Battle lines
Seven states challenge Tinubu's Rivers intervention. Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan defies Kogi rally ban, celebrating Sallah despite police warnings.
Seven PDP-led state governments have sued President Bola Tinubu at the Supreme Court over his suspension of Rivers State’s elected officials, including Governor Sim Fubara, under emergency rule. The plaintiffs—Adamawa, Bauchi, Bayelsa, Enugu, Plateau, Osun, and Zamfara—argued that Tinubu had exceeded his constitutional powers and violated Section 305 of the Nigerian Constitution. Meanwhile, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan defied a government ban on rallies in Kogi State, receiving a massive welcome from supporters in Okehi LGA. She dismissed the restrictions, insisting she was breaking no law but merely celebrating Sallah with her constituents despite a curfew imposed by local authorities and police warnings.
The current legal dispute surrounding the suspension of Governor Sim Fubara and other elected officials of Rivers State raises critical constitutional and legal questions that warrant careful judicial interpretation. Seven state governments, led by opposition governors from the People's Democratic Party (PDP), have challenged the actions of President Bola Tinubu at the Supreme Court.
This case is more than a mere political contest; it is an important test of the separation of powers and the limits of executive authority in Nigeria. At the heart of this case is the contention that President Tinubu exceeded his constitutional powers by suspending democratically elected officials under an emergency rule. The plaintiffs argue that this move does not meet the legal requirements outlined in Section 305 of the Nigerian Constitution. The states say that the state of emergency proclamation in Rivers State, which led to the suspension of the governor and the state house of assembly, was not carried out following constitutional stipulations. They also argue that appointing a sole administrator to replace the elected officials undermines the democratic process and infringes upon the people’s will.
In this regard, the judiciary is the law's interpreter and arbiter of constitutional disputes. The concept of checks and balances within the Nigerian governance system is central to the resolution of this case. In exercising its powers, the executive branch must do so within the law’s framework. While the President has the authority to declare a state of emergency under specific circumstances, the scope and application of this power must be scrutinised to prevent its misuse. If the Supreme Court rules in favour of the plaintiffs, it will send a strong message about the importance of adhering to constitutional provisions regarding states of emergency.
The Court’s decision could reinstate Governor Fubara and the state house of assembly, restoring the legitimate governance structures of Rivers State. Furthermore, such a ruling would set a precedent for future cases involving the imposition of emergency rule, clarifying the scope of presidential powers and reinforcing the constitutional protections against arbitrary suspension of elected officials.
On the other hand, if the Supreme Court sides with President Tinubu, it could set a troubling precedent for future declarations of state emergencies. Such a decision could open the door for further instances where state governors and assemblies are suspended, potentially eroding the democratic fabric of Nigeria’s federal system. A ruling favouring the President would likely embolden future executive overreach and undermine the principles of democratic accountability and the rule of law. The Supreme Court has an opportunity to correct what many see as an abuse of power by the President, ensuring that the principle of democracy is upheld in Rivers State and across the country. The Court’s judgment will not only address the immediate issue at hand but will also serve as a landmark decision that shapes the future interpretation of emergency powers and executive authority in Nigeria.
In the case of the homecoming of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, the decision by the Okehi LGA chairman to ban rallies and impose a curfew, along with the warnings issued by the police ahead of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s homecoming, raises serious concerns about the handling of the situation by the state authorities, law enforcement, and the local government.
Rather than imposing a blanket ban on rallies, security agencies could have adopted alternative measures to ensure public order, such as mandating proper security arrangements for any gathering and providing necessary support from security personnel. The outright cancellation of rallies appears excessive and unjustified. This action further reinforces concerns of political persecution against Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, who has faced numerous challenges, including her recent suspension from office. Both she and her constituents have a constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of association. It is important to note that the homecoming event, which coincided with the Sallah festivities in her hometown, was peaceful, with no recorded breach of security or disruption of public order. The restrictions imposed, therefore, raise serious questions about the motive behind such measures and their implications for democratic rights and freedom.