Many Nigerians and indeed the international community believe that there is a dangerous power vacuum in the country.

Seventy-eight days after the President, Umaru Yar'Adua, went to Saudi Arabia to treat a heart ailment, Nigeria has neither a substantive President, literally speaking, nor an acting one. But the Federal Attorney General and Justice Minister, Michael Aondoakaa, says such view is most uninformed. Nigeria, he emphatically told Ikechukwu Amaechi, Editor, Daily Independent, is not running on auto pilot.

Excerpts...

In July, it will be three years since you became the Federal Attorney General and Minister of Justice. How has it been so far?

Well, it has been a wonderful experience because for every lawyer, whenever you become the Attorney General, you feel fulfilled.

As the Chief Law Officer of the country, what reforms have you brought to bear on the system?

At least I have brought one major thing that was missing in the country - the issue of the rule of law - on the table. For people to think and know that this country is supposed to be governed according to the law.

It has never happened in this country. Even if people say yes, it is not observed in the manner they wanted, at least, there is something on the table for Nigeria to aspire to achieve as a country.

On that same issue of rule of law, some people contend that for this government, it has become a cliché or a deliberate ploy to deceive the people.

You know some people are professional critics, so you don't need to bother about them, because there is no alternative to rule of law. I have not seen any civilised country that is based on any other thing other than observance of law and due process. Can the so-called critics point out that this or that country became a great superpower, which did not base its governance on rule of law?

You seem to be the most controversial minister today. Does it come with the portfolio or it has to do with Michael Aondoakaa's person?

The office of the Attorney General and Minister of Justice is an active office. And you know in Nigeria, if you are doing your job well, people must talk.

So, to say I am controversial, that is not true. What I can say is that I am doing my job well with results which are affecting people in various ways. And based on how it affects each person, that is why they are also reacting in various ways.

Your primary constituency which is the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), ought to be your bulwark. If you are doing your job well as you say, they should be your strongest supporters or people you run to when others attack you. But they seem to be your greatest critics. Why?

I don't really think they are critics, they are just making their own opinion. But the set up of the system is not me running to NBA, it is the other way round. NBA should be running to me.

The NBA is under the General Counsel. I am President of the General Counsel. It is there in Section 1 of the Legal Practitioners Act. I am the one to set up rules that will manage the affairs of NBA. The General Council is made up of the Federal Attorney General who is the President, old and state Attorneys General and 20 Nigerians who are charged with the responsibility of the management of the NBA and setting rules for the NBA, subject to the constitution of the NBA.

So, it is not me to run to NBA, it is NBA that will run to me because the General counsel is superior. NBA is just an association incorporated based on instrument granted by me. Where I say me, I mean the office of the Attorney General.

The incumbent President of the NBA, Rotimi Akeredolu, seems to think that by your actions you are weakening rather than strengthening the rule of law?

That is his own thinking and he is not God that would think that he is infallible. But I don't want to join issues with him.

All I have to say is that he should not expect that his thinking will be the right thing that would be applicable in the country. But as at now, I am the Attorney General. My thinking on the issues of law based on section 150 is the official thinking that has to be obeyed, not that of the NBA.

Will you agree that your interpretation of the law most times is coloured by political expediency?

I interpret the law based on how the law is. Anybody who faults me should go to court. I have not got a single judgment against me. So, that means my interpretation of the law has been correct. In all the interpretations, the few that have been tested, the Court found me right.

So, it doesn't matter somebody sitting in his or her small little office to say I don't agree or going to the media to say I do not agree. The position of the law remains consistent.

Including the fact that you said the President of Nigeria can govern from anywhere in the world and does not need to reside in Nigeria?

I have corrected this assertion because it was obviously exaggerated and twisted out of context. I said Section 5 of the constitution vests executive powers of the Federation in the person of the President. And I maintain it. It is not vested in the office of the President but the person of the President. And the wordings of the Section are clear. That he can exercise it himself directly or through other people.

So, if the powers are vested in his person, it then means that anywhere he goes, he has it. If it were just powers invested in the office and you meet him outside the office, he will say wait, when I get back to the office, my power is inside the office, that is a different thing.

Of course, when the president traveled to Brazil on official duties, he didn't leave the powers here. When he goes to the United Nations, it does mean he left the powers in Nigeria.

He carries the powers along with him and right there at the United Nations, he exercises the powers of the President of Nigeria.

But right now, he is not on official duty in Saudi Arabia.

There is no difference in any situation. The powers can only be removed through constitutionally laid down rules. The provisions are there in the constitution. The one of impeachment and the one of incapacity. That is all.

On the issue of incapacity, after the Federal Executive Council meeting last week, you addressed the media and said it was unanimously agreed that Yar'Adua is still fit to govern Nigeria. What exactly is your definition of incapacity?

First, I was mandated to address the press after the meeting of the Executive Council of the Federation, which complied with the order of the Court.

So, I was speaking what every other member of the Executive Council of the Federation decided. If there was any dissent, it was a different thing, but everybody agreed including the Vice President. And my decisions were that the President was not incapable of discharging his functions.

What the Federal Executive Council was asked to do, simplicita, was removal of the President from office on the ground of incapacity.

The relief of the plaintiff was that the president was permanently incapacitated and should be removed from office. No other thing was brought before the Federal Executive Council other than invoking Section 144.

Invoking that Section does not also make any other person an Acting President. It simply removes the President who is found culpable of infraction of Section 144 and replaces him with an alternative. That is all. It is meant to remove the Vice President or remove a President if it is found that they are incapable of discharging their duties on the ground of incapacity.

So, how come you adjudge a President who has not been seen in public for over two months during which period he was only able to speak for less than two minutes still capable of governing the country?

Incapacity as defined in the dictionary is when you have completely lost all mental faculties. It is there. But you can see evidence that a President who spoke on radio and addressed the world on BBC cannot be said to have a total loss of his mental faculties. But I want you to understand that this is a collective decision, a decision which if you want me to explain, you go to each member of council who collectively ruled that from the evidence and what they have seen, the President is not permanently incapacitated.

Going to hospital for medical treatment does not make you incapacitated to be removed from office based on section 144.

Perhaps! But could you tell Nigerians as the Attorney General of the Federation, a very pre-eminent portfolio, how many times you have been able to speak with the President in the last two months?

It is not a matter of speaking with the President that is on ground.

This is how people are trying to reduce this matter to a most simplistic level. What you should be asking is how many executive powers have I exercised to keep the function of government. It is not a matter of speaking to the President. That is not the issue.

A conversation between people is private. Even when he was present, when I speak with him, do I go to the press to say today, I spoke to the President? It doesn't matter. The status quo remains the same. People are trying to look at very trivial matters.

Government is going on, things are being done. Today, new ambassadors submitted their letters of credence, people saw it and they are still talking of speaking to the President.

Even when he was here, how many times will a Minister come out and say I have just finished talking to the president? So why should Ministers change this position now and everyday say I want to tell the world that I spoke with the president.

Why it may be true that the fact of ill health in itself does not constitute incapacity, but the President's absence for two months and no idea whatsoever of when he will come back is worrisome. It is strange or you don't think so?

You have been briefed. What happened to the President is not a secret. It was made known to you that the President developed a heart condition and he is undergoing treatment. From day one, you were told that this is the situation and he is undergoing treatment. At this stage, what should concern Nigerians and people who have elements of human feelings is how well is he recovering.

People have been on wheelchairs and ran their countries, powerful nations. What people are trying to say does not make sense. And government is a collective responsibility. If this government has not been formed, then you can question that collective responsibility. But it has been formed and responsibilities have been given and these responsibilities are being carried out.

So, this is what I am saying. That people are trying to simply use the issue to make the job of a president that of micro managing the affairs of this country.

No, a President is not supposed to micro-manage. That is why ministers are appointed. And wherever a minister is, he is the president.

I will give you an example. The fact that the President didn't go to the UN last time was a big story, that we will lose the seat. But what happened? Not only did we win the seat, we scored the highest vote. That shows you that the executive powers vested in the President were exercised through the Foreign Affairs Minister. That is the simple truth that people just do not want to appreciate.

Today, as we are here, the Foreign Affairs Minister is at the UN trying to contribute the country's quota in solving one of the world's most devastating human calamities - the earthquake in Haiti. The President does not need to go to the UN to show that concern. This is one of the things people should learn to appreciate not to personalise events.

I think it is a hangover that makes people to believe that every single thing of government must be from the President's table. It is not supposed to be so.

You seem to be suggesting that the country may well do without a President. If the President is to perform such minimal role in the affairs of the country, why do we have to bother spending billions of naira to elect one? Can President Obama, for instance, stay outside the U.S. for two months and say it doesn't matter because he has ministers or President Attah Mills of Ghana? The country is on auto-pilot. And you think it doesn't matter?

Are you a student of history?

Yes, I am.

Then go back to the U.S. history before you pass a judgment. You are just taking the history of America after 250 years and trying to draw a conclusion. Go back to America's history and know whether at any given time a President suffered a disability such as has afflicted President Yar'Adua now. So, go back and find out. Don't just jump into conclusion.

The issue of auto-piloting does not arise. It is a matter of simple sickness, he will recover and come back to do his job.

Why are you so comfortable with section 5 of the Constitution while ignoring section 145?

I am not ignoring section 145. Both of them are running concurrently in the constitution. It is like two eyes. So that if one closes, the other one should open.

If it is so, then what is difficult about a President transmitting a letter to the National Assembly, saying he is on medical vacation and that Jonathan should act until he comes back?

You can't ask me a question which is based on somebody else's discretionary power, because history and precedence show that the power is discretionary. The wielding of the power itself is discretionary. So, I am not in a position to answer it.

But this same letter was written by this same president who is being portrayed as being unwilling the first time he traveled on medial vacation and members of his kitchen cabinet sat on it. So, why are you afraid of implementing Section 145?

First, I am not aware of the existence of a kitchen cabinet. We have one executive council and one united body. As at now, we are united and executive powers which has now been delegated to the Vice President, we are all taking orders from him. I am not aware of a kitchen cabinet.

Why is the FEC holding out on this Section 145 even when the Senate and the Council of Elders led by General Yakubu Gowon and President Shehu Shagari have advised the President to transmit this letter? What are you really afraid of? Why is it seemingly impossible for you to see what the rest of the country is seeing?

Let us distinguish two things. We were confronted with two different situations. The FEC was ordered to remove the president or asked to commence the process of removal of the president from office.

The Senate and elders are talking about temporary transfer of power. So, they are two different things. So, the issue of whether the FEC can hold on does not arise because FEC is never vested with the power of transmission of letter to the Senate. We don't have a single provision that we can invoke. The best we can do is an appeal like the Senate has done.

But if I read the court judgment that informed the FEC decision well, I am not too sure the judge said you should remove the President. It said, you should within two weeks determine whether the president is still able to perform his duties?

The court said we should invoke section 144. What is the provision of Section 144? When you are asked to invoke it, what does that mean?

Section 144 is, ab initio, a process of removal of the president on the ground of incapacity, which is related to his physical fitness to rule the country.

But it is a constitutional issue, is it not? So, if the court tells you to invoke Section 144, why not?

The court did not just say go and do it. Go and read the judgment again. It said the FEC should determine whether or not the president is fit to rule the country. If it is that, then, it does not even fall within our jurisdiction. All we have to do is to keep the process going. If we say yes, he is incapable of discharging his duties, that does not even remove the president. It will only start a process. The process will be that resolution.

But the Court ruling gave a discretion - whether or not. So, why should you expect that FEC should not have a right to decide either way? Or it must be exercised in a way you feel it must be decided?

You absolutely have the right to decide the way you have decided but that decision ought to be based on some kind of evidence. The evidence before the world right now seems to suggest that the president is incapacitated. That is why eyebrows are being raised at your decision?

That is also a most uninformed reading of Section 144 which says it is after that decision is made that a medical team is constituted. FEC has no powers to constitute a medical team. If it is a fault in the legislation, go and amend it. And that is why Senate in their wisdom is talking of amending the Section. It is not for us to twist the law. The law did not vest us with the power of calling a doctor. It is after we have taken that decision that the doctors can be called in by the Senate President. They will now constitute a medical team - five doctors. So, who are we to go and start inviting the doctors. You want us to take over the job of the Senate President?

Will you be surprised to hear tomorrow that there are indeed moves in the Presidency to get Yar'Adua to transmit this letter?

Why should I be surprised? My aspiration is that the provisions of the Constitution must be followed. So, why should I be surprised?

First, I am not against the Senate appealing to the President to transmit the letter. It is an appeal. Of course, they have no powers to compel the President to transmit the letter. That is why they are urging him and any other person who has urged him has not committed a crime.

But the discretion is his. It is a voluntary transfer. It is not a mandatory transfer. So, neither you, Senate nor the elders have control over it. All we do is to appeal. So, why should I be surprised if he did it?

In this political quagmire we have boxed ourselves into, some people have argued that it has opened the door for a serial breach of the constitution. For instance, they contend that power to deploy troops can only be executed by a substantive Commander-in-Chief or somebody acting in that capacity. Vice President, Goodluck Jonathan, is neither of the above, yet he deployed troops in Jos, Plateau State?

This is a country that people are not ready to respect organs of government. A judge has said that the Vice President has such powers. So, who are you to sit in your house and say the Vice President does not have such powers!

The Judge said he can exercise any or all of the executive powers. Deployment of troops is an executive function.

Is he exercising these powers after consultation with the President or not?

We don't work like that. The court ruled that no authority other than the President has the power to ask the president. So, who am I to go and ask him? I respect the court. I am not like the others who will sit and say the court is wrong without going on appeal. It is the right of an interested party who is affected by a judgment to go on appeal. It is not for you to make cheap publicity by just sitting in your house making no effort to appeal against the judgment and just whipping up sentiment on the pages of newspapers, instigating disobedience of the constitutional authorities of the courts and acting contemptuously by criticising and inciting people. If we lose the judiciary, we lose the whole system.

For how long do you think this can continue?

I don't understand the question.

The entire polity is on tenterhooks as it were. It is being overheated because we are not doing what we ought to do ...

Now, I have got you. How long will it continue? You should ask them (opposition) how long they will continue to overheat the system, not me.

Ask the people who are overheating the system; who are refusing to accept constitutional provision. We have three arms of government - Executive, Legislature and the Judiciary. The Judiciary has been elevated above the other two because it is the only organ that can strike down any excesses of the other two.

Whenever there is a constitutional crisis, people in a civilised country will go to court. That is the right thing to do. Then a court has said, yes, all that the Vice President has been doing, acting on behalf of the President is valid. Now if people have any respect for the courts, nowhere in the world, no civilised country will subject the judiciary to ridicule as it is being done now; subjecting the judgment of the courts to another debate. It is ridiculous.

It doesn't happen because the constitution itself is designed so that it does not happen. Section 287, Sub Section 3 has enjoined all authorities and all persons to comply with the judgment of the court.

So, it beats my imagination which sort of country we are running when a court decides an issue and some people are saying we should still go and debate the judgment of a court. It should be the other way round. The constitution is not designed for court judgment to be debated either by the executive or legislature or any other person.

You can criticise in more civilised ways - intellectual criticism in magazines, you journalists can write editorials - but not to incite disobedience to decisions of a court.

Are you aware that there are some permanent secretariats - 13 of them - that are yet to be sworn in because of the President's absence thereby jeopardising the effective running of the civil service?

But you have heard that it is not because of the absence of the President.

Is it because of what?

Because the Oaths Act provides for the Chief Justice to even swear in a Chief of Army Staff. So, that couldn't be a reason. Maybe the vacancies they are supposed to fill do not yet exist. But I am not the Head of Service.

Ask the Head of Service that question but certainly not the issue of law. Go and look at the Oath Act. The Chief of Army Staff, Permanent Secretaries, and Ministers can be sworn in by the Chief Justice of the Federation.

Both the President and the Chief Justice have the powers to swear in these categories of people I have mentioned.

You don't seem to see any power vacuum whatsoever in the system?

I am in the system and the system is working.

But even some of your colleagues in FEC privately confess that nothing is working in the system.

Can you name them? If you can, then I can inquire from them. General assertion does not prove anything just like general denial. All these general assertion that there is a failure of system is nothing. You must be specific to show which is the failure and prove it.

But there is a division in the Presidency?

There is no division in the Presidency. If there was, there wouldn't have been an Executive Council and there wouldn't have been a unanimous decision. At best, it would have been a split decision because what the constitution requires is two-third of members of the Federal Executive Council.

So, what other evidence do you want that the system is not divided.

Three years down the road, what has this government achieved?

You are giving me a task that can take another day and I will give you time to come, then I will roll out our achievements. The infrastructural improvement we have accomplished, the road network we are upgrading. In agriculture, we are trying to curb overdependence on oil sector, the reforms of the petroleum sector, making it more profitable and more beneficial; the banking reforms that are going on. A lot of things are going on. I am just giving you a synopsis. But it requires another day's interview, a whole 24 hour interview. This is a highly planned administration that is prepared to give quality to its decisions.

This is the first time that each contract that is given has a plan of action. No contractor has abandoned any site on the ground of non-payment because you must design your contract and show the cash flow to carry the project to the end. These are some of the major reforms that we have introduced. Everything is coming up. A modern airport is on the way. The rail system collapsed, the inland waterways was not set up. No country can exist without these basic transportation system that will complement the road transportation system because a truly agricultural country must have an efficient inland waterways and must have an efficient rail system.

Those things collapsed and if we say we want to reactivate them and bring them at par with other societies, we deserve commendation.

Except that many Nigerians don't seem to see what you are seeing. Where are these projects? You promised 6,000 megawatts of electricity by December 2009, where is it?

We didn't promise we will deliver 6,000 megawatts in a period of crisis. Nigerians must be objective. Human beings must actually accept reality. When we promised you 6,000 megawatts, the time the President read the speech, there was no crisis in the Niger Delta, where the gas is supposed to come from.

Now what happened. Even contracts that were awarded, nobody could even enter the Niger Delta to execute them. We had to at least sacrifice one thing. So, what did we have to sacrifice? Maybe the promise of 6,000 megawatts but let us settle the Niger Delta issues. We did.

Hon Minister, your storyline, I am afraid, cannot be said to be entirely correct. The Niger Delta crisis predated the Yar'Adua Administration. So, as at the time the President made the promise, the crisis was in full bloom. So, the issue of crisis is an after thought.

Besides, until a month or two to December, the Minister of Power was still assuring the nation that the government was on target. That looks more like deceit?

How can you say it is an afterthought? Was there no fight in the Niger Delta? Was there no blowing of pipelines in the Niger Delta?

These things were there.

So, the word after thought is misplaced.

No, it is not because inspite of the crisis, the Minister was still standing on the promise until the last day?

The crisis finished on October 4, 2009. That is when the amnesty offer ended. And nobody could know the magnitude of damage that occurred to the pipelines before then, because nobody could enter there.

Many people would rather blame the crisis of leadership in the country rather than agitation by Niger Delta Youths?

Niger Delta crisis did not start with this administration but was addressed by it. So, if your perception of lack of leadership is that, then I will say that those people who say that, I am sorry for them.

A quality leadership will first aim at getting brothers and sisters who are highly agitated to come together, sit down and talk.

Getting them together is not for the purpose of facilitating an enjoyment of electricity. No. But providing a conducive and high quality life to fellow Nigerians who came from the Niger Delta. That priority supercedes every other thing. To me, if there is peace in this country and this administration cannot achieve any other thing, I will say it has achieved all.

Would you then say we have peace in the country now?

We are on the road to peace. There is peace in the Niger Delta ...

And crisis in Plateau State?

Crisis erupts. There is no country that does not have crisis. It happens in America where somebody takes a gun, in a civilised country, and shoots fellow citizens to death.

So, crisis is not new anywhere. What matters is the ability of government to contain it and to protect life and properties of its citizens. That makes the difference.

Are you saying you are satisfied with the extent this government has protected the lives and properties of the people?

Definitely. I am completely satisfied. But we can do more and we aim to do more.

You don't seem to agree with the position of the immediate past President, General Olusegun Obasanjo, that President Umaru Yar'Adua has a moral obligation to call it quit, if indeed his health can no longer carry him?

I don't like to talk or comment on the opinion of people who are clearly my superiors. You mentioned a past President and I have never been a past president. I don't want to talk about such people. What informed his views, I am not in a position to know. So, I can't comment.

At his level, I am not in a position to join issues with him. I am saying my own as Michael Aondoakaa. I don't want to be associated with answering him or talking to him. His opinion is his opinion.

Are you aware that Nigeria's prestige in the comity of Nations is waning?

What are your statistics?

The U.S. Secretary of State, Mrs. Hillary Clinton, recently said poor leadership has robbed Nigerians the quality of life they rightly deserve? Do you agree?

Well, I didn't read that. But if she was talking about what happened to Farouk Abdulmutallab, of course, there are instances of U.S. citizens killing fellow citizens. Is that also a consequence of poor leadership?

If President Umaru Yar'Adua could talk on BBC, are you saying that you are not worried that he could not extend such courtesy to fellow Nigerians even after more than 350 fellow citizens were slaughtered in one week in Jos?

The question should be, when people were killed, didn't the government react? You are failing to understand something. You are personalising government. Government is a collective responsibility ...

But in a Presidential system, with executive powers, the president embodies the powers of the state, like you always insist ...

But he also delegates such powers. He does not carry it on his head like a bag of rice. The work that the policeman does is an executive power, what the customs does is an executive power. All these are embodied in his person. So, I don't know what you are talking about.

What I am talking about is that this government is running on auto pilot, without a leader.

No! It is not running on auto pilot.

There is a leader, President Umaru Musa Yar'Adua. The government is working. He is sick and he has delegated his executive powers to the Vice President. He went for medical treatment and Vice President is doing his job. You should stop confusing matters.

Why is it impossible for the President to address Nigerians?

Ask Segun Adeniyi, not me. I don't overstep my bounds. I am not a pressman. Segun is the President's spokesman; he is the one that schedules when the president can address the nation. So, when you meet him, ask him not me.

The unfortunate thing is that all the people who are talking are people who can privately give their advice to the president.

So, in my opinion, setting cameras and advertising the advice will not be helpful. It will only deepen division, create confusion and might even create suspicion of the motives. What exactly is the point going public if I am in a position to advise the president and I can reach the president, I can then tell him to do this or that.

All these hullabaloo would have been informal discussion. Even in America when power is transmitted, it is treated as security matter. It is only when the President recovers his power that it is made known to the public. That is how it has been the three times power was transmitted in the U.S. So, why must it become such a highly dramatised matter in Nigeria?

I have been close to the Vice President. It is not that he is desperate, that he wants to undo his boss, but the impression that people are creating is not a good one. They are overheating the system, creating division among two people who are ordinarily so tied together.

All these people can go to the president. Some of them are from the president's immediate environment. Why can't they advise him privately? Must you go to the NTA to make an advice? How is that going to be helpful?