On the night of March 18, Nigerians tuned in to listen to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu deal with the nation. He spoke of the political disaster in Rivers State. One which, in his phrases, had “burned out all hope of any answer.”
“Fellow Nigerians, I really feel drastically disturbed on the flip we have now come to relating to the political disaster in Rivers State. Like lots of you, I’ve watched with concern the event with the hope that the events concerned would permit good sense to prevail on the soonest, however all that hope burned out with none answer to the disaster…”
Then got here the announcement that left the nation reeling: the president declared a State of Emergency. Invoking Part 305 of the structure (as amended), he suspended Rivers State’s governor, Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy Ngozi Odu, and each elected member of the state meeting. The suspension, he mentioned, would final an preliminary interval of six months. Of their place, he appointed a retired army officer, Vice Admiral Ibok–Ette Ekwe Ibas as the only administrator of the state.
This transfer has despatched Nigerians scrambling to their copies of the Structure, and debating on whether or not the president has the jurisdiction to unilaterally droop an elected governor. “Unconstitutional,” “reckless” is how Peter Obi, former governor of Anambra State and the Labour Social gathering’s 2023 presidential candidate, described the suspension. However others have mentioned it isn’t unprecedented, citing the time when former president, Olusegun Obasanjo, suspended Plateau and Ekiti State governors.
Now, the query isn’t simply if the president has the facility to do that, however what this case indicators for Nigeria’s democracy, shifting ahead.
We chatted with Folarin ‘Falz‘ Falana, in regards to the State of Emergency and the suspension of River State’s governor and deputy governor. Falz is a rapper, actor, activist, and lawyer. Drawing from his authorized experience, he shared useful insights on the scenario.
The President’s suspension of the Rivers State Governor and declaration of a State of Emergency have sparked main debates. From a constitutional standpoint, does the President have the authority to take away an elected governor this manner?
The straightforward reply is not any. The president doesn’t have the facility to take away a state governor. The democratic system of presidency, which is in fact what we’re function, rests on the idea of management of the folks, for the folks and by the folks.
A governor is an elected official and his workplace might solely change into vacant upon loss of life, sick well being, resignation or impeachment. Even in any of those circumstances talked about, the regulation stipulates that the deputy governor shall be sworn in because the governor.
And the place the places of work of the governor and deputy governor change into vacant on the similar time, the speaker of the State Home of Meeting shall change into an appearing governor for no more than 3 months. Throughout the 3 month interval, a recent election shall be performed by INEC for a brand new governor.
To that extent, a serving or retired army officer can’t be imposed as a sole administrator to manipulate any state in Nigeria.
Many argue that solely the judiciary or the State Home of Meeting has the facility to take away a governor. What precisely does the regulation say about this?Are there any authorized precedents we must always concentrate on?
Solely the State Home of Meeting can take away a governor by means of impeachment, and the method is contained in Part 188 of the 1999 structure. A citable instance is that of Diepreye Alamieyeseigha of Bayelsa State in 2005.
There have been a number of different impeachment proceedings performed in different states like Plateau, Ekiti and Oyo previously. Nevertheless, the Judiciary put aside lots of these as they weren’t correctly performed in accordance with the constitutional provisions.
This once more reiterates the significance of following the due course of to take away an elected official.
A State of Emergency is a severe motion. Beneath what authorized circumstances can the President declare one. Does this present scenario meet these necessities?
Part 305 of the Structure, which the president himself cited in his announcement, stipulates the circumstances inside which a State of Emergency could be declared. These embrace when there’s struggle, imminent hazard of struggle, precise breakdown of public order and public security that constitutes a risk to the existence of the federation.
It’s clear from the Structure that this part is preserved for conditions of anarchy that threaten the existence of the federation.
It’s pertinent to state that the failure of a Home of Meeting to operate in Rivers State cannot be a justification for the dissolution of democratic constructions in any state of the federation. Certainly, the Structure had envisaged {that a} State Home of Meeting might not have the ability to operate attributable to one motive or one other. Therefore, part 11(4) of the Structure stipulates as follows:
“At any time when any Home of Meeting of a State is unable to carry out its features by motive of the scenario prevailing in that State, the Nationwide Meeting might make such legal guidelines for the peace, order and good authorities of that State with respect to issues on which a Home of Meeting to be crucial or expedient till such time because the Home of Meeting is ready to resume its features; and any such legal guidelines enacted by the Nationwide Meeting pursuant to this part shall have impact as in the event that they have been legal guidelines enacted by the Home of Meeting of the State.
*Offered that nothing on this part shall be construed as conferring on the Nationwide Meeting energy to take away the Governor or the Deputy Governor of the state from workplace.”*
If the suspension of the governor is discovered to be unconstitutional, what authorized treatments can be found? Can the choice be challenged in courtroom? What would that course of appear like?
The choice can positively be challenged in courtroom and if the courtroom’s determination is in favour of Governor Fubara and his deputy, they are going to be reinstated into workplace. The president’s full disregard for the structure and due course of on this case can also be an impeachable offence. The query nonetheless will likely be whether or not the Nationwide Meeting could be daring sufficient to hold that out.
In a case the place politics and the regulation collide, the judiciary is predicted to be the deciding drive. Primarily based in your expertise and data of the system, do you suppose the courts can deal with a case like this with out political interference?
I’d sincerely hope that’s the case.
It is extremely onerous to imagine it is going to occur this manner as a result of we have now seen a number of cases the place the judiciary have been compromised. Nevertheless, if that is allowed to face, to say that it’s a harmful precedent could be an understatement. It could cripple the little semblance of a democratic system that we nonetheless at the moment have. The sanctity of workplace of an elected official have to be protected.
Past the legality of all of it, what does this case sign for Nigeria’s democracy? Are we susceptible to setting a harmful precedent for government overreach?
Positively that. Once more, harmful is an understatement. Permitting this to face would fully cripple our democracy.
