Is There Something With The President Staying Out Over 90 Days?

Many comments have been made since President Buhari jetted out to London for his renewed medical vacation. As more issues became raised as to the status of his health and veracity of the claims by those who paid him visits, it appeared the many interlocutors would have yet more to busy on. 

The subsequent feed would this time shift to the appropriacy of Mr Buhari expending over a period of 90 days outside. Many have questioned the long stay, many more picking it as bait to nail the president's mandate, citing such as unconstitutional. But is it unconstitutional? Does the constitution say anything to its effect? What exactly does the constitution says about more than a 90 days leave?

The President, Muh'd Buhari, took the needed constitutional permission to be away in London, UK for medical vacation by way of writing to the Senate.

That leave began on the 7th of May, precisely. And Mr President since then has been on this leave of absence, leaving the affairs of government to be coordinated by his vice, the acting president, Yemi Osinbajo.

But to some, that leave, legitimately requested and approved, has a stipulated time frame, a period which when expended stirs a constitutional brouhaha. That timeline has been said to be 90 days.

Saturday, the 5th of August, marked it exactly 90 days since President Buhari left the shores of this country. And today, he has exceeded the constitutionally recognized ambit of the privilege to be away without noise. What happens next? Will the noise start? Not long ago, a group has planned approaching the court, with their demand seemingly centered on 90 days excesses.

But, how apropos will it be when it starts? Do they have a case? Are they and their likes justified, and that's constitutionally?

As at the last time a perusal was made through the Nigeria's 1999 Constitution (as amended), which remains the legitimately recognized working framework of the Nigerian state, it was yet to be discovered where it berated the president staying for 90 or more days out of office.

To say it succinctly, it might indeed be a worrisome development that the headman has been out, not attending to his mandate, but the very section of the constitution that hinted about transmitting letter in the event of an absence, and which would have been thought to capture what has now become focus of rebuke, is boldly silent about it. At least no mention of ninety days or what comes after was made in the whole of section 145.

This discovery is rather one that keeps one wondering at how this invention of 90 days timeline came about. It just beats down the appropriateness of the concern and places it as just one more of the products of overzealousness, although whose motive remains unexplained. And strongly it makes unfortunate the bandwagon of criticisms that focuses on this.