The lawyer said that semantics was no longer important since Buhari cited specific constitutional provision in the letter.
Eletu, also a law lecturer at the Lagos State University, told the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) that semantics was no longer important since Buhari cited specific constitutional provision in the letter.
“The president acted in line with the constitution; he needed not address the vice president as “acting president” in his letter since there are constitutional provisions.
“What the president does normally is to coordinate affairs of government and, if he is passing such responsibilities over to his vice, it means he is handing power over to him.
“Even if the letter had stated that the vice president should be prevented from acting, so long as the relevant constitutional provision is cited, that instruction is null,” the lawyer said.
Eletu said that the senator who raised the issue in the Senate might have good intention and advised politicians not to create distrust between the president and his vice.
“Senator Mao Ohuabunwa could have raised his point of order in good faith, based on his understanding of the law, but in actual fact, there is no ambiguity in the president’s letter.
“The relationship between the president’s and his vice, from my observation, is near excellent, and I will urge politicians not to create room for distrust,” he said.
NAN recalls that Senator Mao Ohuabunwa raised the observation that President Buhari’s letter was deficient because it did not address Osinbajo as “Acting President”.
Senate President, Bukola Saraki, however, ruled him out of order.