Buhari must be joking addressing VP as coordinator – Ozekhome

A constitutional lawyer and human rights activist, Chief Mike Ozekhome has said that the senate had the right to reject the letter made available to it by President Muhammadu Buhari before his medical voyage to London, which addressed the Vice President, Yemi Osinbajo as coordinator of national affairs.
The legal luminary, in a statement made available to The Point, stated that the appellation given to the vice president in the letter was not recognised by Nigeria constitution.
“The National Assembly that has the sole prerogative to accept or reject the president’s letter under section 145 of the 1999 constitution, can actually reject the letter from Mr President, which referred to Osinbajo as “Coordinator of National Affairs.”
He reiterated that “Matters like this shouldn’t be taken up with too much ado to avoid crisis.
In that case, a needless constitutional crisis would have arisen, as a big vacuum in governance would have been created. In my opinion, in these times that try our souls, task our patience and sap our energy, matters like this are better left to lie low.’
Ozekhome added that nothing like ‘coordinating’ exists in the constitution, “There is nothing like “Coordinator of National Affairs” in our Constitution. That is a strange importation of an unknown term into our Constitution. Section 145 of the 1999 Constitution specifically refers to “Acting President”, he said’
 He maintained that the correct word in the constitution was ‘Acting president,’ meant solely to perform in the absence of the President.
“The acting President in the constitution is one who shall perform the functions of the President as Acting President whenever the president is proceeding on vacation or is otherwise unable to discharge the functions of his office,” he maintained.
 He further disclosed that the President may have used the word ‘Coordinating’ as a joke rather than use the initial word ‘acting.’ “The president may have used the term jokingly, to represent one who is fully in charge in his absence. Certainly, it is not legally or constitutionally correct,” he said.