Constitutional lawyer Mike Ozekhome, SAN, has denounced the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State, labeling it a “civilian coup d’état.”
President Tinubu’s declaration, which suspended Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, and the state assembly for six months, and appointed a sole administrator, was deemed unconstitutional by Ozekhome.
Ozekhome argued that the suspension of elected officials and the allocation of state funds to a sole administrator are illegal, citing a Supreme Court judgment.
He asserted that Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution, which allows the President to declare a state of emergency, does not grant the power to remove or suspend an elected governor.
He also highlighted that Section 11(4) of the Constitution explicitly denies the National Assembly the power to remove a governor under emergency rule, implying that the President cannot possess such authority.
Read Also: Falana Reacts To Suspension Of Fubara, Deputy
“A state of emergency does not and cannot translate to a civilian coup d’état executed through executive fiat in a national broadcast that torpedoes elected structures and whimsically imposes a sole administrator to receive Rivers State allocations in violation of Section 162 of the Constitution and contrary to the Supreme Court judgment that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu claimed to uphold,” Ozekhome said.
The Senior Advocate of Nigeria criticized the suspension of elected officials as an unprecedented and illegal action.
He questioned whether Rivers State genuinely posed a threat to national stability or was simply being used as a political battleground.
“If emergency rule in Rivers is truly about law and order, why was a handpicked administrator imposed while duly elected officials were suspended? Is this about democratic governance, or is it about power and control?” Ozekhome asked,.
He emphasized that there is no constitutional provision, statute, or established precedent that grants the President the authority to dissolve the structures of an elected state government.
“This might have been acceptable during the era of military juntas, but Nigeria is now governed under a constitutional democracy with a presidential system. Emergency provisions under Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution exist to restore order during grave crises, not to topple duly elected officials,” he stated.
Ozekhome expressed concern about the potential precedent this action could set, where presidents might remove governors perceived as disloyal to the central government.
“And now, as Rivers State stands at the centre of this unfolding simulated constitutional debacle, one must ask: Is this the signal of a dangerous precedent for and kite-flying to Nigeria, of a looming maximum dictatorship in the offing in a one-party State? Will other “erring” Governors who refuse to align with the central government be next in line? Are we witnessing the return of a dangerous era of impunity where emergency rule becomes the bludgeon of political control rather than a tool for stability,” Ozekhome asked.
Read Also: Amaechi Reacts As Tinubu Suspends Fubara, Others
He reminded Nigerians that the Constitution outlines only one legal method for removing a state governor: impeachment, as detailed in Section 188.
He emphasized that this is a legislative, not executive, process, requiring the State House of Assembly to initiate and conduct impeachment proceedings according to the Constitution.
Ozekhome further questioned the President’s intervention, particularly since the Rivers State House of Assembly had already begun impeachment proceedings against the Governor.
“Why truncate the constitutional process with an unconstitutional executive fiat?” he asked.
The lawyer also criticized the President for implementing the state of emergency without first obtaining approval from the National Assembly.
“In present scenario the bi-camera National Assembly had not even first met, discussed and approved the president’s emergency proposals before he acted upon it. He did it in advance ( in futuro) in expectation of rubber-stamping by a pliable and malleable NASS”.
He stressed that a state of emergency does not dissolve existing governance structures.
The governor, as the state’s chief executive, remains in office, and state institutions continue to operate unless explicitly altered by law.
“There is no such law in Rivers State or at the national level,” he said.
Ozekhome warned that allowing President Tinubu’s actions to stand could create a dangerous precedent, where emergency powers are used for political suppression rather than addressing genuine crises.
“While the President may take extraordinary measures to maintain peace and order, those measures must align with the Constitution. There is no provision, express or implied, that allows the President to remove a sitting governor and state legislators under the guise of emergency powers,” he argued.
He dismissed the reasons provided for the state of emergency, such as localized acts of vandalism, as insufficient justification for such extreme measures.
“There is no threat of external aggression or invasion either across the country or in Rivers State. All that we have seen have been tussle for power between the Governor and the House of Assembly and the courts had already waded in with the Governor declaring he would comply with the Supreme Court’s judgement. A mere blow up of oil pipes in two communities by unidentified persons certainly does not constitute a war or external invasion situation.
“President Tinubu lacks the power, authority and vires to suspend democratic structures, especially the removal of Governor Sim Fubara and the Rivers State House of Assembly members. His actions constitute a gross constitutional aberration that could destabilize Nigeria and Rivers State. The Constitution must remain sacrosanct, or democracy will perish,” Ozekhome stated.
Join Informant Online WhatsApp Channel With Link Below: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaihFajBadmT29ufud2
