Since the rift between Nyesom Wike, the former Rivers State governor, and Siminalayi Fubara, his successor, burst into the open in October 2023, I have written four articles on the saga. The last before this piece was titled “Blame Tinubu for the impending political inferno in Rivers” (Vanguard, May 23, 2024).
That intervention was prescient, as, indeed, a political inferno has engulfed Rivers State. Last week, on March 18, Bola Tinubu, Nigeria’s trigger-happy president, declared a state of emergency in Rivers, sacking its governor, deputy governor and House of Assembly members. In parallel, Tinubu appointed a retired vice admiral and former Chief of Naval Staff, Ibok-Ete Ibas, as the state’s Sole Administrator.
In a democracy, that’s a political cataclysm of great proportions. But, as I said in my May 2024 article, the blame rests squarely with Tinubu. For self-serving political calculations, Tinubu took sides in the conflict and empowered one party against the other, thereby fuelling the crisis and enabling it to fester and snowball into an apocalypse. Thus, for me, the state of emergency must be viewed not only through its constitutionality, but also its political context. So, before we come to the constitutional, let’s explore the political.
At the heart of the Rivers State saga are, politically, three evils: godfatherism, political corruption and abuse of powers. On the first, it’s no secret that Wike handpicked Fubara as his successor. But as often the case between political godfathers and godchildren, the relationship went sour. Wike wanted to entrench himself as the ultimate godfather of Rivers politics and turn Fubara into his poodle, but Fubara was determined not to be Wike’s lapdog. That “insolence” drew Wike’s ire and triggered his deep animus towards Fubara. As Wike himself said in October 2023, he was fighting for his political life. Hear him: “All of us want to be politically relevant; all of us want to maintain our political structure. Everybody has a base. If you take my base, am I not politically irrelevant?”
Of course, Nigeria’s quintessential political godfather is Tinubu. Although he left office as Lagos State governor in 2007, he handpicked all his successors, who became his serfs. Mutual belief in godfatherism makes Tinubu and Wike kindred spirits. Thus, instead of supporting the elected governor of Rivers State, Tinubu sided with Wike against Fubara, expecting him to submit to his “godfather”. But Tinubu’s bias wasn’t just about shared values. He was more motivated by self-interest.
Tinubu needed to reward Wike for controversially helping him to secure the crucial 25 per cent in Rivers State in the 2023 presidential election. But, more importantly, he wants to capture Rivers State and much of the South-South in the 2027 presidential race. Hence, he made Wike the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, and steamrollered through Godswill Akpabio as Senate President.
But, as I wrote in a column titled “Wike as FCT Minister: An insult to Nigeria’s sensibility” (Vanguard, November 16, 2023), being the FCT Minister, the equivalent of a state governor, made Wike extremely powerful and emboldened him to leverage the office to control the politics of Rivers State. Truth is, Wike is irrelevant without political office; it’s what gives him oxygen. To quote him again: “If you take my base, am I not politically irrelevant?”
Being the “Emperor of Abuja”, and backed with federal might, enables Wike to wield political and financial patronage powers, which he uses to fuel his “base” and remain “politically relevant” and foment trouble in his state. Yet, Tinubu’s self-serving relationship with Wike prevented him from being even-handed; instead, he strengthened Wike politically and weakened Fubara. Even now, Tinubu sacks Fubara, a democratically elected governor, but keeps Wike, the agent provocateur, in office as a crony minister. It is utterly perverse.
Which brings us to the constitutionality of the state of emergency. Of course, section 305 of the Constitution empowers the president to declare a state of emergency under some grave circumstances. But the state of emergency declared by Tinubu is flawed in three major ways: substantively, procedurally and morally. In terms of substance, there is nowhere under section 305 that any president can claim the power to declare a state of emergency and then sack a democratically elected state governor and other elected state representatives.
In 2004, when President Obasanjo used a state of emergence to sack the then governor of Plateau State, Joshua Dariye, Chief Rotimi Williams, who chaired the Constitution Drafting Committee that drafted the 1979 Constitution, which the 1999 Constitution mimicked, said: “There is no provision contained in any part of our Constitution which confers such a power on the President.” In constitutional interpretation, judges are guided by the original intent of the drafters.
So, why would anyone ignore the views of Chief Williams, whose committee drafted the 1979 Constitution? Those views were shared by Mohammed Adoke, the Attorney-General of the Federation under President Jonathan’s administration, who advised Jonathan not to sack the governors of Borno, Adamawa and Yobe after declaring a state of emergency in those states in 2013. According to Adoke, “the removal of a Governor is nowhere provided for in the mechanism for implementing a State of Emergency”.
But faced with the Obasanjo model and the Jonathan model, Tinubu and his Attorney-General, Lateef Fagbemi, opted for Obasanjo’s authoritarian approach, ignoring the views of constitutional drafters, lawyers and scholars. Unfortunately, there’s no judicial independence in Nigeria. With the Supreme Court seemingly in cahoots with the presidency and given its penchant for perverse rulings, few trust the apex court to be an impartial arbiter in the matter.
Which brings us to the constitutional process. Section 305 (6)(b) of the Constitution provides that a state of emergency must be approved by “two-thirds of all the members of each House of the National Assembly”. That is a high threshold, meaning two-thirds of 109 senators (i.e., 72) and two-thirds of 360 members of the House of Representatives (i.e. 240). Now, how can any parliament determine those numbers by a voice vote? Yet, that’s what Nigeria’s supine and rubberstamp National Assembly did! The President of the Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, Afam Osigwe, said the so-called “ratification” was “unconstitutional”. Truth is, both substantively and procedurally, the state of emergency is unconstitutional.
Yet, there’s also the morality. Tinubu strongly condemned Obasanjo’s state of emergency proclamations in 2004 and 2006, which, respectively, removed the governors of Plateau and Ekiti states. He brutally attacked President Jonathan for declaring a state of emergency in the terrorism-ravaged states of Borno, Adamawa and Yobe in 2013 even though Jonathan didn’t sack their governors. But now, Tinubu defends his power-grabbing state of emergency by saying: “I have a country to run.” Really? Well, leaving aside Tinubu’s hypocrisy, he’s acting as a tyrant, an autocrat. That erodes Nigeria’s social cohesion and democratic values!
The post State of emergency: Tinubu’s autocracy endangers Nigeria’s democracy, by Olu Fasan appeared first on Vanguard News.
