Can the President Suspend Elected Officials in a State of Emergency?
The lingering political turmoil which had characterised the Rivers State landscape, finally came to a head last Tuesday with President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, GCFR’s proclamation of a State of Emergency in the State, and the suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara and all the members of the State House of Assembly for an initial period of six months. A series of events, including a judgement of the Supreme Court, inability of the disputants to resolve their issues, and the subsequent vandalisation of some oil installations in the State appeared to have informed President Tinubu’s decision to make the proclamation. In the wake of these developments, THISDAY LAWYER sought the views of senior Lawyers on the legal implications and import of the State of Emergency, and whether the President was legally and constitutionally justified in so doing. NBA President, Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN; Femi Falana, SAN; Adesegun Talabi; P.D. Pius and Dr Tonye Clinton Jaja express their opinions on this uncommon political quagmire, while proffering possible solutions. However, the question that is uppermost in the minds of many Nigerians, is whether the President can suspend elected officials, that is, the Governor and Members of the Rivers State House of Assembly in a state of emergency. This is Crossfire!
Unconstitutionality of the Summary Removal of a Democratically Elected Governor and Other Elected Officials
Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN – ‘No, the President Cannot Suspend’
The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has taken due notice of the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, as contained in his address to the nation today, 18th March, 2025. This declaration according to the President, is due to the prevailing political tension in the State, and due to the “vandalisation of pipelines between yesterday and today”. This development has far-reaching constitutional and democratic implications, particularly in light of the provisions of Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), which governs the procedure for the proclamation of a state of emergency, and which the President purported to have relied upon.
Section 305 of the Constitution indeed, vests the President with the power to declare a state of emergency. The Section stipulates strict conditions and procedural safeguards that must be followed, to ensure that such extraordinary measures do not infringe on democratic governance and fundamental human rights.
The NBA is gravely concerned about the purported suspension by the President of the Governor of Rivers State, the Deputy Governor, and the Members of the Rivers State House of Assembly for six months.
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. Rather, the Constitution provides clear procedures for the removal of a Governor and Deputy Governor as per Section 188. Similarly, the removal of members of the House of Assembly and dissolution of parliament is governed by constitutional provisions and electoral laws, none of which appear to have been adhered to in the present circumstances.
A declaration of emergency does not automatically dissolve or suspend elected State Governments. The Constitution does not empower the President to unilaterally remove or replace elected officials – such actions amount to an unconstitutional usurpation of power, and a fundamental breach of Nigeria’s Federal structure.
The NBA firmly asserts that the situation in Rivers State, though politically tense, does not meet the constitutional threshold for the removal of elected officials.
For a state of emergency to be declared, Section 305(3) of the Constitution outlines specific conditions, including:
1. War or external aggression against Nigeria.
2. Imminent danger of invasion or war.
3. A breakdown of public order and safety, to such an extent that ordinary legal measures are insufficient.
4. A clear danger to Nigeria’s existence.
5. Occurrence of any disaster or natural calamity affecting a state or a part of it.
6. Such other public danger, that constitutes a threat to the Federation.
The NBA questions whether the political crisis in Rivers State has reached the level of a complete breakdown of law and order, warranting the removal of the Governor and his administration. Political disagreements, legislative conflicts, or executive-legislative tensions do not constitute a justification for emergency rule. Such conflicts should be resolved through legal and constitutional mechanisms, including the Judiciary, rather than executive fiat.
The purported removal of Governor Fubara, his Deputy, and members of the Rivers State House of Assembly is therefore, unconstitutional, unlawful, and a dangerous affront to our nation’s democracy.
Furthermore, subsection (2) of Section 305 provides that:
“A Proclamation issued by the President under this section shall cease to have effect—
(a) if it is not approved by a resolution of the National Assembly within two days when the National Assembly is in session; or
(b) if the National Assembly is not in session, within ten days after it reconvenes”.
These provisions provide that a state of emergency declared by the President, does not assume automatic validity. It requires legislative ratification within a defined timeframe, to remain in effect. The NBA, therefore, emphasises that unless the National Assembly duly approves the proclamation, the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State remains constitutionally inchoate and ineffective.
In light of the foregoing, the Nigerian Bar Association:
• Affirms that the President does not have the constitutional power, to remove an elected Governor under a state of emergency. Any such action is an unconstitutional encroachment on democratic governance, and the autonomy of State Governments.
• Calls on the National Assembly to reject any unconstitutional attempt to ratify the removal of the Rivers State Governor and other elected officials. The approval of a state of emergency must be based on strict constitutional grounds, not political expediency.
• Warns that suspending elected officials under emergency rule sets a dangerous precedent that undermines democracy, and could be misused to unseat elected governments in the future.
• Demands that all actions taken in Rivers State strictly conform to constitutional provisions and Nigeria’s democratic norms.
• Encourages all stakeholders, including the Judiciary, civil society, and the international community, to closely monitor the situation in Rivers State to prevent unconstitutional governance and abuse of power.
The NBA remains committed to upholding the Constitution, defending democratic governance, and ensuring that the rule of law prevails in Nigeria. A state of emergency is an extraordinary measure, that must be invoked strictly within constitutional limits. The removal of elected officials under the pretext of emergency rule, is unconstitutional and unacceptable.
We call on all relevant authorities, to act in accordance with the law and the best interest of the country. Nigeria’s democracy must be protected at all costs, and the Constitution must be upheld as the supreme legal authority in all circumstances.
Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN, President, Nigerian Bar Association
Illegality of the Dissolution of Elected Democratic Structures in Nigeria
Femi Falana, SAN – ‘No, the President Cannot Suspend’
The decision of President Bola Tinubu to suspend Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, Prof Ngozi Odu, and all elected members of the Rivers State House of Assembly for six months is illegal, as it cannot be justified under any of the provisions of the 320 sections of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended.
No doubt, Section 305 of the Constitution empowers the President to take extraordinary measures to restore law and order if, among other reasons, there is actual breakdown of public order and public safety in the Federation or any part thereof to such extent as to require extraordinary measures to restore peace and security, or there is a clear and present danger of an actual breakdown of public order and public safety in the Federation or any part thereof requiring extraordinary measures to avert such danger.
But, the extraordinary measures which may be adopted by the President to restore peace and security in the Federation or in any particular State, does not include the suspension of an elected Governor, an elected Deputy Governor and the dissolution of other democratic structures. For the avoidance of doubt, Section 45(3) of the Constitution provides that a ‘period of emergency’ means “any period during which there is in force a Proclamation of a state of emergency declared by the President, in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Section 305 of this Constitution”.
Thus, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Nigerian Constitution, the office of an elected Governor can only become vacant upon death, ill health, resignation, or impeachment. Even where the office of the Governor becomes vacant for any reason whatsoever, 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 the Independent National Electoral Commission for the election of a new Governor.
It is pertinent to state that, the failure of a House of Assembly to function in Rivers State cannot 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”.
In 2004 and 2006, we condemned the illegal dissolution of democratic structures when President Olusegun Obasanjo imposed emergency rule on Plateau State and Ekiti State, respectively. Regrettably, on both occasions, the Supreme Court refused to determine the constitutional validity of the dissolution of democratic structures, on the ground that the suits were procedurally incompetent because they were instituted during the six-month emergency period by the suspended Legislators in the name of Plateau State without the authorisation of the Sole Administration of the State!
However, in 2013, when a state of emergency was declared in Adamawa, Borno and Yobe States by former President Goodluck Jonathan, we urged him to reject the pressure mounted on by anti-democratic forces to remove the elected Governors and dissolve democratic structures in the affected States.President Jonathan followed the path of constitutionalism.
In 2021, the then Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr Abubakar Malami, SAN announced the plan of the Federal Government to declare a state of emergency in Anambra State, over insecurity and threat to a complete breakdown of law and order in that part of the Federation We advised President Buhari not to demolish democratic structures, even if emergency rule was imposed on the State. President Buhari followed the path of constitutionalism.
In the cases of Adegbenro v Attorney-General of the Federation (1962) 1 NLR 338 F.R.A. Williams v Dr M.A. Majekodunmi (1962) 1 NLR 328, the Supreme Court of Nigeria validated the Emergency Powers Act 1961 to justify the dissolution of democratic structures as well as suspension of fundamental human rights in Western Region. As there is no equivalent of the Emergency Powers Act 1961 under the current constitutional dispensation, the suspension of an elected Governor by an elected President is a constitutional anomaly under the 1999 Constitution.
In Attorney-General of the Federation v. Attorney-General of Abia State & Ors (2024) LPELR-62576 (SC) filed by the Bola Tinubu administration, the Supreme Court of Nigeria held that the removal of elected Chairmen and Councillors, as well as appointment of Sole Administrators or Caretaker Committees by State Governors to run Local Government Councils are illegal and unconstitutional. It follows to reason that the suspension of elected Governors and elected members of the House of Assembly by the President, is illegal and unconstitutional in every material particular.
To that extent, a serving or retired military officer cannot be imposed as a Sole Administrator to govern any State in Nigeria. Similarly, a military officer cannot be appointed by the National Assembly as a Sole Administrator, to govern the Nigerian people during a war between Nigeria and another country.
In the Speaker, Bauchi State House of Assembly v Hon Rifkatu Danna (2017) 49 WRN 82 and several other cases, Nigerian Courts have held that the suspension of elected legislators is illegal and unconstitutional. Therefore, the National Assembly should not have endorsed the illegal suspension of the Rivers State Legislators that have not defected from the People’s Democratic Party to the All Progressive Congress. Instead of approving the illegal dissolution of democratic structures in Rivers State, the National Assembly should have assisted Governor Fubara by invoking its powers under Section 11(4) of the Constitution “to make laws for the peace, order and good government of that State”.
Conclusion
Therefore, we are compelled to call on President Bola Tinubu to follow the path of constitutionalism, without any delay. The President should proceed to reinstate the suspended Governor Fubara and Deputy Governor Odu, and restore all democratic structures in Rivers State. This call is without prejudice to the duty imposed on the President to adopt extraordinary measures to restore law and order in Rivers State under Governor Fubara, in strict compliance with the provisions of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended.
Femi Falana, SAN
The Art of Declaring a State of Emergency
Adesegun Talabi – ‘Yes, the President Can Suspend’
In a move that has befuddled constitutional scholars, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has once again demonstrated his unparalleled ability to think outside the Constitution. By suspending Governor Fubara of Rivers State, his deputy, and the entire Rivers State House of Assembly, Tinubu has proven that when it comes to wielding power, the Nigerian Presidency is less a position and more an art form.
Since the suspension, opposition party members, political critics, news analysts and constitutional Lawyers have condemned the President’s decision, labelling it an impeachable offence and him, a tyrant and dictator.
Ingenuity/Liberal Interpretation of the Constitution
But, let’s take a moment to appreciate the sheer ingenuity of this manoeuvre. There is no doubt that Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution, grants the President the power to declare a state of emergency. What the Constitution Does Not say however, is that the President, in the exercise of this power, Cannot suspend a sitting Governor and the State House of Assembly and then merge their roles in an appointed sole administrator. And, as any good Lawyer will tell you, the absence of a prohibition is as good as permission.
In other words, while the Constitution provides the President with the power to declare a state of emergency, it fails to spell out in painstaking detail how he should go about exercising this power. Should he suspend elected officials? Replace them with a handpicked administrator? Order them to join the APC? Who knows! And, that is the beauty of our system – it leaves room for creative governance.
This also, is the essence of the Lotus Principle in law captured in the maxim: ‘What is not expressly forbidden, is allowed’.
There is ample precedent, to support President Tinubu’s enlightened approach to solving the impasse in Rivers State. Remember when Prime Minister Abubakar Tafawa Balewa imposed emergency rule in the Western Region and appointed Dr Moses Majekodunmi as a sole administrator? Was there a riot in the streets? Well, yes, but, let us not split hairs. The point is that emergency rule has been used before to remove troublesome Governors, and if something has been done once, or even twice – and there has been no constitutional amendment to forestall future occurrences – why should it not be done again?
The pattern of creative constitutional interpretation is also not new; it has been a hallmark of leadership in Nigeria, where the absence of explicit prohibitions has often been treated as an invitation to innovate. Does the Constitution expressly state that a President cannot suspend a Chief Justice of the Federation? No, and so, nothing prevented former President Muhammadu Buhari from installing his preferred CJN. Does the Constitution explicitly forbid a President from orchestrating the rapid removal of multiple Senate Presidents? No, and so, Olusegun Obasanjo turned the Senate into his personal game of musical chairs. And, what about the suspension of a Central Bank Governor? Done and dusted, twice. Our leaders have repeatedly demonstrated that the Constitution is to be interpreted as liberally as possible.
Even our esteemed Supreme Court agrees! In Nifiu Rabiu v Kano State (1980) 8 -11 SC 130 at 148, Justice Udo Udoma sagely advised that, constitutional provisions should not be construed so narrowly as to defeat their obvious purpose. And, what is the obvious purpose of Section 305? To allow the President to safeguard the nation, of course. And, what better way to do so than by ensuring that an errant Governor, who forgets that he belongs to an opposition party, is swiftly shown the door?
There are those who will argue that Nigeria operates a constitutional democracy, where power is derived from the people and the Constitution. This argument is not founded in fact. The reality is that, Nigeria is a Monarchial Republic disguised as a Presidential Democracy. The President is both head of State and head of Government, with an occasional side gig as the unquestionable supreme leader. His powers are limited only by the extent to which he can creatively read between constitutional lines and, of course, his conscience. And, if his conscience happens to align perfectly with his political ambitions, then there is nothing to stop its realisation.
Those bashing the President, must also consider the actions of world leaders in times of crisis. Did President Donald Trump hesitate to invoke emergency powers to build a border wall, even when Congress refused to fund it? Certainly not! Did leaders across the globe not exercise extraordinary authority during the Covid-19 pandemic, imposing lockdowns, restricting movement, and mandating vaccinations in ways that were not explicitly provided for in their constitutions? They did! Leaders must sometimes think outside the Constitution to act in the best interest of their people, whether those people recognise it or not.
What the objectors must realise is that, in Nigeria, the suspension of elected officials is not a crisis. It is a commonplace occurrence, even at the Local Government level. Rivers State will be fine. If anything, it should feel honoured that it has been chosen as the latest testing ground for the boundless ingenuity of Nigerian political jurisprudence. President Tinubu’s “Baba sò pe” style of governance may not be to everyone’s taste, but, it is undeniably effective. After all, who needs checks and balances when you have creativity, and a liberal interpretation of the law?
Conclusion
In conclusion, let us remember two things: First, the Constitution is not a rigid rulebook; it is a canvas upon which bold leaders paint their visions. And, President Tinubu, with his masterful strokes and fearless disregard for legal restrictions, is creating a true work of art. Second, governance is not for the faint of heart – it demands creativity, adaptability, and, when necessary, a healthy dose of improvisation. President Tinubu has simply done what is required to restore order, ensure stability and affirm his Presidential supremacy.
Adesegun Talabi, Legal Practitioner, Lagos
President Tinubu’s Proclamation: The Only Constitutional Option left on the Table
P. D. Pius – ‘Yes, the President Can Suspend’
Background
On the 13th December, 2023 the Governor of Rivers State demolished the Rivers House of Assembly and stopped them from sitting.
So many cases were filed in various courts. The President of Nigeria intervened, called the warring parties and ordered the Governor to allow the House of Assembly to resume sitting. The Governor refused to recognise the House of Assembly, and got Rivers State High Court to declare their seats vacant. Ignoring the President, and claiming that he is constitutionally right and the President is wrong. That he will win all his cases in court, so, he doesn’t need a political solution.
The 27 House of Assembly Members had to fight in various Courts and in many cases, until they got all round victory. This took them over 14 months, since the Governor demolished the House of Assembly. In other words, for the last 14 months, the Governor operated without a House of Assembly, and without any valid budget. While these unconstitutional practices were carried out by the Governor, who was running a government without the Legislature, the people shouting now were cheering the Governor to go on with an unconstitutional government.
Supreme Court Judgement
Finally, the case got to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court in consolidated 8 appeals judgement, made a very important finding thus:
“As it is, there is no Government in Rivers State”. Read this statement again. The Court arrived at this decision, after finding that the Governor has operated Rivers State for over 14 months without the legislature. For there to be a government, there must be an Executive, Legislature and Judiciary. Right from the day of this judgement of the Supreme Court, that there is no government in Rivers State, the declaration of state of emergency became apparent, necessary and mandatory. This is because, we cannot leave any part of Nigeria ungovernable. There must be government. It is not surprising therefore, that the President declared a state of emergency, when the Supreme Court judgement declared that governance had failed in Rivers State, and there had been no government there for over 14 months.
You may disagree with the judgement of the Supreme Court, but, you must obey it. The President should not pick and choose which part of the decision of the Supreme Court to obey or not. There is also no doubt that where there is *clear and present danger of an actual breakdown of public order* in any part of Nigeria, the President is permitted to declare state of emergency to avert such danger.
Preventive Nature of a State of Emergency
This category of state of emergency is preventive in nature, and not restorative. This means, it is made to prevent the danger from happening, and not restore peace when the danger has already taken place. I believe you have seen all the non-State actors, militants, mobilising to declare war on Nigeria tied to this Rivers State issue. So, those saying the situation is not ripe, clearly have not read Section 305(3)(d) of the Constitution of Nigeria, or they just like arguing. Recall that the President met with the Service Chiefs, and received security report hours before the declaration. If our Service Chiefs say there is risk or imminent danger and you are arguing otherwise, who do you want the President to believe? You or the Service Chiefs?
Suspension and the Logic of Ifs
On the argument that the President cannot suspend an elected Governor and House of Assembly Members, that is illogical and funny. Let’s use the logic of ifs. If the Governor remains to function as Governor and the House remains to function as the House, then there is no need for state of emergency. The fight just continues without end. If the Governor and House are not functioning as found by the Supreme Court, then suspending them for Government to function is the only way out. Those saying they should not be suspended but they should remain for the impasse to continue forever, do not mean well for Rivers State. Governance has to continue, and since the Governor and the House are not ready for governance, they must give way for an Administrator to take decisions for Rivers State in the interim. During this interim period, the Governor stands suspended and the House cannot sit.
The Supreme Court had since accepted this interim powers of an Administrator to take decisions for the State when a state of emergency is declared, in the case of Plateau State Government & Anor v AGF & Anor (2006) LLJR SC. The main question in this case was whether President Obasanjo could suspend Chief Joshua Dariye and the House of Assembly, and appoint an Administrator for 6 months. Chief Joshua Dariye decided to file the action at the Supreme Court. The Administrator Major General M. C. Alli (Rtd) challenged Dariye and stated that he was the Administrator, and he did not authorise the filing of the case. The question then was, who between Chief Joshua Dariye and M. C. Alli had constitutional authority to take decisions for Plateau State during the state of emergency, including filing of the case on behalf of Plateau State.
The Supreme decided that, only the Administrator had the authority to take decisions for Plateau State during the state of emergency. It was decided thus:
“It is a notorious fact that Major General Chris Alli (Rtd) was appointed Sole Administrator of Plateau State during the state of emergency in that State, from 18/5/2004 until 17/11/2004 when the emergency ceased. It is also a notorious fact that during the state of emergency, both the Governor and the House of Assembly were suspended and therefore, were not functional. It is also a fact that throughout the period of state of emergency, only the Sole Administrator took decisions for and on behalf of the State. It is therefore, common sense to say that as at 24/6/2004 when the Plaintiffs filed this suit, only the Sole Administrator could have authorised the filing of the suit on behalf of the Plateau State of Nigeria”.
As long as this decision has not been set aside by the Supreme Court, it remains binding. The President can suspend the Governor and the House of Assembly in declaring a state of emergency, and only the Administrator has power and authority to take decisions for the State Government during the state of emergency.
Conclusion
We should support the President in bringing a solution to the constitutional crisis in Rivers State, and not condemn, criticise and complain without offering any constitutional solution. What I find funny about Nigerians is that, they will support all unconstitutional acts of the Governor, including demolishing House of Assembly and stopping them from sitting for over 14 months, but, shout blue murder when the President attempts to exercise his constitutional powers to declare a state of emergency. Haba! Is it only the President that is supposed to obey the Constitution, or the Governors too are supposed to obey the Constitution?
P. D. Pius, Legal Practitioner, Abuja
Tale of Two Governors: PBAT and Unequal Penalties for Offenders
Dr Tonye Clinton Jaja
So that I will not be accused of being emotional or sentimental because Governor Fubara and myself are both indigenes of Opobo Kingdom of Rivers State, I will simply submit facts here and allow the readers to draw their own conclusions.
The major argument and assertion that I am making is that, assuming but not not conceding that Governor Fubara has committed any offence(s), is his suspension and declaration of a state of emergency, the only penalty (out of many other available penalties) that ought to be imposed?
And, why was the same penalty not imposed upon the Governor of Lagos State, (and Obasa) who committed a similar offence?
President’s Violation of the Constitution
First of all, I am of the firm conviction that His Excellency Mr President is in violation of Section 305 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, because the conditions precedent had not been met before he went ahead to proclaim a State of Emergency in Rivers State.
The four conditions that I have identified which means that the Proclamation of the said State of Emergency is in violation of various sections of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 and other relevant laws are as follows:
1. Violation of Section 42 of the Nigerian Constitution by preventing our members who are both staff of the Rivers State House of Assembly and the Rivers State Government House, (other officials of the Executive Arm of the Rivers State Government such as Commissioners, Office of the Secretary to the Rivers State Government, etc.) to be involved in gainful employment to earn money to be utilised in acquisition of property through mortgage, etc.;
2. The said Gazette dated 18th March, 2025 which purports to appoints a Sole Administrator is a direct violation of Section 1(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999″ the Federal Republic of Nigeria shall not be governed, nor shall any person or group of persons take control of the Government of Nigeria or any part thereof, except in accordance with the provisions of this constitution “;
3. There is no Resolution of the National Assembly in support of the said Gazette as stipulated under Section 305 of the Nigerian Constitution; and
4. There is no prima facie evidence of failure of the said Governor of Rivers State, in the performance of his duty since after the judgement of the Supreme Court of Nigeria dated February 28th, 2025. Therefore, pursuant to the provisions of Freedom of Information Act, 2011, which entitles both individuals and Non-governmental Organisations to any such documented evidence of dereliction of duty by the said Governor of Rivers State which is a condition precedent before the publication of a Gazette under Section 305 of the Nigerian Constitution.
In a Press Statement issued after the Proclamation of the State of Emergency in Rivers State, the Hon. Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), has stated that in addition to other offences, Governor Fubara is guilty of “Tele-Guiding” the actions of militants who blew up crude oil pipelines in Rivers State. This is in addition to the allegation that Governor Fubara also “Tele-Guided” and prevented the functioning of the Rivers State House of Assembly.
With due respect to the AGF, who is a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), first of all you cannot create a new offence of “Tele-Guiding”, which is not defined in any written offence and then punish the said Governor Fubara on such an offence without any empirical evidence that Governor Fubara committed said offence. The AGF’s statement is in violation of Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, as amended, which states that a person cannot be convicted of a criminal offence unless that offence is defined and the penalty prescribed in a written law, which includes Acts of the National Assembly, State laws, and subsidiary legislation.
More importantly, the penalty imposed upon Governor Fubara is different and more punitive than Governor of Lagos State who also committed a similar offence of “Tele-Guiding” the Lagos State House of Assembly members to impeach Obasa on 13th January, 2025.
Subsequently, Obasa used armed Policemen to reclaim his position as Speaker of the Lagos State House of Assembly.
In clear violation of the terms of agreement negotiated by His Excellency, Mr President, Obasa has, up till today, refused to withdraw the lawsuit that he filed in court. And, even before the settlement meeting with Mr President himself, Mr President explored the option of sending emissaries headed by former Governor Akande to meet with Governor Sanwo-Olu, Obasa and legislators of the Lagos State House of Assembly and other stakeholders, to resolve the issues.
So, it was not a one-off effort, His Excellency Mr President applied several efforts until an amicable resolution was arrived at in the case of Lagos State!!! These steps or similar approach, were not applied to the crisis in Rivers State!!!
However, till today Governor Sanwo-Olu has not received the same penalty for “Tele-Guiding” that was imposed upon Governor Fubara.
Dr Tonye Clinton Jaja
