By Obike Ukoh.
Since the President and Commander-In-Chief of the Nigerian Armed Forces, Chief Bola Tinubu declared State of Emergency in Rivers on March 18, suspending the governor and elected house of assembly members, one of the posers trending is:
“ If the current leadership of the National Assembly were at the helms of affairs during Obasanjo’s regime, he would have gotten the Third Term, true or false?’’
The promoters were alluding to the easy ride, and effortless way the President was given the nod to remove democratically elected political office holders by the National Assembly.
They were also alluding to the way the Fifth Senate, led by Sen.Ken Nnamani, handled Obasanjo’s quest for Third Term, through constitutional amendment.
Nnamani had sometime ago, explained how the Senate aborted Obasanjo’s Third Term agenda.
He spoke at the public presentation of his book: “Standing Strong : Legislative Reforms, Third Term and Other Issues of the 5th Senate.”
Nnamani, represented Enugu East Senatorial District on the platform of PDP and was Senate President between 2005 and 2007.
He narrated how Obasanjo’s desire was thwarted.
“I wanted senators to vote with their mind on the question of whether we should amend the constitution to allow President Obasanjo a Third Term. ‘’
Nnamani also stressed that the live transmission of the plenary on May 16, 2006, for the alteration of the constitution to allow three terms for Nigeria’s presidents, forced some senators to abandon support for the bill.
“We decided to televise the proceedings. Publicising the proceedings was not supported by those who wanted to smuggle into the constitution the extension of tenure through undefined and darkened procedure.
“They knew that if we had sidelined Nigerians from the proceedings, and therefore reduced public pressure on the legislature, it would be possible to ram through, but I stood strong.
“We overcame intense pressure even from the highest level of government. We continued to broadcast the proceedings. The result of the publicity and openness was that we secured our democracy,’’ Nnamani emphasized.
Contrary was the case in the present imbroglio in Rivers State. The Senate approved President Bola Tinubu’s request for a state of emergency via a voice vote, after close door session, where the issue was discussed.
Mr Godswill Akpabio, the Senate President, read the president’s letter before lawmakers moved into an executive session, that lasted for about one and half hours.
So the Tenth Senate, did not toe the line of the Fifth Senate, and in ninety minutes, took decision that has great constitutional implications, which also swept off duly elected officials.
Senator Seriake Dickson (PDP, Bayelsa West), who walked out before the final vote. argued that the emergency rule process was incomplete and that the removal of elected officials was not part of the constitutional provisions for a state of emergency.
“This emergency rule is a very serious constitutional development. The framers of the Nigerian Constitution took their time to regulate the conditions under which it can be imposed. None of these conditions talk about removing elected officials,” he said.
Also, Senator Ireti Kingibe, (LP-FCT), said the constitution explicitly requires a two-thirds majority of all National Assembly members to ratify an emergency proclamation, not a voice vote.
“A two-thirds (2/3) majority is required for significant decisions like approving an emergency proclamation in the National Assembly, and this level of consensus CANNOT be accurately determined by a voice vote,” she stated.
She further noted that the Senate’s Standing Orders and House Rules mandate a roll call or electronic voting system for decisions of such magnitude, stressing that a formal recorded vote was necessary to determine the exact number of lawmakers in support.
Former President Goodluck Jonathan, who during his time declared State of Emergency in three states: Borno, Yobe and Adamawa, faulted removal of elected officers, adding that it dents Nigeria’s image.
He said it was not the norm for former presidents to comment on issues, so as not to heat up the polity, pointing out that his comment became necessary after calls from many Nigerians, urging him to speak on the events in Rivers State.
He added that the image of the country and how much investments a country attracts is dependent on the actions of the executive, legislature and judiciary of that country.
His words: “What is happening in Nigeria today regarding the situation in Rivers state is like an Indian proverb that says: ‘If somebody is sleeping, really sleeping, you can easily wake up that person. But if that person is pretending to sleep, you find it difficult to wake up that person’.
“The key actors in Nigeria, from the executive to the legislature, judiciary and the Senate and the judiciary… they know the correct thing to do. But they are refusing to do it.
“They are pretending to sleep and waking such a person is extremely difficult, because the person knows the right thing.
“A clear abuse of office and clear abuse of power, cutting across the three arms of government: from the executive to the parliament and the judiciary.”
Nobel Laureate Wole Soyinka, has also commented on the emergency rule in Rivers State. Indeed the social media was awash with comments from his followers that questioned his unusual silence on such sensitive national issue.
They reminded him of his book, “ The Man Died,’’ wherein the elder statesman averred that “ The man died in him, who kept silence in the face of tyranny.’’
Soyinka, who spoke on the issue, criticized the suspension of elected officials and declaration of a state of emergency.
Soyinka, who spoke to an international news outlet, argued that the 1999 Constitution grants excessive powers to the President, and advocated for a national discussion to address the imbalance.
“If it is constitutionally right, then I think it is about time we sat down and amended the constitution to make sure that it operates as a genuine federal entity,” he said.
Soyinka lamented that the current system is overly centralized, stressing that it is unsuitable for a diverse nation like Nigeria.
“The system we are operating right now is not the best for a pluralistic society like ours. That is a fundamental principle I have always held,” he stated.
He reiterated the need for a national conference to establish an “authentic people’s constitution” that reflects true federalism.
“The federal spirit of association is a cardinal principle, and for that reason, some of us have called again and again for a national conference. Right now, in principle, this action is against the federal imperative,” he stressed.
Other stakeholders , also expressed divergent views on the issue.
Mr Peter Obi, the 2023 Labour Party presidential candidate described the use of a voice vote as unconstitutional.
“The constitution is clear that this cannot be done through a voice vote, but by calling individual senators to answer ‘yes’ or ‘no.’
“ The use of a voice vote in such a significant decision erodes public trust in the democratic process,” Obi said.
Activist Aisha Yesufu also criticized the decision, stating, “Two-thirds must be two-thirds of human beings counted and their signatures appended. ‘Nay’ and ‘Yay’ will not work here.”
A group advocating for good governance condemned the passage of the emergency rule without open debate, labeling the National Assembly a “rubber stamp” institution.
“Behind closed doors, they sealed the fate of Rivers State. No debate, no transparency—just a rubber stamp. This is not democracy! Nigerians, we must not accept this!” the group stated.
On its part, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) , described the emergency rule as unconstitutional and an assault on democracy.
NBA President Afam Osigwe said the constitution outlines strict conditions for emergency rule.
Osigwe, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) said the constitution grants the president the power to declare a state of emergency, but with procedural safeguards to prevent abuses.
“The 1999 Constitution does not grant the president the power to remove an elected governor, deputy governor, or members of a state’s legislature under the guise of a state of emergency.
“Such actions amount to an unconstitutional usurpation of power and a fundamental breach of Nigeria’s federal structure, ” he said.
The NBA also questioned whether the political crisis in Rivers State met the constitutional threshold for emergency rule.
He noted that political disagreements and legislative conflicts should be resolved through legal means, not executive intervention.
On its part, the Presidency responded to the deluge of criticisms that trailed the declaration of emergency rule in Rivers State.
Mr. Temitope Ajayi, Senior Special Assistant to the President on Media and Publicity, said the president’s action did not breach the constitution.
Ajayi, who specifically responded to the views expressed by former President Jonathan and Wole Soyinka, said the views they expressed were personal opinion.
He said that Tinubu has a country to govern and that it is his responsibility to preserve the corporate existence of Nigeria.
Ajayi stressed that the President won’t allow the country or any state to descend to chaos.
If there are breaches in the declaration of state of emergency in Rivers State, who is actually to be blamed.
In fact, the President performed his constitutional duty by forwarding the emergency rule declaration to the National Assembly. He has no powers to endorse it.
The parliament is the bedrock of democracy and has constitutional powers to scrutinize requests from the executive.
When King Louis XIV (1643-1715), was the king of France, he used to tell the parliament “ L’etat c’est moi,’’ (The state is me}, meaning that nothing happens in France without his authorisation.
The French parliamentarians battled despotic monarchs, until the famous Tennis Court Oath of June 20, 1789 where the members “ Swear never to separate from the National Assembly and to reassemble whenever circumstances require, until the Constitution of the realm is drawn.’’
The constitution of the realm was indeed drawn and France abolished the monarchy after Louis XVI was guillotined in 1793. The parliament declared France a Republic.
Since Tinubu did not endorse emergency rule in Rivers, the question is, “ Did the action of the National Assembly members, reflect the General Will of the people,’’ as espoused by 18th Century Philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau, or individual Will?
Amid the controversy, there are now issues of money changing hands to induce lawmakers to take certain position.
Unarguably, if the Tenth National Assembly, has toed the line of the Fifth Senate, the misgiving about the endorsement of emergency rule in Rivers State would not have arisen. (Ends)
Obike Ukoh, Former Deputy Editor-In-Chief, News Agency of Nigeria (NAN)
