_O. G. Chukkol, ACIArb (UK)_
Buhari's medical trip to London has elicited reactions amongst lawyers. Some are saying that by virtue of section 145 of the constitution, he ought to have transmitted power to his Vice pending his return.
I don't think the constitution says Mr. President should transmit power to his Vice when proceeding on vacation. What the constitution says is that he should transmit a letter to the National on two grounds:
1. Vacation or
2. Inability to discharge functions of his office.
Once letter is transmitted to the NASS, power automatically vests in the Vice President to act as Acting President.
Now where do we place Buhari's medical trip out of the two items above?
Is the trip a vacation? Unfortunately the constitution did not tell us what "vacation" means.
Does the trip means that he is unable to discharge the functions of his office? Answer to this is not certain
Failure of the constitution to define vacation is a big lacuna. To me, medical trip cannot automatically be deemed to be vacation neither can it be deemed to be inability to discharge functions.
Now let us look at it from another perspective, what if Mr. President had retired to another hospital in Nigeria for a month? Can issue of section 145 be raised?
It appears to me that this issue arose simply because Buhari embarked on medical trip to London.
I think there is need for either constitutional amendment or court decision for us to know what the constitution means by the word "vacation" and "inability to discharge the functions of the office of the president".
We need to know whether medical trip abroad automatically means vacation