Lagos — On the January 22, 2010 Justice Dan Abutu, Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, ruling on suit No FHC/ABJ/654/2010 directed that, Executive Council of the Federation, to within 14 days, consider, pass and publicize a resolution in accordance with the provisions of Section 144 of the 1999 constitution declaring whether, having regard to the absence of the President from Nigeria on medical ground since the 23rd of November 2009, the President is incapable of discharging the functions of his office. That ultimatum has generated discourse and concern with Attorney General of the Federation, Michael Aondoakaa, at an interactive session with State House Correspondents giving details of the Council's decision on the President in response to the ultimatum. Here are excerpts of his views captured by our correspondent, TONY AILEMEN.

Aondoakaa: Before you ask any question, I also want to brief you on the issue of acting president and the history of acting presidents in other jurisdictions. The issue of acting president is a matter, which comes under the purview of Section 145 of the 1999 constitution. The condition precedent for it is that the president must write for a voluntary transfer of power to the VP to be acting president. Where the president does, the VP automatically assumes the duties of acting president. The constitution of the federal Republic of Nigeria does not make provision for any swearing in. It is an automatic elevation to that position of acting president but the job must start from the president. We have looked at other jurisdictions and what has happened and how this provision we have in the 1999 constitution, whether it exists in other jurisdictions.

Nigeria practices a presidential system of government very identical to that of the US. Under the provision of the US constitution, the 25th amendment has a provision, which is very identical. Since the history of America, that provision has been used three times. The first person to assume office under the provision of the voluntary transfer of power was President G. Bush senior. He became the first person in the history of America to be an acting president. Only three times in the history of America has someone acted as president. In all the cases, the self declared the president himself who will write voluntarily transferring authority to the VP used incapacity. The first instance that occurred was July 13, 1985 when President Ronald Regan went for surgery to remove cancerous substance from his colon. Prior to undergoing the surgery he transmitted a letter to the speaker of the House of Representatives and the president of the temple of the senate declaring him incapacitated. The VP GW Bush acted as president from 11.28 am to 7.22 pm on the same day. That is as soon as the operation finished, Reagan transmitted the second letter and assumed the power of president. The second incident was on June 29, 2002. President George Bush Junior declared himself temporarily unable to discharge the power of the president and the duties of his office because he was undergoing surgery, which required sedation.

He invoked the 25th amendment to the speaker and the president of the temple of the senate and then Dick Cheney acted as the president for a little over two hours. This is from 7.09 am to 9.24 am where upon Bush transmitted the second letter and assumed power and duties of office. Now, what happened here is that when this was done, it was in the time of September 11, 2001 and the issue of terrorists attack was very high and American troops were in Afghanistan and when Bush was asked that why for such a short period, he said I did so because we at war and I also want to be super conscious. Lastly, on July 22, 2007, under the same circumstances as in 2002, President Bush transmitted a letter to the speaker and the president of the temple of the senate declaring himself temporarily unable to discharge the power and the duties of office as he is to undergo another surgery which required sedation. VP Cheney acted as the president from 7.16 am to 9.21 am of the same day becoming the first VP to act as the acting president for more than once in the history of US. In all these, although the public are aware temporary hand over will take place for security purposes; the time it occurred was not revealed until Bush came back to power.

This is the position of acting president in US. This is not saying that the right thing ought not to be done but we are saying that the issue should not be confused with politics of the day. This is a pure discretional matter left to the president and it can only commence with the president writing a letter and it is a voluntary transfer of power which neither of us, nobody has control over except the president himself. I have read these to let you know that these have been the position. The issue also has been a security matter. It is not matter that when it is been transferred the whole world as it is been canvassed where people will lead delegation, it has serious security implication even in US. This is not a matter that ought to be mixed with politics. We have the decision of the court, which the court in its wisdom finds as a right and its facts that the president has delegated all his powers to the VP. In a country that is governed by the rule of law, that is the decision of the court. We cannot and no organ of government can take over the responsibilities of the court, which is supposed to be the law. If the court gives a decision, it is not opened to anybody or organ of government to say that the court is wrong. The only position left is that if you are affected by the decision of the court, if you are not a party to the case; you apply for leave as an interested party to appeal against the decision of the court as an interested party. That decision gives the VP unencumbered power to act on his behalf and at least that is what we have so far and that should be the guiding consideration of all of us which could have been if we are obeying rule of law and not subjecting the decision of the court to undue political consideration, that could have ended the matter. On the part of the executive council we have accepted the decision of the court and as long as we know, no minister can disagree with the VP and no executive order issued by the VP can be questioned by any authority in the executive arm of government. That is the position.

Were doctors consulted in arriving at the decisions?

We followed the constitution.

Can you name the medical experts consulted?

The constitution did not make that provision. Go and read the constitution.