Connect with us

Headline

The Supreme Court of Controversies

Published

on

By Eric Elezuo

When on October 25, 2023, the Supreme Court fixed Thursday, October 26, to deliver final judgements in the two surviving petitions challenging the legality or otherwise of the declaration of President Bola Tinubu as winner of the last presidential election, many Nigerians received the news with mixed feelings as a result of the muffled belief that justice will not be done. It was circulated in many quarters that the ability of the Supreme Court to deliver justice was more of utopic feeling. This is because of the obvious, which points to the fact that many had lost faith in the judiciary, the Supreme Court most especially; no thanks to the myriad of controversial judgments it has delivered in recent times.

The petitions in question were those filed by the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Atiku Abubakar, and his counterpart in the Labour Party (LP), Peter Gregory Obi.

A 7-man panel of Justices of the Court led by Justice John Inyang Okoro had earlier taken final arguments from lawyers to the parties in the petitions. The Justices had thereafter reserved their judgments.

As foreseen, the seven-man justices dismissed all the appeals including the fresh evidence of tinubu’s alleged certificate forgery, thereby upholding the lower court’s September 6, 2023 judgment. They ruled that the opposition appeals over claims of fraud, electoral law violations, and Tinubu’s ineligibility to run for president lacked merit.

Thereafter, reactions trailed the judgment of the Supreme Court affirming the electoral victory of President Bola Tinubu. The Labour Party (LP) alleged that the legislative and judicial arms of government have been hijacked by the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) while the PDP dismissed the judgment as disappointing and concerning.

At a press briefing hours after the apex court dismissed the appeals, LP’s Chairman, Julius Abure said the party is disappointed but has decided to charge on and remain optimistic for what the future holds for the nation.

According to Abure, what happened from the day of the 2023 presidential election to now showed that the nation was sliding towards dictatorship.

“We are indeed very shocked and surprised that even the apex court will toe the line of an earlier judgement in spite of all the flaws associated with the judgement delivered by the Presidential Election Appeal Tribunal.

“Having conclusively exercised our fundamental rights as gifted to us by the laws of the land, we have no other choice but to move on. We may be disappointed and dismayed by the outcome of the exercise but we have chosen to trudge on and to remain optimistic of what the future holds for the nation.

“We weep for our institutions that cannot rise to the occasion and courageously defend democracy and the voices of our people.

“However, there are great lessons to be learnt. What transpired in Nigeria since the February 25 presidential election is a clear testament that our institutions are not working and that we may be sliding towards dictatorship. It is very clear that the executive has hijacked both the judiciary and the legislature. This is so unfortunate for our democracy and it is even more for the people of Nigeria.

“All what our forbearers taught us has been destroyed within a short space of time because of the unbridled ambition of a few. The founding fathers fought with their lives to achieve independence for the country.

“People lost their lives for the struggle to keep our democracy and all these years people have been struggling to achieve electoral and constitutional reforms. Regrettably, all of these efforts and struggles have been destroyed today,” Abure said.

On its part, the PDP expressed disappointment over the Supreme Court judgment, saying that the apex court has failed Nigerians.

The party expressed its reservations over the judgment through a press statement signed by its National Publicity Secretary, Hon. Debo Ologunagba, and made available to The Boss.

The party holds that the majority of Nigerians are “alarmed, disappointed and gravely concerned with the reasoning of the Supreme Court which the PDP believes is against the express provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), the Electoral Act, 2022, the Guideline and Regulation issued by INEC under which the election was conducted”.

The party further “asserts that it is indeed a sad commentary for our democracy that the Supreme Court failed to uphold the provisions of the law. Instead, it trashed the expectation of majority of Nigerians who looked up to it as a Temple of Impartiality to deliver substantial justice in the matter having regards to the laws and facts of the case.

“Nigerians earnestly expected the Supreme Court to uphold and defend the clear provisions of the 1999 Constitution in terms of qualification and minimum requirement for a winner to be declared in a Presidential election in Nigeria especially with regards to the required statutory 25% of votes in the FCT as well as issues of violation of electoral Rules and Guidelines, brazen manipulations and alterations of election results by the APC.

“Nigerians are still at a loss as to how the Supreme Court condoned the serious issues of forgery, falsehood and perjury on the altar of technicalities.

“The general gloom, melancholy and sense of despondency across the country upon the delivery of the judgment is an ominous sign of eerie situation which portend grave consequences because of the disappointment embedded in the judgment.

“This judgment by the Supreme Court has evidently shaken the confidence of Nigerians in the judiciary, especially the Supreme Court as the last hope of the common man.

“The PDP remains undeterred and charges Nigerians not to be discouraged or allow the judgment to detract from their collective quest for the entrenchment of a credible electoral system that can guarantee a government that truly derive its legitimacy from the people.”

More legal practitioners have also lent their voices to what many Nigerians have labeled a travesty of justice at the Supreme Court, using the judgment that affirmed Tinubu as Duly Elected as case study.

One of these legal icons is the just retired justice of the Supreme Court, Hon. Justice Musa Dattijo Muhammad, who bowed out on Friday having attained the statutory retirement age of 70, with not less than 47 years in the judiciary, 10 of which was as a Supreme Court justice.

His retirement day speech opened up a can of stinking worms in legal practice, especially at the apex court. He also exposed the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Kayode Ariwoola and the Supreme Court as a whole as an institution of bias and ineptitude.

In his speech, the justice opened a new conversation on the enormous powers the office of the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) wields, and how the present CJN has deliberately starved some regions, especially the South East of representation in the apex court among other revelations.

With no holds barred, His Lordship systematically dissected the politics of ethnicity in the apex court, saying that he is leaving the Supreme Court worse than he met it.

Dattijo, among many other accusations alleged as follows:

“As presently structured the CJN is Chairman of the NJC which oversees both the appointment and discipline of judges, he is equally Chair of the Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC) which recommends those selected for appointment to the NJC, the National Judicial Institute (NJI) and the Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee (LPPC) which appoints Senior Advocates of Nigeria. In my considered opinion the oversight functions of these bodies should not rest on an individual alone. A person with absolute power, it is said, corrupts easily and absolutely.

“As Chair of NJC, FJSC, NJI, and LPPC, appointments as council, board and committee members are at his pleasure. He neither confers with fellow justices nor seeks their counsel or input on any matter related to these bodies. He has both the final and the only say. The CJN has the power to appoint 80 percent of members of the council and 60 percent of members of FJSC. The same applies to NJC and LPPC. The power of being appointed a judge of any court rests squarely on him. Such enormous powers can be abused. Such enormous powers are effortlessly abused. This needs to change. Continued denial of the existence of this threatening anomaly weakens effective judicial oversight in the country.

“By the provision of Paragraph 20 of Part One of the Third Schedule to the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended, the NJC shall comprise the following Members: the Chief Justice of Nigeria, who shall be the Chairman; the next most senior Justice of the Supreme Court who shall be the Deputy Chairman. Regrettably, the next most senior Justice of the Supreme Court like Deputy Governors of States, shorn of any official function except at the pleasure of the Governor, is neither consulted on anything nor does he have any official function. His job as No. 2 is purely as the CJN pleases. It is incumbent that the system provides for more inclusion and consultation among stakeholders.

“The conversation about the diminishing number of justices of Nigeria’s Supreme Court has become a refrain. As I bow out today, the number is further reduced to 10 against the Constitutional requirement of 21 justices. That this avoidable depletion has affected the court and will further affect the court and Nigerians is stating the obvious.

“We are in an election season where the Election Tribunals and appellate courts are inundated with all manner of petitions and appeals. The Supreme Court is the final court in the Presidential, Governorship, and National Assembly election appeals. Yet, there are only 10 justices left to determine these matters. Constitutionally, each of these appeals requires a panel of seven justices to sit on them. When a panel of seven justices is constituted to sit on a particular appeal, only three justices are left out. Even when regular appeals are being heard in the Supreme Court, a panel of five justices is required to sit.

“We must not forget that the Supreme Court, being the highest court in the land receives all manner of appeals from the court below. Presently, there is neither limit nor distinction to the manner of appeals that come to the apex court. Again, beside election matters which are seasonal, the Supreme Court’s docket is overflowing with civil and criminal appeals, some of which took many years to arrive. Most of these are still pending. Several have not even been assigned hearing dates. The court also exercises original jurisdiction.

“As the justices who hear these matters are grossly overstretched, unable to meet the demands of their onerous assignment, the appellants who came to us seeking justice are left in limbo; waiting endlessly for justice to be served. These as I said before, are avoidable.

“When I exit today, the North Central region that I represent will cease to have any representation until such a time new appointments are made. My Lord Hon. Justice Ejembi Eko who also represented the zone retired on the 23rd of May, 2022. It has been a year and five months now. There has not been any replacement. With the passing of My Lord, Hon. Justice C.C. Nweze on 30th July 2023 the South East no longer has any presence at the Supreme Court. My Lord, Hon. Justice Sylvester Nwali Ngwuta died on 7th March 2021. There has not been any appointment in his stead for the South East.

“To ensure justice and transparency in the event of presidential appeals from the lower court, all geo-political zones are required to participate in the hearing. It is therefore dangerous for democracy and equity for two entire regions to be left out in the decisions that will affect the generality of Nigerians. This does not demonstrate federal character as required by our laws.

“Although it can be posited that no one expected the sudden passing of Justice Nweze, JSC, yet, it has been two years and seven months since the previous Justice from the South East died and no appointment was made. Ditto for the replacement of Justice Eko of North Central who exited nearly two years ago. Hon. Justice Sidi Bage, JSC, how His Royal Highness the Emir of Lafia, from the North Central, had earlier voluntarily retired. He is yet to be replaced.

“Also, it was clear ab-initio that I would be leaving the court this day on attaining the statutory age of 70. It is then not in doubt that there has been sufficient time for suitable replacements to have been appointed. This did not occur.

“When on the 6th of November 2020 the Supreme Court for the first time in its history got a full complement of 21 justices with the swearing-in of eight justices, little did anyone know that we were only a few steps to unimaginable retrogression. As it stands, only four geo-political regions —The South-West, South-South, North-West, and North-East are represented in the Supreme Court. While the South-South and the North-East have two serving justices, the North-West and the South-West are fully represented with three each. Appropriate steps could have been taken since to fill outstanding vacancies in the apex court.

“Why have these steps not been timeously taken? It is evident that the decision not to fill the vacancies in the court is deliberate. It is all about the absolute powers vested in the office of the Chief Justice of Nigeria and the responsible exercise of same.”

SEE THE FULL TEXT BELOW:

SPEECH-BY-HON.-JUSTICE-M.-DATTIJO

The reverred justice further stated:

“At the Court of Appeal, it is also asserted, presiding Justices are now being appointed out of turn. And there is the further issue of the unpredictable nature of recent decisions of the courts as well.

“A number of respected senior members of the bar inter alia, citing the Ahmed Lawan, the former President of the Senate and the Imo Governorship appeals, claim that decisions of even the apex court have become unpredictable. It is difficult to understand how and where, by these decisions, the judicial pendulum swings. It was not so before, they contend.

“In some quarters the view is strongly held that filth and intrigues characterize the institution these days! Judges are said to be comfortable in companies they never would have kept in the past. It is being insinuated that some judicial officers even campaign for the politicians. It cannot be more damnifying!”

In his reaction, Mike Ozekhome, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and lawyer to one of the petitioners, Atiku Abubakar raised concerns about the lopsided composition of justices of the Supreme Court.

He specifically cited the recent presidential election appeal involving Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

Ozekhome questioned the ability of the Supreme Court to perform its duties effectively with such limited numbers and called for a deeper analysis of the court’s verdict on the case, as it carries significant policy implications.

He also criticized the disregard for the technological advancements in the 2022 Electoral Act, which he believes have been undermined by the court’s decision.

SOME CONTROVERSIAL JUDGMENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT 

LAWAN VS MACHINA

In the build up to the 2023 elections, Bashir Machina and the then Senate President,  Ahmed Lawan, had shown for the Yobe North senatorial seat ticket of the APC, but Lawan had gone to contest for the presidential ticket of the party, leaving Machina to the senatorial ticket.

Machina won unopposed during the senatorial primary organised by the party in May 2022.

But the senate president was said to have participated in another primary organised by the APC after he contested the presidential ticket unsuccessfully in June.

Machina was reportedly asked to step down for Lawan but he insisted that he is the rightful candidate.

Amid the controversy, the APC submitted the senate president’s name to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as the candidate for Yobe north.

The electoral commission subsequently refused to list any candidate for the district.

Aggrieved, Machina instituted a suit asking the court to declare him as the authentic senatorial candidate. His petition was upheld at the Appeal Court, but dismissed by the Supreme Court.

In a majority judgment delivered, the apex court allowed the appeal filed by the APC against Bashir Machina’s candidature.

Delivering the judgment, three out of a five-member panel agreed with the position of the APC that the suit at the trial court ought not to have commenced via an originating summons since it contained allegations of fraud.

“The bedrock of the suit shows that there were allegations of fraudulent practices against the appellants,” Centus Nweze, who led the five-man team, said.

UZODINMA AND IMO ELECTION

The Supreme Court in January 2020, nullified the election of Emeka Ihedioha of the PDP as the governor of Imo State.

The apex court declared Hope Uzodinma of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as the winner of the March 9 governorship election in the state. Uzodinma came fourth in the election.

In the unanimous judgment of the seven-member panel, read by Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, the apex court agreed that results in 388 polling units were unlawfully excluded during the collation of the final governorship election result in Imo State.

Justice Kekere-Ekun said with the results from the 388 polling units added, Mr Uzodinma polled a majority of the lawful votes and ought to have been declared the winner of the election by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC.

The judge did not provide the details of the new votes scored by each of the candidates after the addition of the results from the 388 polling units.

Consequently, she voided and set aside the declaration of Mr lhedioha as the winner of the 2019 governorship election in the South-East state.

VALIDATION OF AKPABIO’S CANDIDACY

The apex court, in a unanimous decision by a five-member panel of Justices, upheld an appeal Senator Godswill Akpabio filed to challenge the Court of Appeal judgement that nullified his candidacy.

In the lead judgement that was read by Justice Ibrahim Saulawa, the apex court, held that the appellate court lacked the jurisdiction to meddle in the issue of nomination of candidate for an election, which it said was within the purview of an internal affair of a political party.

The apex court panel resolved 10 issues Akpabio raised before it in his favour and accordingly vacated the November 14, 2022 judgement of the Court of Appeal in Abuja, which directed the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, to recognize Mr. Udom Ekpoudom as the authentic candidate of the APC for the senatorial contest.

It would be recalled that Akpabio was contesting the presidential ticket of his party when Ekpoudom was recognised the party flag bearer.

While it appears that the Nigerian Supreme Court is always hesitant in upturning clear classes of judiciary misinterpretation as has been noticed in recent times, especially when it involves high profile political figures, instances abound where the US Supreme Court acted otherwise.

Below is a list 8 major instances where the US Supreme Court took the bull by the horns, according to www.history.com

  1. Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918)
  2. Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940)
  3. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
  4. Betts v. Brady (1942)
  5. Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)
  6. Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990)
  7. Baker v. Nelson (1972)
  8. Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey (1992)

Stakeholders and observers await to behold what becomes of the Nigeria’s apex court. Can it still stand as the last hope of the common. Time will tell!

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Headline

Tinubu’s Fatal Blow on Rivers State

Published

on

By

By Eric Elezuo

When in the 19th century, celebrated writer Lord Acton, made the oft-quoted statement that “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” he had no reference to the Nigerian government of today, which has suddenly become a law unto itself, maneuvering and arrogating judicial precedents and justice system to suit its whimps and caprices.

Many has called it power intoxication while others declare it as judicial malady, but the fact remains that Nigerian President, Bola Tinubu, had wielded a big stick, albeit unconstitutionally according to many high profile respondents, to deal a fatal blow on the elected representatives of the Rivers State government, and its legislative body.

Mr. President had on March 18, 2025, during a nationwide broadcast, and contrary to expectations, declared a state of emergency on the oil-rich state, going ahead to suspend the governor, Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, Ngozi Odu, and the 31 elected members of the legislature. In the broadcast, the president stated that the emergency rule will last for an initial six months followed by a review which will determine either an extension of the rule or its termination. He also appointed Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas as the state’s Sole Administrator.

The president’s statement, which has been declared a fatal blow on democracy, and both unconstitutional and undemocratic, by a section of Nigerians, but a peace stroke by yet another section, has elicited reactions from the length and breadth of the nation majority of which borders on condemnations, rather than approval.

The sledgehammer reaction was a consequence of an 18 months fracas between between the Governor, Fubara, and his estranged godfather, Nyesom Wike, the immediate past governor of the state, and currently Tinubu’s minister, in charge of the Federal Capital Territory. Both has been locked in battle for the soul of the state treasury, as alleged by observers, and the party structure. The battle has brought both parties to their wits’ end where interventions from well meaning Nigerians, including Tinubu himself failed to assuage the grievances of each contending party. But Tinubu’s March 18th statement put a stop to all contentions, albeit at the moment

The statement reads in full:

Fellow Nigerians, I feel greatly disturbed at the turn we have come to regarding the political crisis in Rivers State. Like many of you, I have watched with concern the development with the hope that the parties involved would allow good sense to prevail at the soonest, but all that hope burned out without any solution to the crisis.

With the crisis persisting, there is no way democratic governance, which we have all fought and worked for over the years, can thrive in a way that will redound to the benefit of the good people of the state. The state has been at a standstill since the crisis started, with the good people of the state not being able to have access to the dividends of democracy.

Also, it is public knowledge that the Governor of Rivers State for unjustifiable reasons, demolished the House of Assembly of the state as far back as 13th December 2023 and has, up until now, fourteen (14) months after, not rebuilt same. I have made personal interventions between the contending parties for a peaceful resolution of the crisis, but my efforts have been largely ignored by the parties to the crisis. I am also aware that many well-meaning Nigerians, Leaders of thought and Patriotic groups have also intervened at various times with the best of intentions to resolve the matter, but all their efforts were also to no avail. Still, I thank them.

On February 28, 2025, the supreme court, in a judgment in respect of about eight consolidated appeals concerning the political crisis in Rivers State, based on several grave unconstitutional acts and disregard of rule of law that have been committed by the Governor of Rivers State as shown by the evidence before it pronounced in very clear terms:

“a government cannot be said to exist without one of the three arms that make up the government of a state under the 1999 Constitution as amended. In this case the head of the executive arm of the government has chosen to collapse the legislature to enable him to govern without the legislature as a despot. As it is there is no government in Rivers State.”

The above pronouncement came after a catalogue of judicial findings of constitutional breaches against the Governor Siminalayi Fubara.

Going Forward in their judgment, and having found and held that 27 members of the House who had allegedly defected

“are still valid members of Rivers State House of Assembly and cannot be prevented from participating in the proceedings of that House by the 8th Respondent (that is, the Governor) in cohorts with four members”

The Supreme Court then made some orders to restore the state to immediate constitutional democracy. These orders include the immediate passing of an Appropriation Bill by the Rivers State House of Assembly which up till now has not been facilitated.

Some militants had threatened fire and brimstone against their perceived enemy of the governor who has up till now NOT disowned them.

Apart from that both the House and the governor have not been able to work together.

Both of them do not realise that they are in office to work together for the peace and good governance of the state.

The latest security reports made available to me show that between yesterday and today there have been disturbing incidents of vandalization of pipelines by some militant without the governor taking any action to curtail them. I have, of course given stern order to the security agencies to ensure safety of lives of the good people of Rivers State and the oil pipelines.

With all these and many more, no good and responsible President will standby and allow the grave situation to continue without taking remedial steps prescribed by the Constitution to address the situation in the state, which no doubt requires extraordinary measures to restore good governance, peace, order and security.

In the circumstance, having soberly reflected on and evaluated the political situation in Rivers State and the Governor and Deputy Governor of Rivers State having failed to make a request to me as President to issue this proclamation as required by section 305(5) of the 1999 Constitution as amended, it has become inevitably compelling for me to invoke the provision of section 305 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended, to declare a state of emergency in Rivers State with effect from today, 18th March, 2025 and I so do.

By this declaration, the Governor of Rivers State, Mr Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, Mrs Ngozi Odu and all elected members of the House of Assembly of Rivers State are hereby suspended for an initial period of six months.

In the meantime, I hereby nominate Vice Admiral Ibokette Ibas (Rtd) as Administrator to take charge of the affairs of the state in the interest of the good people of Rivers State. For the avoidance of doubt, this declaration does not affect the judicial arm of Rivers State, which shall continue to function in accordance with their constitutional mandate.

The Administrator will not make any new laws. He will, however, be free to formulate regulations as may be found necessary to do his job, but such regulations will need to be considered and approved by the Federal Executive Council and promulgated by the President for the state.

This declaration has been published in the Federal Gazette, a copy of which has been forwarded to the National Assembly in accordance with the Constitution. It is my fervent hope that this inevitable intervention will help to restore peace and order in Rivers State by awakening all the contenders to the constitutional imperatives binding on all political players in Rivers State in particular and Nigeria as a whole.

Long live a united, peaceful, secure and democratic Rivers State in particular and the Federal Republic of Nigeria as a whole.

But the reactions that followed the speech have fallen with the ranks of disdain and condemnation with the president’s loyalists stepping out to defend the ‘brazen’ declaration.

In his defence of Tinubu’s emergency rule, the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi, on his advice the emergency law came into effect said unequivocally that everything the president said in the statement is the fact, adding that the declaration saved Fubara, who he completely blamed for the crises in the state, from imminent impeachment. He exonerated the FCT Minister of any wrongdoing while alleging that Fubara teleguided militants, who he claimed blew up oil pipeline in the wake of an impeachment notice by the pro-Nyesom Wike House of Assembly. These men, 27 in number, led by Hon Martins Amaewhule, literally took instructions from the former governor.

BACKGROUND OF THE CRISES

The Vanguard reports that for fear of trading off his structure since all his opponents whom he drove to Abuja as governor, had returned, and were frolicking with Governor Fubara, Wike insisted on having all the commissioners and other key appointees nominated by him. He nominated 14 of the commissioners while mandating Fubara to nominate only one.

A source told The Vanguard that trouble heightened when Fubara forwarded two nominees to the House of Assembly with Rt. Hon Amaewhule as Speaker for screening. Wike was immediately informed and a war of words started.

The Commissioners, according to the source never “respected the governor”, to the extent the governor could not make approval exceeding N30million without “authorization from Abuja”.

Vanguard wrote, “Unbearably frustrated, Fubara told those who could listen to him that rather than tolerate such despicability, he would resign as governor. Several nocturnal meetings were held to save the embarrassing situation both in Nigeria and outside the country. It only went from bad to worse.

“The cloud of war became thickened when on October 29, 2023, the Dome edifice of the House of Assembly on Moscow road was riddled with dynamite. And the next day, October 30th the complex was mercilessly demolished on the allegation that it had some “structural defects”.

The governor, steadily gathering support across the state and the country, became more emboldened so that when he got wind of a possible impeachment process, he stormed the Assembly very early in the morning in pretense of supervising bulldozers. This stalled the activities of the Wike-lawmakers, and gained more grounds for Fubara. Wike was losing on a fast lane. And so to further frustrate Fubara’s government, he instigated his loyal commissioners to resign, and they did in droves, while Wike sought presidential/federal assistance, prompting Tinubu to broker a peace deal. The deal though signed by both gladiators, was later discovered to be lopsided, and counterproductive to Fubara, and favored Wike. It wasn’t long before the agreement was jettisoned, and the gladiators returned to the trenches, but it dawned on Fubara that he was surrounded by disloyal staff even as his cabinet of commissioners was depleted. So he withdrew Dr. Edison Ehie who by then had become the Speaker of the House of Assembly and made him his Chief of staff, thereby sealing the gap through which government sensitive information was leaked to Wike. Ehie was replaced as a speaker in the House by Rt. Hon Victor Oko-Jumbo with only three men to form a new House, as the 27 lawmakers loyal to Wike officially defected to the APC. The lawmakers in December, 2023, factional chairman of the APC, Chief Tony Okocha, Abdulkarim Kana the Legal adviser, and other national leaders of the APC officially received them at the Port Harcourt Polo Club. These situations were since denied by all those involved, and sadly supported by the Supreme Court.

At this time, it became the House of Assembly, string-pulled by Wike, against Fubara. While the 27 lawmakers continued to make laws against Fubara and his administration, Fubara only recognised and functioned with the 4-man legislature of Oko-Jumbo. This was until the Supreme Court presented its surprising verdict.

“That Supreme Court judgment look like what Wike and his cohorts wrote,” a Rivers stakeholder said.

But that was the beginning of additional crisis as the House gave the governor 48 hours to represent the 2025 budget. But the governor appeared later after the 48-hour ultimatum, but was locked out of the premises by the lawmakers. Then the forth and back continued, resulting in the House issuing a notice of impeachment after accusing the governor of gross misconduct.

Then Tinubu struck – suspended the elected gladiators in a state of emergency broadcast, but sparing Wike, who was exonerated.

NASS ENDORSES TINUBU’S EMERGENCY RULE DECLARATION 

But contrary to expectations, the Senator Godswill Akpabio and Hon Tajudeen Abass-led National Assembly hurriedly endorsed the declaration via a voice vote. This, according to stakeholders, is contrary to constitutional provisions, where two-third majority votes are required to approve the emergency rule.

“These people just took Nigerians for a ride. Why voice vote? Is that the constitutional provision?” A concerned citizen queried.

Nigerians have insinuated that that Senators were induced with $15,000 while members of the House Representatives received $5000 to lend support to the unpopular declaration. The National Assembly has since denied the allegations.

But the Policy and Legal Advocacy Centre (PLAC) in its reaction, among many reactions, said in part, “Instead of safeguarding democracy and the rule of law, the National Assembly has chosen to passively endorse an unconstitutional overreach of executive power, thereby weakening the checks and balances that are essential to our democratic system. The decision to do this via voice vote, when section 305 (6)(b) of the Constitution clearly requires that the proclamation of a State of Emergency by the President must be supported by two-thirds majority of all the members of each House of the National Assembly, is a travesty and flies in the face of constitutionality, legality and good reasoning.”

WELL MEANING NIGERIANS KICK

Following the emergency rule declaration, Nigerians from all walks of life have risen in unison to condemn the act, describing it as a brazen show of power.

Among the early individuals to called to question Tinubu’s emergency rule declaration were a former Vice President and presidential candidate of the PDP in the 2023 presidential election, Atiku Abubakar, former Governor of Anambra State, and former Labour Party presidential candidate, Mr. Peter Obi, former Kaduna State Governor, Mallam Nasir El-Rufai, former President Goodluck Jonathan, Prof Wole Soyinka, Dele Farotimi, Chief Dele Momodu among others. They described the effort as political manipulation, where the president stylishly seeks the corner the resources of Rivers State for personal aggrandizement, and in view of the 2027 general election.

Also, a coalition of civil society organisations in Nigeria condemned the declaration of emergency, describing it as a threat to democracy and an unjustifiable overreach of executive power.

Speaking at a press briefing in Port Harcourt, Christian Onyegbule, representative of the Civil Liberties Organisation (CLO), read the coalition’s statement, rejecting the emergency rule and demanding its immediate reversal.

As at today, Tinubu’s declaration has the force of law as the National Assembly has given approval, and have it in Gazette, though many organisations including SERAP has gone to court to seek a reversal and maybe a punishment for the president for overreaching the Constitution.

“The Supreme Court cannot do less than they did at the Election Petitions trial or at the Rivers State judgment. The truth is Tinubu’s blow has come to stay, and may be unleashed on more states in the near future. Osun State, where his nephew, Gboyega Oyetola, is having a running battle with Governor Ademola Adeleke, may be the next in the line of target.

Continue Reading

Headline

Tambuwal, Abaribe Joined Me to Oppose Tinubu’s Emergency Declaration – Dickson

Published

on

By

By Eric Elezuo

The senator representing Bayelsa West Senatorial District, Seriake Dickson, has named Senators Aminu Tambuwal and Enyinnaya Abaribe among a few others, who stood with him to oppose the unconstitutionality of the suspension of the Rivers State Governor, Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, Ngozi Odu, and the members of the House of Assembly.

The senator, in a statement, also revealed the reasons he walked out of the red chamber on Thursday following a heated argument regarding the approval of the State of Emergency in Rivers State.

In the statement, Dickson, who already told as many that cares to listen before the sitting that he will never support the emergency rule on the floor of the senate, met a brick wall in the visibly angry senate president, Godswill Akpabio, who he claimed tried to deny him his freedom to express himself, resulting in the heated argument that ensued.

The senator noted that when it was obvious that the red chamber was bent on validating the President’s emergency rule, he staged a walkout from the senate, saying he wouldn’t want to be present when the report of what he opposed is read.

Dickson’s detailed analysis of what transpired is presented below:

SENATOR SERIAKE DICKSON GIVES DETAILED UPDATE ON WHAT TRANSPIRED TODAY

Today at the sitting of the Senate, the issue of the President’s proclamation of a state of emergency in Rivers State came up for discussion and as I have stated repeatedly, I raised my objections in the closed session on how the declaration fell short of constitutional prescription, based on my view as a Democrat, sworn to uphold the Nigerian constitution.

The Senate did not undertake the debate in an open session however, it was quite robust. I want to thank Sen. Aminu Waziri Tambuwal for his strong support of the unconstitutionality of the declaration, especially the aspect that deals with the suspension of the elected officials of the Rivers State government.

At the end of the day, majority of the senators supported the proclamation as no room was given for an open debate at plenary. I left the plenary before the Senate President was directed to report the outcome because I didn’t want to be present while what I opposed is being reported. I believe Senator Tambuwal, Senator Abaribe and others equally left too.

I want to make it clear that as I stated repeatedly, I spoke and voted against the proclamation in our closed session, supported by Senator Aminu Tambuwal and a few other senators who were not recognized to speak.

And so I want to thank all the senators who shared the view that I vigorously canvassed.

I am however aware of the efforts made to modify the declaration as a result of the concerns and views we have expressed and canvassed the past few days. Though I acknowledge the effort being made by the leadership and President to moderate the terms of the declaration and to create a mechanism for oversight, theoretically this does not counter the primary issue of constitutionality.

The beauty of democracy is such that the minority will have their say while the majority their way. I would have wished for a more robust and open debate so that all views and opinions can be openly canvassed as I requested even at the closed session specifically and thereafter, the majority can have their way but as it is, both chambers have decided and the ball is now on the court of the other arms of government, especially the judiciary, in the event of any challenge.

My attention has also been drawn to a viral video showing parts of the unfortunate exchanges between the Senate President and I before we desolved to the closed session.

As I said on the floor, the Senate President was very unfair to me by trying to censor my freedom of expression and by deliberately misrepresenting the import of what I said in the broadcast yesterday which was the same thing I said on the floor today. It is my opposition in principle to the declaration of a state of emergency, as well as the suspension of elected officials.

I thank all those who have called to commend my composure under unnecessary and unexpected attempt at intimidation. Everyone, including the Senate President, knows I have long gone beyond that stage in my life.

The Senate as I said is a meeting of equals and everyone should be respected just as we accord respect to the Chair. No senator needs the permission of the senate president to express an opinion in an interview on a topical matter of national interest that is in the public domain.

I intend to meet the Senate President to formally express my displeasure, to prevent a reoccurrence.

I thank my constituents, Nigerians and all people of goodwill who have called to express solidarity and urge them not to be dismayed at the direction our democracy appears to have taken.

For someone like me who has been in trenches over the years, all these challenges are actually a call to duty and I therefore implore all people of goodwill to come together and ensure that participatory democracy is promoted in our country.

Our thoughts and prayers are with the people of Rivers State.”

President Bola Tinubu, on Tuesday, declared a state of emergency in Rivers, sacking all elected officers, and appointing a Sole Administrator, in the person retired former Chief of Naval Staff, Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas, for an initial period of six months.

Continue Reading

Headline

For Condemning Tinubu’s Emergency Rule in Rivers, Presidency Dismisses Atiku, Peter Obi, Amaechi, Others As Disgruntled Politicians

Published

on

By

The Presidency, on Thursday, described former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, former Anambra State governor and 2023 presidential candidate of the Labour Party, Mr. Peter Obi, the former Kaduna State governor, Mallam Nasir El-Rufai and the former governor of Rivers State, Chibuike Amaechi as disgruntled politicians that don’t have the interest of the masses at heart.

Reacting to the recent regrouping of some politicians including the former governor of Ekiti State, Kayode Fayemi, who reportedly formed a coalition against President Bola Tinubu in 2027, the Presidency described them as “a frustrated lot”.”

Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, said President Tinubu is focused on governance to build a prosperous country.

According to him: “He (Tinubu) is on the way to achieving this. Two months to his midterm, he has many solid achievements to showcase. Intractable problems are being tackled headlong.

“He cannot be distracted by the so-called coalition of politicians. They are not politicians after the public Good. It’s all about their self-interest.

“They are disgruntled. They are a frustrated lot. The leaders are sore losers. The coalition is an amalgam of Tinubu haters. Their agenda is to stop Tinubu.”

Continue Reading

Trending