Photo Credit: Falz/Instagram
On the evening of March 18, Nigerians tuned in to hear President Bola Ahmed Tinubu address the nation. He spoke of the political crisis in Rivers State. One that, in his words, had “burned out all hope of any solution.”
“Fellow Nigerians, I feel greatly disturbed at the turn we have come to regarding the political crisis in Rivers State. Like many of you, I have watched with concern the development with the hope that the parties involved would allow good sense to prevail at the soonest, but all that hope burned out without any solution to the crisis…”
Then came the announcement that left the country reeling: the president declared a State of Emergency. Invoking Section 305 of the constitution (as amended), he suspended Rivers State’s governor, Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy Ngozi Odu, and every elected member of the state assembly. The suspension, he said, would last an initial period of six months. In their place, he appointed a retired military officer, Vice Admiral Ibok–Ette Ekwe Ibas as the sole administrator of the state.
This move has sent Nigerians scrambling to their copies of the Constitution, and debating on whether the president has the jurisdiction to unilaterally suspend an elected governor. “Unconstitutional,” “reckless” is how Peter Obi, former governor of Anambra State and the Labour Party’s 2023 presidential candidate, described the suspension. But others have said it isn’t unprecedented, citing the time when former president, Olusegun Obasanjo, suspended Plateau and Ekiti State governors.
Now, the question isn’t just if the president has the power to do this, but what this situation signals for Nigeria’s democracy, moving forward.
We chatted with Folarin ‘Falz‘ Falana, about 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 legal expertise, he shared valuable insights on the situation.
The President’s suspension of the Rivers State Governor and declaration of a State of Emergency have sparked major debates. From a constitutional standpoint, does the President have the authority to remove an elected governor this way?
The simple answer is no. The president does not have the power to remove a state governor. The democratic system of government, which is of course what we are operate, rests on the concept of leadership of the people, for the people and by the people.
A governor is an elected official and his office may only become vacant upon death, ill health, resignation or impeachment. Even in any of these cases mentioned, the law stipulates that the deputy governor shall be sworn in as the governor.
And where the offices of the governor and deputy governor become vacant at the same time, the speaker of the State House of Assembly shall become an acting governor for not more than 3 months. During the 3 month period, a fresh election shall be conducted by INEC for a new governor.
To that extent, a serving or retired military officer cannot be imposed as a sole administrator to govern any state in Nigeria.
Many argue that only the judiciary or the State House of Assembly has the power to remove a governor. What exactly does the law say about this?Are there any legal precedents we should be aware of?
Only the State House of Assembly can remove a governor by way of impeachment, and the process is contained in Section 188 of the 1999 constitution. A citable example is that of Diepreye Alamieyeseigha of Bayelsa State in 2005.
There have been several other impeachment proceedings conducted in other states like Plateau, Ekiti and Oyo in the past. However, the Judiciary set aside many of those as they were not properly conducted in accordance with the constitutional provisions.
This again reiterates the importance of following the due process to remove an elected official.
A State of Emergency is a serious action. Under what legal conditions can the President declare one. Does this current situation meet those requirements?
Section 305 of the Constitution, which the president himself cited in his announcement, stipulates the conditions within which a State of Emergency can be declared. These include when there is war, imminent danger of war, actual breakdown of public order and public safety that constitutes a threat to the existence of the federation.
It is clear from the Constitution that this section is preserved for situations of anarchy that threaten the existence of the federation.
It is pertinent to state that the failure of a House of Assembly to function in Rivers State can not be a justification for the dissolution of democratic structures in any state of the federation. Indeed, the Constitution had envisaged that a State House of Assembly may not be able to function due to one reason or another. Hence, section 11(4) of the Constitution stipulates as follows:
“At any time when any House of Assembly of a State is unable to perform its functions by reason of the situation prevailing in that State, the National Assembly may make such laws for the peace, order and good government of that State with respect to matters on which a House of Assembly to be necessary or expedient until such time as the House of Assembly is able to resume its functions; and any such laws enacted by the National Assembly pursuant to this section shall have effect as if they were laws enacted by the House of Assembly of the State.
*Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed as conferring on the National Assembly power to remove the Governor or the Deputy Governor of the state from office.”*
If the suspension of the governor is found to be unconstitutional, what legal remedies are available? Can the decision be challenged in court? What would that process look like?
The decision can definitely be challenged in court and if the court’s decision is in favour of Governor Fubara and his deputy, they will be reinstated into office. The president’s complete disregard for the constitution and due process in this case is also an impeachable offence. The question however will be whether the National Assembly would be bold enough to carry that out.
In a case where politics and the law collide, the judiciary is expected to be the deciding force. Based on your experience and knowledge of the system, do you think the courts can handle a case like this without political interference?
I would sincerely hope that is the case.
It is very hard to believe it will happen this way because we have seen several instances where the judiciary have been compromised. However, if this is allowed to stand, to say that it is a dangerous precedent would be an understatement. It would cripple the little semblance of a democratic system that we still currently have. The sanctity of office of an elected official must be protected.
Beyond the legality of it all, what does this situation signal for Nigeria’s democracy? Are we at risk of setting a dangerous precedent for executive overreach?
Definitely that. Again, dangerous is an understatement. Allowing this to stand would completely cripple our democracy.
