze Madumere and Simon Achuba among others from office at different times but on the same grounds of not toeing the line of their bosses[4]. In the case of Sunday Onyebuchi, Deputy to Sullivan Chime the then Governor of Enugu State, the charges were particularly spurious. In addition to disobeying his principal, he was said to be operating a commercial poultry farm in his official residence. He was ignominiously removed by the State House of Assembly on account of these allegations. Like him, the other political actors earlier referred to were deprived of the mandate that brought them to power to serve and fulfill their oaths as public servants[5] because of the ‘sin of disobedience’ to the Governors. Below is a table containing the picture of the political situation in Nigeria regarding the impeachment/removal of Deputy Governors from office between 1999 and 2024.
Timeline of Impeachment/Removal of Deputy Governors in Nigeria (1999-2024)
| S/N | Name of Deputy Governors/State | Year of removal | Reason for removal |
| 1 | Iyiola Omisore (Osun State) | 1999 | Conflict of interest and divulging of Official Secret. |
| 2 | Ibrahim Kwatalo (Jigawa State) | 2001 | Estranged/damaged relationship with Governor Saminu Turaki. |
| 3 | Enyinnaya Abaribe (Abia State) | 2003 | Estranged/damaged relationship with Governor Orji Kalu. |
| 4 | Chris Ekpeyong (Akwa-Ibom State) | 2005 | Unresolved personal conflict with Governor Victor Attah |
| 5 | Abiodun Aluko (Ekiti State) | 2005 | Unresolved personal conflict with Governor Ayodele Fayose. |
| 6 | Aliyu Wamakko (Sokoto State) | 2006 | Unresolved personal conflict with Governor Attahiru Bafarawa. |
| 7 | Femi Pedro (Lagos State) | 2007 | Disagreement with Governor Bola Tinubu on choice of the latter’s successor. |
| 8 | Garba Gadi (Bauchi State) | 2009 | Disagreement with Governor Isa Yuguda on party affiliation. |
| 9 | Peremobowei Ebebi (Bayelsa State) | 2010 | Estranged/damaged relationship with Governor Timipre Sylva. |
| 10 | Sani Abubakar (Taraba State) | 2012 | Unresolved personal conflict with Governor Danbaba Suntai. |
| 11 | Jude Agbaso & Eze Madumere (Imo State) | 2013 | Disagreement with Governor Rochas Okorocha on choice of the latter’s successor. |
| 12 | Sunday Onyebuchi (Enugu State) | 2014 | Personal disagreements with Governor Sullivan Chime and rearing chicken within government house |
| 13 | Ali Olanusi (Ondo State) | 2015 | Disagreement with Governor Olusegun Mimiko on party affiliation. |
| 14 | Hafiz Abubakar (Kano State) | 2018 | Affiliation and association with the immediate past governor Rabiu Kwankwaso |
| 15 | Simon Achuba (Kogi State) | 2019 | Estranged/damaged relationship with Governor Yahaya Bello. |
| 16 | Rauf Olaniyan (Oyo State) | 2022 | Disagreement with Governor Seyi Makinde on party affiliation. |
| 17 | Mahdi Gusau (Zamfara State) | 2022 | Disagreement with Governor Bello Matawale on party affiliation. |
| 18 | Philip Shaibu (Edo State) | 2024 | Disagreement with Governor Godwin Obaseki on choice of the latter’s successor and allegation of coup. |
From the above, it is clear that only one Deputy Governor- Iyiola Omisore of Osun State was removed on the grounds of misconduct as outlined in the Constitution.
Thankfully, the courts reviewed and reversed majority of the cases referred to and declared them null and void on the grounds of illegality, before proceeding to reinstate the affected officers[1].
In the case of Simon Achuba who was reinstated as Deputy Governor of Kogi State by the High Court in February, 2020, the National Industrial Court made a further order in November of the same year that the sum of N180Million be paid as compensation to him.
The hope is that many more that have been unduly and unjustifiably removed by our increasingly partisan and largely compromised Houses of Assembly will be restored to their positions by the courts in due course.
Future of the Office of the Deputy Governor of the State
In view of the great importance attached to it both constitutionally and politically, the office of the Deputy Governor of the States of the Federation deserves better and more intentional attention than the system as presently constituted is willing to pay to it. At the moment, it seems to be an extension of the Governor’s office devoid of its own aura and authority. The holders usually content themselves with whatever they are given and would not normally stir the hornets by doing otherwise.
The various calls for change by those that have held political offices[1] have been largely advisory and too banal to matter. It will obviously take a major constitutional shift to start. In this direction, specific provisions in the area of election, functions and powers of the Deputy Governors of the State will make all the difference, as is the case in other jurisdictions similar to Nigeria.
In Texas for example, the Deputy Governor[2] constitutionally presides over the State’s senate and is even rumored in some quarters to be more powerful than the State Governor[3]. The same is true of Tennessee where the Lieutenant Governor not only presides over the State’s senate, but also performs specific executive functions to show that they, by virtue of office, combine both legislative and executive powers in the discharge of State responsibilities. The duties are in some cases further increased by legislation as the circumstances of the state may require.
In New Jersey, the Governor must appoint the Lieutenant Governor as head of a cabinet-level department or Administration Agency within the State’s executive branch[4].
The difference between these instances and the situation in Nigeria with the Deputy Governors of the states is the legal framework that exists in one jurisdiction and missing in the other[5]. It is also clear that the intention of the framers of the law in Nigeria is to vest absolute executive powers in the Governor with the office of the Deputy Governor created to prevent a vacuum in case the governor dies, resigns or is removed from office[6].
But for these necessities, there would be no concrete justification for the Deputy Governor to hold the office. Until the holder of the office of the Deputy Governor is endowed with specific constitutional powers as is the case in Texas, Tennessee and New Jersey, they will continue to be at the beck and call of the Governor[7], and the needless battle of wits and succession we have seen in the last years, will invariably continue by rote.
Conclusion
The provisions of the Constitution on the office of the Deputy Governor of the States of the Federation have been examined. The letters establishing the office, the qualification of the holders to serve, their functions and the circumstances under which they might act instead of the Governor have similarly been addressed. More importantly, the continued desecration of the office of the Deputy Governor and the relegation of its holders to the background in the scheme of things in most of the States featured prominently, just like the lack of a framework for the emergence of Deputy Governors and the nature and extent of their powers within the state.
It is obviously clear that the present state of affairs in the Nigerian legal system is akin to the ‘spare tyre’ conundrum earlier referred to[1]. Deputy Governors will not act on their own but only when they are told to. Their brief is to carefully and dutifully perform every task assigned to them by their principals without question. Any attempt to get creative is labeled and used as reason to demonise and subsequently remove the Deputy Governor from his position.
It will explain why the current political dispensation is awashed with cases of impeachment of Deputy Governors on the basis of one disagreement or another with the Governors acting in concert with the House of Assembly.
Happily, the courts have been resolute and have not hesitated to courageously and consistently denounce every abuse of process in the removal of Deputy Governors most of whom have been reinstated to their offices and in appropriate cases compensated for the wrong removal.
As shown in the Supreme Court’s decision in the gubernatorial election of Bayelsa State in 2019, the nomination of a person to run for the office of a Governor is somehow tied to or dependent on the process leading up to the nomination of the Deputy Governor[2]. Accordingly where a person nominated to run as Deputy Governor runs foul of the law, the defect will count against the person running for the office of the Governor, since as the court rightly held, they run on the same ticket. It is thus not all about the Governor stricto sensu.
It remains to be seen though how far the system is willing to go in addressing the lacunae in the law concerning the office that ranks next to the governor’s in the Constitution. For as long as the status quo in which the office of the Deputy Governor is shorn of constitutional functions and powers is maintained, no progress can be made. They will continue in the shadows of the Governors and serve the state remotely and behind the scene for four or eight years, if not removed.
It will take more than this observation of stricture and the willingness of the courts to do justice to right the wrongs and turn things around for Deputy Governors in the country. Rather, a deliberate move in which the Constitution is amended to confer powers and authority on the office is required if the holder must wear the toga of the office he holds with dignity and a sense of purpose.
That amendment is long overdue and must be made at the earliest possible time to preserve the honour of the office.
Recommendations
In view of the clearly unsatisfactory state of the law as presently constituted in respect of the Deputy Governor of a State in Nigeria, the following recommendations are made; that:
- The provisions of Section 193(1) of the Constitution to the effect that the Governor may assign responsibility to the Deputy Governor in his discretion be expunged.
- Specific powers and responsibilities be conferred on the Deputy Governor of the States as is the case in jurisdictions with similar legal systems.
- Clear, specific and independent provisions be made in respect of the Deputy-Governor’s qualification for office in the areas of age, educational qualification, citizenship and political affiliation.
- The existing practice in which the Governor nominates the Deputy-Governor be discontinued and replaced with a more expansive process in which the political parties play a more prominent role.
- The Deputy Governor be allowed and empowered to appoint his aides and advisers within the ambit of the law.
- The office of the Deputy Governor be constitutionally insulated from financial pressure, partisan politics and undue influence by the holder of the office of the Governor and the State’s House of Assembly. It may be appropriate that provision be made to vote a certain percentage of allocations made to the executive arm of the State to the office of the Deputy Governor in this regard.
While they are not exhaustive or even fool proof, the aggregation of the thoughts above will in the short run address present inadequacies in the day to day administration and governance of the States in Nigeria, and in the long run, correct a gaping, age long constitutional anomaly, permanently.
Abiola Olajide Ogunsakin is a lecturer in the Department of Jurisprudence and International Law at Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago-Iwoye, Nigeria. Gbade Olomu Akinrinmade is the Dean of Faculty of Law at Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago-Iwoye, Nigeria.
NUALS Law Journal 