A legitimate push for openness about the president’s health must be matched with due sensitivity in such matters
To the extent that President Muhammadu Buhari is public property, everything about his health must be an open book, which every citizen can read. That is the rule of thumb.
Reason? In a republic, he is a citizen vaulted above all other citizens by law, by virtue of his high office. Since the public till takes full care of his needs, including travels for overseas medical checks and treatments, the owners of that till, the people, must be fully briefed on what they are spending scarce resources on. Besides, such full disclosures are imperative, if morbid rumours, of purported deaths, are not to envelope the polity.
As a corollary, you could even insist that the state of health of every presidential candidate must be routine electioneering fare, so that voters can vote, with the full knowledge and conviction that whoever they elect has the requisite health and stamina to cope with the rigours of the presidency.
In this particular case of President Buhari’s vacation cum medical tour abroad, since made open-ended from February 6 when he was expected back home, has the presidency managed the news very well? Hardly.
The culprit, yet again, is lack of “full disclosure”. An open and transparent government unconditionally demands that. But an opaque culture on health matters, which is automatically carried over into politics and governance, assures the direct opposite. Add the customary global confidentiality in medical and health matters; it is left to conjecture how the “full disclosure” credo can possibly hold in its purest form.
Yet, other things being equal, that would depend on how open the society is. Since some societies (Europe and the United States) are more open than others (Africa, Asia and Russia), how near or far from full disclosure would depend on how relatively open or close the society is.
Nigeria is not an especially open society, particularly on health issues. So, though it is desirable that the presidential media managers were much more open about the matter, it is doubtful if they could have been, given the prevailing societal ethos. That, however, is the only area they could have earned some blame.
Otherwise, the president’s subsisting vacation has not breached the Constitution, and therefore, not made much difference to governance. As demanded by Section 145(1) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, the president has duly informed the National Assembly about his travel; and his intention to run medical tests.
By the virtue of that disclosure, Vice President Yemi Osinbajo has moved in seamlessly as Acting President. Even on the delay in coming home, the president also informed parliament, fingering his doctors’ reported advice to complete some tests as the cause.
It is debatable, of course, if that terse statement was sufficient. From the general reaction, it would appear not; and the anxiety among the people has hardly reduced. But the president has conformed to the Constitution. Again, there is no vacuum in government and that is the clear intendment of the law.
Not a few could argue that the public has been extra-restive — many out of sheer mischief; but a good number too because of their raw experience with the late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua. Candidate Yar’Adua had clear health challenges, that were however glossed over during electioneering. Even as president, Yar’Adua’s health was top official secret. But to the questing Nigerian public, his poor health was an open secret.
That is similar to the present scenario, if the sole index is controversy over the president’s health; and the right of the public to know, at least going by western democratic paradigms.
But that is where it stops. Whereas the Yar’Adua presidential court stonewalled in bad faith, just to thwart the lawful hand-over of temporary power to (then) Vice President Goodluck Jonathan, as Acting President, the present case is the exact opposite.
It would also be recalled that though the Yar’Adua court exploited the lacuna in the original provision, which somewhat left some room for discretion, the nasty experience made the National Assembly to make that provision very explicit. So whereas under the old order, the president or governor could by-pass the Vice President or deputy governor as it was the case in many cases, the president or governor no longer has such luxuries.
That is the big difference between the Yar’Adua and Buhari cases: in this case, the president has scrupulously followed the law. In the Yar’Adua case, the Presidency didn’t, with Michael Aondoakaa (SAN), President Yar’Adua’s Minister of Justice and Attorney-General even claiming the president could rule from anywhere, sick or fit, without necessarily handing over to anyone. Of course, in the hubbub of emotion, to make surface comparison, this fine, definitive detail is lost in the bedlam.
Still, it would have been ideal if everything was laid open in public, and the government levelled with the people. That again, would tally with total openness, which democracy demands. But health is such a delicate matter, to which even the people must show due sensitivity and empathy.
With the galloping bad faith and ill temper that have taken the Nigerian populace captive of late, it is doubtful if anyone would want to level with such a gloating and virulent public. That is a pity, for it shows a people incapable of the level of refinement they expect from their government. That is a tragic disequilibrium.
Still, both sides must make deliberate and mutual efforts at more transparency. The government must take the people into confidence. But the people themselves must demonstrate sensitivity in processing and managing such information.
If both sides can scale this chasm, Nigerian democracy can only be deepened.
