– NATIONAL ASSEMBLY MUST ESTABLISH WHETHER THE PRESIDENT IS STILL FIT TO DISCHARGE THE DUTIES OF HIS OFFICE
The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has declared that President Bola Tinubu has “lost control” of his administration, citing the reported leadership crisis at the Border Communities Development Agency (BCDA) as evidence of a Presidency where official appointments can allegedly be ignored without consequence raising serious questions about who is really in control of the administration.
In a statement issued by Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, the ADC’s National Publicity Secretary, the party said the BCDA dispute, together with the earlier Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) scandal and a pattern of policy reversals, suggests that unelected individuals may have hijacked the President’s constitutional powers to appoint and remove public officers.
The ADC called on the National Assembly to activate the relevant constitutional provisions to ascertain the President’s fitness to continue in office, arguing that if he can no longer assert control over his government, he should resign.
The full statement read:
The African Democratic Congress (ADC) is deeply alarmed by yet another bizarre episode in the affairs of the Federal Government, where a man publicly removed from office by presidential directive reportedly continues to occupy that same office and still hold meetings with senior officials of the same government .
If the reports concerning the Border Communities Development Agency (BCDA) are true, then this is no longer about one disputed appointment. It is about something far more disturbing: who is actually in charge of the Nigerian Presidency? When a President announces the appointment of one person and another simply ignores that directive and carries on in office, Nigeria is no longer witnessing administrative confusion. We are witnessing a struggle for control of the Presidency itself.
The BCDA episode cannot be dismissed as an isolated incident because it follows a growing and disturbing pattern. Nigerians are still watching in bewilderment, the embarrassing spectacle of the so-called phantom Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC), a government agency that officially did not exist, yet somehow operated at the highest level of government, and conducted itself with the confidence of a legitimate institution until issues arose relating to his alleged collaboration with the President’s Chief of Staff.
Taken together, these episodes reveal a Presidency steadily losing its monopoly over one of the most fundamental powers of government: the constitutional authority to appoint and remove public officers. Today, Nigerians no longer know whether an appointment announced by the Presidency is final, whether a dismissal actually takes effect, or whether someone somewhere possesses a superior authority capable of overruling presidential decisions without explanation.
Effectively, Tinubu administration has become a place where official announcements compete with unofficial power, where competing interests fight over appointments and patronage. Under President Tinubu, the Nigerian Presidency, like the Nigerian economy and Nigeria’s security situation has started to resemble a system governed by the principle of the survival of the fittest.
This is made even worse by a disturbing pattern of public reversals that has become the defining feature of this administration. From the hurried suspension of the Cybersecurity Levy after nationwide outrage, to the withdrawal of the Expatriate Employment Levy following resistance from investors, to repeated policy summersaults and contradictory government announcements across several sectors, Nigerians have become accustomed to a government that announces first, retreats later, and explains afterwards.
A government that cannot consistently stand by its own decisions gradually loses not only credibility, but authority. Investors become uncertain. The bureaucracy become confused. Public institutions begin to test the limits of because they no longer know whether today’s directive will still exist tomorrow.
At this point, Nigerians deserve answers that go beyond carefully managed press statements. Who is exercising the constitutional powers of the President? Who authorises appointments? Who countermanded the President’s directive at the BCDA, if indeed it has been countermanded? Who permitted a fictitious agency to masquerade as an arm of the Presidency? These are not opposition questions. They are constitutional questions. They go directly to the integrity of executive authority and the stability of our nation.
A country where citizens, investors, diplomats and even public servants doubt whether the signature of the President is the final authority of the executive arm of the federal government as it has happened under this Tinubu administration, is a country in deep trouble.
In view of the grave constitutional implications of these repeated episodes, the National Assembly should immediately exercise its oversight responsibilities and invoke the relevant constitutional provisions to satisfy itself that the President remains fully capable in body and sound mind to discharge the duties of his office and that the powers vested in him by the Constitution are being personally exercised by him, not appropriated by unelected interests operating behind the scenes.
If President Tinubu is unable to assert control over his own Presidency, then the honourable course is to acknowledge that reality and resign. Nigeria cannot afford a Presidency where nobody knows who is truly in charge.
Signed:
Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi
National Publicity Secretary
African Democratic Congress (ADC)
