Some key actors in the state of emergency imposed on Rivers State and the Nigeria Governors’ Forum (NGF) have broken their silence in the matter.
While the leadership of the National Assembly (NASS), which on Thursday approved President Bola Tinubu’s request for the declaration of a six-month state of emergency, said it did not receive or distribute $5,000 to each lawmaker to clear the coast through voice vote, the NGF explained that it was silent on the political crisis in the state to protect the interest of its members, who are from different political parties.
The NGF, in a statement issued yesterday by its director-general, Abdulateef Shittu, said the body of 36 governors deliberately avoids taking sides in partisan issues that could divide its members, who are drawn from different political parties.
He said, “The forum is an umbrella body for subnational governments. Our role is to promote unified policy positions and work with stakeholders to drive socioeconomic development.”
The NGF secretariat said it had received several media enquiries about its silence on the political impasse in Rivers State, but insisted that stepping into such controversies would be against its guiding principles.
“Taking positions on contentious partisan issues would mean a poor sense of history – just a few years after the forum survived a major division caused by political differences,” it added.
Although the forum had in the past taken strong positions on national issues like minimum wage, taxation, healthcare and education, it said its focus remained on governance, not politics.
“We call for the understanding of the public and the media,” the statement said, adding that “appropriate platforms and crisis management mechanisms” were in place to resolve such disputes.
President Tinubu had on Tuesday declared a state of emergency in Rivers State, citing a prolonged political crisis that has crippled governance and threatened security in the oil-rich region.
And yesterday, the Senate President Godswill Akpabio, refuted stories on alleged sharing of dollars to fellow senators for the approval of the state of emergency on Rivers.
The rebuttal was made in a statement by his special adviser on media, Hon Eseme Eyiboh.
“My attention has been drawn to a story in circulation credited to a press release I issued. For the avoidance of doubt, I wish to state thus: That, I have not and never issued any press release in relation to the Iftar (breaking of fast) hosted by His Excellency, Senator Godswill Akpabio.
“That, it is true, a newspaper correspondent called me on the phone to confirm or disclaim the rumour of sharing dollars during the breaking of the fast.
“That it is true that I confirmed the Iftar meeting and further asserted that the Distinguished Senate President has always hosted his colleagues of both religious faith in every season of spiritual rebirth.
“That, there has never existed any reason to share any money in such a solemn meeting and no money in any currency was shared. I have vehemently denied this spurious rumour of sharing any money.
“The rumour in itself is peddled by the merchants of blackmail enterprise to add flavour to their subsisting hate and malice campaign,” he said.
The House of Representatives also dismissed the allegations that each member was induced with $5,000 to grant Tinubu’s request.
The House deputy spokesperson, Hon. Philip Agbese (Benue, APC) who made the rebuttal in an interview with journalists in Abuja yesterday, described the allegation as false, malicious and emanating from “the pit of hell.”
The lawmaker insisted that the House’s resolution on the state of emergency declaration in Rivers was done out of patriotism and in the interest of restoring lasting peace to the south-south state.
Meanwhile, senior and prominent lawyers have described Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State as hasty and illegal.
In separate interviews with LEADERSHIP Sunday, they said the president should have waited for clear and present danger before taking such an action.
To them, the due process of the law was not followed before making the declaration.
One of the senior lawyers and a professor of law, Chief Awa Kalu (SAN), said when the president made the pronouncement, people came up with divergent views, some with reservation and some with sufficient ignorance.
Kalu, a former attorney-generaI and commissioner for justice in Abia State said, “So when you look at the composition, the technicalities of the entity called Nigeria, you will know that it has been a long journey. So, rather than dwelling on what happened in 1960 or around the 1960 Constitution, being our independence constitution, we have to look back and see what has happened now under a constitution we have been practicing for 25 years and see how we can make it better.
“When the news broke and people were looking at it from different perspectives, some with reservations and some with sufficient ignorance, a lot of things have changed within two days, like the National Assembly for instance, because whatever the president saw has been seen by both Houses. If it is a question of whether the president is right or wrong, the most important thing now is that Rivers State has no governor, no House of Assembly and how do you prevent it from happening in future and sincerely speaking, I’m afraid, I can’t see any room at all to prevent it.
“The president has to wait for clear and present danger, that’s what the law says, that’s if we have to debate his actions,” he said.
Also, Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN) has described as unfortunate the action of the president and the National Assembly.
He said the president took the most unprecedented and unlawful step in declaring a state of emergency in Rivers state.
Ozekhome said, “In an era where democracy is supposed to reign supreme giving democracy dividends to beleaguered Nigerians, the nation has once again found itself at crossroads, a sober moment of reckoning where constitutional order is being tested in the most brazen of ways.
“President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, who swore to uphold the Constitution, has taken a most unprecedented and unlawful step: the suspension of a democratically elected governor, deputy governor and an entire state House of Assembly under the thin guise of emergency rule. What emergency? Nigerians and Rivers people did not see or feel any such emergency.
“Let me be very firm, most categorically and unequivocally that no constitutional provision, statute or any known convention grants the president the imperial and dictatorial authority to single-handedly dissolve the structures of an elected state government. That may probably have been in the locust days of military juntas; but Nigeria is today not under the firm grip of a military dictatorship. The last time I checked, she is supposed to govern under a constitutional democracy that operates a presidential and republican form of government.”
Similarly, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa (SAN) said that the president’s action was totally unwarranted.
Adegboruwa said Tinubu should not have taken the decision because democracy is a learning process, and the judiciary has demonstrated the capability to resolve the issue.
He said, “The president should have allowed the various state organs to resolve the issues. There is a crisis of local government administration in Osun State, and that has not led to a declaration of a state of emergency. The same thing is true in Benue State, where there is a problem between the executive and the judiciary, even in Lagos State, where two speakers emerged.
“There is no basis for such a declaration in a democratic state. The president should rescind his decision and allow the institutions of state to take care of disputes that may emerge in the course of democracy.”
In his reaction, Prof Damilola Olawuyi (SAN) said necessity could override the law in emergencies under the Nigerian Constitution and international law.
Olawuyi said the declaration of a state of emergency is justified in exceptional cases to preserve or establish peace and order, especially when the rule of law and national security are threatened by grave and imminent institutional instability.
He said, “You recall that in 2022, in Canada, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau declared a state of emergency in response to the Freedom Convoy protests and crises that almost shut down the country’s capital. We have also had recent emergency declarations in France, New Zealand, Ethiopia and Australia for different national security reasons.
“While the president should be commended for the quick and decisive thinking, we must, however, ensure that the declaration is implemented in accordance with the letters and spirit of the Constitution and should not be used to settle political scores. All parties contributing to the emergency situation should be held responsible without fear or favour.”
Dr Wahab Shittu (SAN) stated that the president acted in the country’s overall interest by declaring a state of emergency in Rivers State.
Shittu maintained that law and order are central to democratic governance and that the situation in Rivers State was getting out of hand.
A Lagos-based human rights lawyer, Kabir Akingbolu defended the president’s decision, asserting that it falls within his constitutional powers and is necessary given the circumstances.
Akingbolu emphasised that Nigeria operates under a civil and democratic government governed by a constitution.
“If we have a constitution, does it provide for a state of emergency? Yes. If the president has the authority to declare one, and he has done so, then what is the issue?” he asked.
To constitutional lawyer, Barrister Ayeni Ayodele Olabode, “the grand norm as we know today in Nigeria is the 1999 Constitution, any other Constitution is not known to us and is null and void.”
He said what is guiding the National Assembly, the Judiciary and the Executive is the 1999 Constitution.
“It is politics taken too far, referring to the 1960 Constitution. Are they telling us that we should do away with the 1999 Constitution and go back to the 1960 Constitution? There is no reason for comparison. It does not make sense looking at the provisions of the 1960 Constitution.
“To be candid, I’ve not been guided by the 1960 Constitution, what does the 1999 Constitution say? If you look at Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution about state of emergency, it says you must get the approval of the National Assembly and that is even when the problem is threatening the peace of the country.
“The president can even hide behind a finger that the area is volatile and that there may be breakdown of law and order but you must follow due process of the law, go to the National Assembly and get approval within 48 hours. Some presidents have made the mistake in the past or they have done it wrongly or maliciously doesn’t mean it’s the right thing. We must depart from the abnormalities of the past and do the right thing,” he stated.
In his reaction, Olu Daramola (SAN) said that the constitutional power vested in the president to declare a state of emergency does not extend to removing or suspending an elected governor from office.
While describing the president’s action as a coup against democracy, Daramola insisted that it was clear that the president was not acting in good faith.
A rights activist, Maduka Onwukeme, condemned the state of emergency declared by the federal government in Rivers State, arguing that this declaration undermines the authority of the elected governor and violates constitutional principles.
Onwukeme contended that peace and order in the state could only be restored when Governor Siminalayi Fubara, elected by the people, is allowed to govern without interference from his predecessor, Nyesom Wike.
Another lawyer, Babatunde Awe, said that after studying the law, the facts and the opinions of several respected legal minds, he was unable to agree that a state of emergency was necessary in Rivers State.
Awe also stated that he was unable to concede that the state of emergency has any sustainable legal grounds.
He said, “The cases of Dariye and Ladoja are still fresh in our minds. Also, the Goodluck Jonathan example readily comes to mind regarding circumstances which justify a declaration of a state of emergency and how to administer such a declaration. It was an act I can only believe was done in utter bad faith. It cannot stand.”
We’ve got the edge. Get real-time reports, breaking scoops, and exclusive angles delivered straight to your phone. Don’t settle for stale news. Join LEADERSHIP NEWS on WhatsApp for 24/7 updates →
Join Our WhatsApp Channel
