A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEDURE UNDER AMERICAN AND NIGERIAN CONSTITUTIONS: THE NEED FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Abstract

This paper examines the impeachment procedure as obtainable under the constitution of the United States of America and that of Nigeria and to identify the similarities and dissimilarities with a view to recommending reforms if any. This research is doctrinal as the researcher will concentrate on the primary and secondary data to reach at his conclusions. Historically, the Nigerian presidential constitution was adopted from the United States of America in 1978 after a trial of the Pro-British Parliamentary Constitution at Independence, the Presidential constitution admitted of separation of powers; the Executive, Legislature and the Judiciary. This system as advocated by the major proponents allows each branch of government to act as a watchdog over another thereby ensuring checks and balances, one notorious power domiciled with the legislature is the power of impeachment of the members of the Executive, that is, the president and his vice and the governor and his deputy. Since the practice of democracy in 1978, the Legislature has exercised this power of impeachment in several instances. This is same with the Legislature of the United States of America. It does appear that there is a remarkable difference in the impeachment procedure between the United States and Nigeria. It has been discovered, that while impeachment is a mere charge that does not affect the continuation of the impeached in office in the United States, it is a sentence in Nigeria. It is recommended that Nigerian legislature should initiate an amendment to the constitution wherein the occupant of the office may continue in office pending his conviction upon a hearing of the Senate in case of a President and the Court of Appeal in case of a governor or his deputy. This will curb political indifference in the impeachment process.