The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and an Aba-based lawyer, Mr. Emperor Ogbonna, have faulted the judgment of the Supreme Court on the power of the President to suspend a state governor and other elected state government officials.
But human rights lawyer, Inibehe Effiong, said the apex Court did not explicitly endorse the emergency rule in Rivers State as proclaimed by President Bola Tinubu.
The Supreme Court, yesterday, ruled that a sitting president has the power to declare a state of emergency in any state of the federation, in a bid to forestall breakdown of law and order or a descent into chaos or anarchy.
Justice Mohammed Idris, in a split judgement, ruled that Section 305 of the Constitution empowers the president to deploy extraordinary measures to restore normalcy where emergency rule is proclaimed.
The judgment was on the suit filed by Adamawa and 10 other Peoples Democratic Party-led states challenging the validity of the state of emergency declared by President Bola Tinubu in Rivers State, during which Governor Siminalaye Fubara and elected state officials were suspended for six months.
In the split decision of six to one, the apex court held that the president, during an emergency rule, could suspend democratically elected officials, but insisted that such suspensions must be for a limited period of time.
It held that Section 305 was not specific on the nature of the extraordinary measures, thereby granting the president the discretion on how to go about it.
It had earlier upheld the preliminary objections raised by the two defendants, the Attorney General of the Federation and the National Assembly, against the competence of the suit.
In upholding the objections, Idris held that the 11 PDP states failed to establish any cause of action capable of activating the original jurisdiction of the apex court.
Consequently, the jurist struck out the suit for lack of requisite jurisdiction, proceeded to determine the case on its merits and eventually dismissed it.
But, in a dissent opinion, Justice Obande Ogbuinya held that the case succeeded in part.
He stated among others, that although the president could declare a state of emergency, he cannot use such powers as a tool to suspend elected state officials, including governors, deputy governors and members of the parliament.
The PDP, in a statement by its National Publicity Secretary, Ini Ememobong, said the interpretation of the judgment is capable of reversing the country’s democratic gains and making state governors subservient to the Federal Government.
The opposition party noted that it cannot reconcile how an elected president, in a federal state, can be empowered to oust elected leaders, in a federating unit and appoint leaders there, without entrenching tyranny.
The statement read: “Earlier today, a full panel of the Supreme Court finally delivered a split judgment (six to one) in the suit filed by the Attorney-General of Adamawa State and others against the Attorney-General of the Federation and the National Assembly. The suit, marked SC/CV/329/2025, challenged the powers of the President to suspend democratically elected officials like the Governor and Deputy Governor, and democratic institutions such as the Rivers State House of Assembly.
“The Apex Court struck out the suit based on an absence of a cause of action but went on to comment on the issues raised in the suit therein. Their comments have been largely interpreted as upholding President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State earlier this year.
“While we respect the authority of the apex court and recognise its finality within our jurisdiction, we are nevertheless compelled to draw attention to the grave dangers that can emanate from the interpretation of the reasoning in this judgement on the political landscape of our country.
“Our concern is anchored on the age-long principle of law that the express mention of one thing excludes others (expressio unius est exclusio alterius), and the clear constitutional position that no person or institution(other than the State House of Assembly or a court of law), is empowered to remove a Governor from office, even temporarily, during the subsistence of a constitutional term.
“To hold otherwise is to create a pathway by which a President, with the active support of the National Assembly, can compel political alignment or compliance through the instrumentality of emergency powers in ways not envisaged by the Constitution.
“We submit that the interpretation of this judgment has the potential to reverse the hard-won democratic gains by unwittingly making state governments completely subservient to the Federal Government, forcing them to seek to ‘connect to the centre’ by joining the ruling party, as we are already witnessing.
“More troubling is the fact that the logical extension of this reasoning based on the provision of Section 305(3)(c) “extraordinary measures to restore peace and security” could, in the future, be interpreted to justify the suspension of other constitutional institutions, including the judiciary itself.
“We cannot reconcile how in a federation (not a unitary state) an elected President can be empowered to dismantle the democratic structures of a federating unit, sack elected officials and appoint leaders there, without consciously promoting authoritarianism and entrenching tyranny.
“As a political party wholly committed to the protection and consolidation of democracy in Nigeria, we hereby call on the National Assembly to urgently initiate constitutional and legislative safeguards that clearly define and limit the scope of emergency powers of the president, to prevent imminent abuse and preserve Nigeria’s federation.
“We also urge Nigerians, civil society organisations, the media, and the international democratic community to remain vigilant in the defence of constitutionalism, federalism, and the sanctity of the electoral mandate.
“We remain hopeful that, at the next opportunity, the Supreme Court will have cause to extensively clarify the constitutional boundaries of emergency powers, in the overriding interest of justice, democracy, and the long-term stability of our Republic.”
An angry Ogbonna said with the judgment, the Supreme Court has created a tyrant.
“For the first time, I totally disagree with the Supreme Court. That judgment is not supported by any law.
“There is no way you can interpret the said section 305 and come to the conclusion that the president has the power to suspend a governor. No way
“The dissenting judgment is on all fours with the law and it is a pity that by that judgment, the Supreme Court has allowed itself to be swallowed by the Executive.
“The Supreme Court has succeeded in creating a tyrant out of future and present presidents in the sense that a president now has the power to decide which governor stays and which governor remains. All the president needs to do is to find a way to create trouble in the State and use it as an excuse to remove a governor.
“The governor can also remove a local government chairman and the decision today shall be cited as a locus classicus in analogous argument.
“The court has ended up in creating tyrants as no governor can comfortably challenge a president.
In fact, by the said judgment, the Nigerian president has become the most powerful president in the world as it relates to countries and this is not good for democracy.
It is a sad day.”
Reacting in a post on his verified X handle, Effiong said most of the reports on the decision do not accurately reflect the reasoning of the Apex Court.
“I have read the 14 pages summary of the judgment of the Supreme Court on the Rivers State emergency case (Attorney General of Adamawa State & 10 Ors. V. Attorney General of the Federation & Anor.).
“Going by the summary, the Supreme Court did not explicitly endorse the emergency rule in Rivers State as proclaimed by President Bola Tinubu.
“However, the reasoning of the majority of the learned justices (6-1), appears to have accommodated the possibility of a state of emergency interfering with the democratic structures of the affected State(s) or parts of the Federation. The Apex Court seems to have avoided making a definitive pronouncement on the constitutionality of this particular state of emergency.
“Also, the Court found that voting in the House of Representatives, for the purpose of emergency proclamation, has to be by ordering a division, with votes recorded by name, constituency, and choice, and published accordingly.
“In the Rivers case, voting in the House of Representatives was done by voice votes in contravention of the Standing Orders of the House; a deviation from the finding made by the Supreme Court.
“My understanding, going by the printed summary of the majority decision which was read by My Lord, Mohammed Baba Idris, is that the emergency rule in Rivers was unlawful having not been endorsed by the National Assembly in line with the prescribed legal procedure.
“The last point that I want to make is that the Supreme Court found that the states that brought the suit as plaintiffs did not disclose a reasonable cause of action, and that the Court’s original jurisdiction could not be invoked by the 11 States because the emergency rule was not declared in any of those States, and the States did not obtain the consent of Rivers State to file the suit.
“The Court found that there was no dispute between the federation and those states. The Apex Court accordingly struck out the suit. By law, once a suit is struck out, pronouncements made therein do not have the binding and effective weight of a decision made by a court that is clothed with the requisite jurisdiction. The Apex Court only commented briefly on the merits of the case because of its grave constitutional significance.”
TheSunDaily
Post A Comment: