So far, it is not clear how true are the speculations of disagreement between Lagos State governor Babatunde Fashola and his predecessor Bola Tinubu to warrant alleged plans by the state House of Assembly to impeach Governor Fashola.
However, the very fact that these speculations get stronger and are now public, despite the expected denials, should be disturbing. According to the speculations, Governor Fashola may either be impeached or be denied second term. It must, by the way, be conceded that none of the options is unprecedented except that within 30 years of presidential system in Nigeria, especially in the last 10 years, more public office holders, (either as President of Senate, Speaker of House of Representatives or State House of Assembly, state governors or deputy state governors) have been impeached in Nigeria than in the United States with over 250 years of the same political system we copied.
Most of the impeachments recorded so far in Nigeria were not only instigated but also largely out of power drunkenness, intolerance of dissent, overbearing leadership, etc. In short, deplorable misuse of a constitutional provision aimed at setting acceptable conduct for public office holders. The impeachment process has, therefore, been so cheapened and trivialized that ordinary God-given essential like in-take of oxygen to stay alive can easily be manipulated and embellished to be trumped up as an impeachable offence. It is, therefore, needless searching for what can be considered an impeachable offence in Lagos State.

In the present case, events are happening so circumstantially to build up speculations into seeming reality. Under the constitution, the main functions of a state or National Assembly are to legislate and oversee the performance of the executive. To that extent, it is no more than exercise of its constitutional functions for a House of Assembly (e.g. Lagos) to wave the red flag on a suspected unlawful public expenditure even if in equipping the police in the state.
Equipping the police in virtually all the thirty six states and the Federal Capital of Abuja has suddenly become an extra responsibility of state governments. Otherwise, complete anarchy will take over. In fact, ex-Inspector-General of Police, Mike Okiro went on record that any state government which did not assist in equipping the security agency must not expect policemen to overstretch themselves.
Lagos State government was, therefore, discharging its social responsibility to society in equipping the police. In fact, the government can never go too far in assisting the police to guarantee our lives and property in Lagos State where activities of criminals are not just unlimited but are daily becoming more daring. Unfortunately, the equally understandable query of the Lagos State House of Assembly on the mode of the funds for equipping the police (has) turned out to be another circumstantial evidence of alleged plan of the state legislature to impeach the governor.

As if not enough, the circumstantial evidence of at least disagreement between Governor Fashola and ex-governor Bola Tinubu kept mounting. This week, the public hearing to compile South-West Zone views on the review of 1999 Nigerian constitution sat in Lagos. Instead of the event proper, more noticeable for the speculators was the absence of not only ex-Lagos State governor Bola Tinubu but also his supporters in the state House of Assembly. For whatever reasons, Lagos State House of Assembly members expected at the public hearing were two hours late and did not appear. A deliberate act?

Owing to its circumstantial nature, not much should be read or better still, it will be unfair to hastily conclude on Bola Tinubu’s absence. So far, not many ex-governors have appeared in other states at similar hearings. What is more, at the early stages of Governor Fashola’s regime, ex-governor Bola Tinubu, almost like armoured guard, followed his successor to virtually all public engagements. But this was not without eyebrows from some critics. If Bola Tinubu now keeps away from his successor’s public engagements, this should not be exploited as evidence of the widening gulf between the two.
What mattered was the delivery of the desire of Lagos State residents in any amended constitution. This tough task was skillfully performed by Governor Fashola with his background as a lawyer and bias for constitutional issues.
It might be a sound argument of the political speculators that the red alert raised by the Lagos State House of Assembly was proof of brewing disagreement or quietly expressed parting of ways between Governor Fashola and ex-governor Tinubu. That is one view.

Another view, which is more pungent, is that it was correct of the Lagos State House of Assembly to have publicly raised the issue because in doing so, the state legislature sustained its credibility instead of being misconstrued as a rubber stamp or echo chamber for the executive. If no such matters of concern were raised against Governor Fashola, what would the House of Assembly be doing for four years?
Just as Lagos State House of Assembly enhanced its reputation by publicly raising issues with the governor, Babatunde Fashola himself benefited from the implied public accountability in explaining that not a kobo of tax-payers’ money was involved in the fund for equipping the police. In short, the entire amount was sourced from private donations. Such achievement could be attained by a regime of high reputation, purpose and public trust.
Even if tax-payers’ money was involved in equipping the police in Lagos Sate, without the approval of the House of Assembly, the state of security in Lagos is such that the end can always justify the means to contain a situation where, in the day or night, homes and establishments like major industries and banks are contemptuously attacked by the bandits, leaving victims and policemen fatally wounded.

Any fund thereby spent in equipping the police can always be treated as emergency public expenditure with anticipatory approval of the Lagos State House of Assembly. Who is that member of Lagos State House of Assembly to oppose any amount or method in equipping police to combat crime? And since no kobo of tax-payers’ money was involved, there is in fact nothing to argue about.
Did Governor Fashola have to defend himself? Perhaps, and perhaps not. No mater the mutual mis-givings, a major fall-out of the strong speculations of the disagreement between the current and ex-governors is the reaction of Lagos residents who have demonstrated their appreciation of what it is to be a state governor.

Without any prompting, beneficiaries of Governor Fashola’s impact on governance in Lagos State always dominate phone-in programmes on many private radio stations in Lagos complimenting the man with near –excellent performance. These are not government – owned radio stations. Participants in these phone-in programmes on private radio stations are more of a volunteer force praising the performance of the governor which everybody resident or visiting Lagos, including fair-minded fellow state governors, acknowledge.
Governor Fashola, unlike other governors, has clearly registered his name in the hearts of the people. A more everlasting epitaph. Unlike the others, instead of documenting his achievements, Fashola has allowed the people to feel being governed. That is how it should be.

What participants in the phone – in radio programmes have done is to show that they are the judges of a governor’s performance or non-performance. Clearly, the phone callers are not sure of the exact situation. But just in case an unexpected was in the offing, ordinary Lagosians are out with their verdict and their preference – good governance.
Significantly, no allegation of abuse of office or corruption has been raised against Governor Fashola. Very rare in virtually all the impeachments so far.
It is not clear if Governor Fashola will quit voluntarily after the first term or will be forced to quit by events. Both Fashola and Tinubu should not allow traditional beneficiaries of such schism to succeed this time.
A godfather and a godson? Not really. Instead, both are benefactors and beneficiaries of each other. The pride should be mutual. It is doubtful if ex-Governor Tinubu ever bargained for Governor Fashola’s outstanding performance. Tinubu should share in this credit. Governor Fashola has vindicated ex-Governor Tinubu’s support by portraying him (Tinubu) as a man with respectable judgment in matters of assessing suitable candidates for public office.