On-why-office-of-the-chief-of-staff-is-unconstitutional
September 7, 2020 | News
ON WHY OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF STAFF IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Recently, I made a statement on the subject matter, and it was published in part online by the Independent newspaper on May 14th, 2020, hence it became important for me to reiterate what was said and state it as it is.
The fact still remains that the position of the Chief of Staff (CoS) in Nigerian Government is not recognized by, nor does it have the backing of the Nigerian Constitution. But it is only recognized by the ignorant Nigerian public, and was made what it is presently by the Executive Government – not the Nigerian Constitution. On the other hand, the role of the Secretary to the Government at all levels is recognized by the Nigerian Constitution. In America, the Chief of Staff is the Secretary to the Government. The role of the Chief of Staff in Nigeria is mere duplication of functions. The Chief of Staff has no role, if the Secretary to the Government is active and functional. The Chief of Staff has no role enshrined in the Constitution because that office is not recognized by the Constitution to begin with in the first place. The truth is, if the Secretary to the Government is active and functional as it ought to be in Nigeria, then we would realize that the CoS office was never needed.
To have a clearer picture of why I am making this statement, let us begin with looking at the definition of the term Chief of Staff. According to Wikipedia, the online data source, “the title ‘Chief of Staff’ identified the leader of a complex organization, institution or body of persons and it also may identify a principal staff officer (PSO) who is the coordinator of the supporting staff, or a primary aide-de-camp to an important individual, such as a President or a Senior Military officer or leader of a large organization. In general, a Chief of Staff provides a buffer between a Chief Executive and that executive’s direct-reporting team. The Chief of Staff generally works behind the scenes to solve problems, mediates disputes and deal with issues before they are brought to the Chief executive. Often, Chiefs of staff act as confidantes and advisors to the Chief Executive, acting as a sounding board for ideas. Ultimately, the actual duties depend on the position and the people involved”.
Now, I want us to pay attention to that last statement, that the “actual duties of a Chief of Staff DEPEND on the position and the people involved”. In other words, that Office of the Chief of Staff is made relevant, powerful and influential by those involved in the helm of affairs of a Government, and not by the laws/constitution of that land.
According to a published article in 2019 by one Abubakar Sani, a lawyer in Kano, while giving credence to this subject matter, he noted that: “In Nigeria, this office of CoS was first introduced with the return of civil rule in 1999 under President Olusegun Obasanjo. It appears to have been borrowed from, if not exactly modelled after, the position of the Chief of Staff to the President of the United States of America. But according to the Nigerian State House website, the staff of the office of the President perform the following functions: “administrative duties, protocol, security and media”, with the Chief of Staff to the President being responsible for “managing the President’s schedule and correspondence and any other duties that may be assigned by the President.
“However, this is different from Nigeria’s version of the Office of the Chief of Staff. A more detailed remit of the Presidential CoS presently being circulated in social media, includes the following: “Coordinating the activities of all Principal Staff Officers of the President C-IN-C; Conveyance of all directives and decisions of the President, C-in-C to the Secretary to the Federal Government (SGF), Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) and other top functionaries of Government; Formation of ad-hoc bodies as well as stipulating their terms of reference in conjunction with the SGF; Chairing of meetings of Principal Staff Officers to the President, C-in-C; Monitoring and Coordinating the day-to-day activities of the President, C-in-C; Clearance of all official military and civil matters as well as preparation of executive summaries on official issues; Arrangement of all official appointments and engagements of the President, in conjunction with SCOP and ADC to the C-in-C; Arrangement and convening of all meetings sanctioned by the President/C-in-C as well as coverage of such meetings including provision of secretariat services; Organizing Federal Executive Council meetings in conjunction with the Cabinet Secretariat and advising the President/C-in-C on schedules of the meetings for approval and eventual communication of same by the CoS to the Cabinet Secretariat”
Other roles stated include: “Attendance of National Defence and Security Council meetings; Coordination and attendance of the annual council/boards of Defence, NA, NN, NAF, NWC, CSC, NDA and NDF as well as following up all decisions reached at the meetings; Serving as a link between the President, C-in-C and the Service Headquarters; Vetting of all draft speeches for the President, C-in-C in respect of service functions; Management of correspondence to and from the President, C-in-C including the circulation of enrolled legislation, proposed Executive orders, decision memoranda, speeches and other Presidential documents to relevant State House functionaries for clearance and comment; Ensuring that any document being forwarded to the President, C-in-C is in suitable condition, technically and substantively for Presidential review and action; Maintenance and control of the President, C-in-C’s projects and welfare accounts; Authorization of use of Presidential Air-fleet by Government functionaries”.
When we now look at the Legal/Constitutional Status of the Chief of Staff, we would see that “the Office of the Chief of Staff to the President (or a State Governor) is neither specifically recognized nor created by either the Constitution or the Public Service Rules. Nor, for that matter, either an Act of the National Assembly or a law enacted by a State House of Assembly. At least, none of that I’m aware of. To that extent, the validity of those offices depends on whether their occupants can be said to belong to the personal staff of the President or State Governors, as the case may be, within the contemplation of Sections 171(1)(e) and 208(1)(d), respectively, of the Constitution. But can they?” How can an office not recognized by the country’s Constitution be given and accorded so much role and influence, especially at the Federal level? This is what happens when men are given the liberty to decide how an office attached to theirs, is to function.
“It is conceded that the definition of “personal staff” under the Constitution (like every other word or phrase used therein) should be given a broad and liberal interpretation. However, I believe that the remit of the Chief of Staff to the President outlined above. This is because, to my mind, those functions are clearly official. However, assuming, without conceding, that the CoS belongs to personal staff of the President (or a State Governor), he (or she) is, at best, in the same category as a PERSONAL ASSISTANT, which itself is not recognized under the Constitution: only the offices of Special Advisers to the President and State Governors, are – by virtue of Sections 151 and 196, respectively, of the Constitution.
“Is the Chief of Staff to the President (or a State Governor), a Special Adviser to either of them? If he (or she) is not, then that position would be alien to the 1999 Constitution as amended, unless it can fairly be interpreted as merely a means of exercising the executive powers of the Federation (or a State), within the contemplation of Section 5(1)(a) and 5(2)(a), respectively, of the Constitution. These clauses permit the President and State Governors to delegate their powers to, inter alia, officers in the public service of the Federation or of the State, as the case may be. Unfortunately, the definition of such officers in Section 318(1) of the Constitution excludes the Chief of Staff. The relevant canon of interpretation is expressio unius est exclusio alterius. To the extent that a specific constitutional power cannot be validly exercised unless it is expressly conferred (ATT-GEN. OF BENDEL STATE vs. ATT-GEN. OF THE FEDERATION (1981) 1FNLR 179), I humbly posit that the office of the Chief of Staff to both the President and State Governors is ultra vires and unconstitutional.”
In his advice on how to correct this anomaly, Abubakar Sani noted that: “In my opinion, Sections 148(1) and 193(1) of the Constitution provide a surprisingly handy solution. They provide that the executive powers of the Federation or the States shall be exercised directly by the President/Governors or through the Vice-President/Deputy Governors, Ministers/Commissioners or officers in the public services of the Federation/State, respectively. In other words, the President and State Governors can simply confer the functions of a CoS on the Vice-President/Deputy Governors, a Minister or Commissioner, stating clearly that he or she is responsible for the day-to-day administration of the State House or Government House, as the case may be.”
Succinctly, the Chief of Staff is just a Personal Aide of the Governors/President. So, Nigerians should not be making so much noise, or a big deal about this office and who gets to be there. Truth is, when we look at things critically, can someone tell me why the majority of Nigerians are aiming to be in government at the State and Federal levels? It is never really not having the desire to SERVE for the good of all. It is about having access to instant wealth and a life of splendor. Until we start making Nigerian Government at all levels less attractive, we would continue to have bad governance in our hands because of such over exaggerated public offices that have become channels for the abuse of power.
Zik Gbemre.
May 21, 2020
We Mobilize Others To Fight For Individual Causes As If Those Were Our Causes
Recently, I made a statement on the subject matter, and it was published in part online by the Independent newspaper on May 14th, 2020, hence it became important for me to reiterate what was said and state it as it is.
The fact still remains that the position of the Chief of Staff (CoS) in Nigerian Government is not recognized by, nor does it have the backing of the Nigerian Constitution. But it is only recognized by the ignorant Nigerian public, and was made what it is presently by the Executive Government – not the Nigerian Constitution. On the other hand, the role of the Secretary to the Government at all levels is recognized by the Nigerian Constitution. In America, the Chief of Staff is the Secretary to the Government. The role of the Chief of Staff in Nigeria is mere duplication of functions. The Chief of Staff has no role, if the Secretary to the Government is active and functional. The Chief of Staff has no role enshrined in the Constitution because that office is not recognized by the Constitution to begin with in the first place. The truth is, if the Secretary to the Government is active and functional as it ought to be in Nigeria, then we would realize that the CoS office was never needed.
To have a clearer picture of why I am making this statement, let us begin with looking at the definition of the term Chief of Staff. According to Wikipedia, the online data source, “the title ‘Chief of Staff’ identified the leader of a complex organization, institution or body of persons and it also may identify a principal staff officer (PSO) who is the coordinator of the supporting staff, or a primary aide-de-camp to an important individual, such as a President or a Senior Military officer or leader of a large organization. In general, a Chief of Staff provides a buffer between a Chief Executive and that executive’s direct-reporting team. The Chief of Staff generally works behind the scenes to solve problems, mediates disputes and deal with issues before they are brought to the Chief executive. Often, Chiefs of staff act as confidantes and advisors to the Chief Executive, acting as a sounding board for ideas. Ultimately, the actual duties depend on the position and the people involved”.
Now, I want us to pay attention to that last statement, that the “actual duties of a Chief of Staff DEPEND on the position and the people involved”. In other words, that Office of the Chief of Staff is made relevant, powerful and influential by those involved in the helm of affairs of a Government, and not by the laws/constitution of that land.
According to a published article in 2019 by one Abubakar Sani, a lawyer in Kano, while giving credence to this subject matter, he noted that: “In Nigeria, this office of CoS was first introduced with the return of civil rule in 1999 under President Olusegun Obasanjo. It appears to have been borrowed from, if not exactly modelled after, the position of the Chief of Staff to the President of the United States of America. But according to the Nigerian State House website, the staff of the office of the President perform the following functions: “administrative duties, protocol, security and media”, with the Chief of Staff to the President being responsible for “managing the President’s schedule and correspondence and any other duties that may be assigned by the President.
“However, this is different from Nigeria’s version of the Office of the Chief of Staff. A more detailed remit of the Presidential CoS presently being circulated in social media, includes the following: “Coordinating the activities of all Principal Staff Officers of the President C-IN-C; Conveyance of all directives and decisions of the President, C-in-C to the Secretary to the Federal Government (SGF), Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) and other top functionaries of Government; Formation of ad-hoc bodies as well as stipulating their terms of reference in conjunction with the SGF; Chairing of meetings of Principal Staff Officers to the President, C-in-C; Monitoring and Coordinating the day-to-day activities of the President, C-in-C; Clearance of all official military and civil matters as well as preparation of executive summaries on official issues; Arrangement of all official appointments and engagements of the President, in conjunction with SCOP and ADC to the C-in-C; Arrangement and convening of all meetings sanctioned by the President/C-in-C as well as coverage of such meetings including provision of secretariat services; Organizing Federal Executive Council meetings in conjunction with the Cabinet Secretariat and advising the President/C-in-C on schedules of the meetings for approval and eventual communication of same by the CoS to the Cabinet Secretariat”
Other roles stated include: “Attendance of National Defence and Security Council meetings; Coordination and attendance of the annual council/boards of Defence, NA, NN, NAF, NWC, CSC, NDA and NDF as well as following up all decisions reached at the meetings; Serving as a link between the President, C-in-C and the Service Headquarters; Vetting of all draft speeches for the President, C-in-C in respect of service functions; Management of correspondence to and from the President, C-in-C including the circulation of enrolled legislation, proposed Executive orders, decision memoranda, speeches and other Presidential documents to relevant State House functionaries for clearance and comment; Ensuring that any document being forwarded to the President, C-in-C is in suitable condition, technically and substantively for Presidential review and action; Maintenance and control of the President, C-in-C’s projects and welfare accounts; Authorization of use of Presidential Air-fleet by Government functionaries”.
When we now look at the Legal/Constitutional Status of the Chief of Staff, we would see that “the Office of the Chief of Staff to the President (or a State Governor) is neither specifically recognized nor created by either the Constitution or the Public Service Rules. Nor, for that matter, either an Act of the National Assembly or a law enacted by a State House of Assembly. At least, none of that I’m aware of. To that extent, the validity of those offices depends on whether their occupants can be said to belong to the personal staff of the President or State Governors, as the case may be, within the contemplation of Sections 171(1)(e) and 208(1)(d), respectively, of the Constitution. But can they?” How can an office not recognized by the country’s Constitution be given and accorded so much role and influence, especially at the Federal level? This is what happens when men are given the liberty to decide how an office attached to theirs, is to function.
“It is conceded that the definition of “personal staff” under the Constitution (like every other word or phrase used therein) should be given a broad and liberal interpretation. However, I believe that the remit of the Chief of Staff to the President outlined above. This is because, to my mind, those functions are clearly official. However, assuming, without conceding, that the CoS belongs to personal staff of the President (or a State Governor), he (or she) is, at best, in the same category as a PERSONAL ASSISTANT, which itself is not recognized under the Constitution: only the offices of Special Advisers to the President and State Governors, are – by virtue of Sections 151 and 196, respectively, of the Constitution.
“Is the Chief of Staff to the President (or a State Governor), a Special Adviser to either of them? If he (or she) is not, then that position would be alien to the 1999 Constitution as amended, unless it can fairly be interpreted as merely a means of exercising the executive powers of the Federation (or a State), within the contemplation of Section 5(1)(a) and 5(2)(a), respectively, of the Constitution. These clauses permit the President and State Governors to delegate their powers to, inter alia, officers in the public service of the Federation or of the State, as the case may be. Unfortunately, the definition of such officers in Section 318(1) of the Constitution excludes the Chief of Staff. The relevant canon of interpretation is expressio unius est exclusio alterius. To the extent that a specific constitutional power cannot be validly exercised unless it is expressly conferred (ATT-GEN. OF BENDEL STATE vs. ATT-GEN. OF THE FEDERATION (1981) 1FNLR 179), I humbly posit that the office of the Chief of Staff to both the President and State Governors is ultra vires and unconstitutional.”
In his advice on how to correct this anomaly, Abubakar Sani noted that: “In my opinion, Sections 148(1) and 193(1) of the Constitution provide a surprisingly handy solution. They provide that the executive powers of the Federation or the States shall be exercised directly by the President/Governors or through the Vice-President/Deputy Governors, Ministers/Commissioners or officers in the public services of the Federation/State, respectively. In other words, the President and State Governors can simply confer the functions of a CoS on the Vice-President/Deputy Governors, a Minister or Commissioner, stating clearly that he or she is responsible for the day-to-day administration of the State House or Government House, as the case may be.”
Succinctly, the Chief of Staff is just a Personal Aide of the Governors/President. So, Nigerians should not be making so much noise, or a big deal about this office and who gets to be there. Truth is, when we look at things critically, can someone tell me why the majority of Nigerians are aiming to be in government at the State and Federal levels? It is never really not having the desire to SERVE for the good of all. It is about having access to instant wealth and a life of splendor. Until we start making Nigerian Government at all levels less attractive, we would continue to have bad governance in our hands because of such over exaggerated public offices that have become channels for the abuse of power.
Zik Gbemre.
May 21, 2020
We Mobilize Others To Fight For Individual Causes As If Those Were Our Causes