The Oracle
The Oracle: President Tinubu Cannot Legally Remove an Elected Governor of a State
Published
9 months agoon
By
Eric
By Prof Mike Ozekhomo SAN
INTRODUCTION
In an era where democracy is supposed to reign supreme giving democracy dividends to beleaguered Nigerians, the nation has once again found itself at crossroads, a sober moment of reckoning where constitutional order is being tested in the most brazen of ways. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, sworn to uphold the Constitution, has taken a most unprecedented and unlawful step: the suspension of a democratically elected Governor, Deputy Governor and an entire State House of Assembly under the thin guise of emergency rule. What emergency? Nigerians and Rivers people did not see or feel any such emergency.
Let me be very firm most categorically and unequivocally that no constitutional provision, statute or any known convention grants the President the imperial and dictatorial authority to single-handedly dissolve the structures of an elected state government. That may probably have been in the locust days of military juntas; but Nigeria is today not under the firm grip of a military dictatorship.
The last time I checked, she is supposed to governed under a constitutional democracy that operates a presidential and republican form of government. The emergency provisions under Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution exist to restore order only in times of grave national crisis; certainly not to topple duly elected state officials. Lois X1V of France as an absolute dictator could not have done better and would therefore green with envy from his cold grave, having on 13th April, 1655, stood in front of parliament and imperiously exuded, “L’Etat C’est Moi” (“I am the State”).
A state of emergency does not and cannot translate to a civilian coup d’état, executed by executive fiat through a national broadcast which torpedoed elected structures and whimsically imposed a sole Administrator who would now illegally receive Rivers State allocations from the Federation account under section 162 of the Constitution contrary to the very judgement of the Supreme Court which President Bola Ahmed Tinubu pretended to be executing.
We have seen this script play out before during the infamous 2004 Plateau State emergency, where former President Obasanjo suspended Governor Dariye in what was widely condemned as a travesty of constitutional governance. Then, as now, the excuse was “exceptional circumstances”; but the reality was nothing short of executive lawlessness and overreach masked as national interest. I had criticized it in the same way I also criticized those of former Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo and Goodluck Ebele Jonathan.
And now, as Rivers State stands at the centre of this unfolding simulated constitutional debacle, one must ask: Is this the signal of a dangerous precedent for and kite-flying to Nigeria, of a looming maximum dictatorship in the offing in a one-party State? Will other “erring” Governors who refuse to align with the central government be next in line? Are we witnessing the return of a dangerous era of impunity where emergency rule becomes the bludgeon of political control rather than a tool for stability?
Let me be very clear about this for historical purposes: President Tinubu clearly lacks the power, authority and vires to suspend democratic structures, especially the removal of Governor Sim Fubara and the Rivers State House of Assembly members. His act constitutes nothing but a gross constitutional aberration and a most illegal, unlawful, wrongful and unconscionable step that has the potential of imploding Nigeria at large and Rivers State in particular. The Constitution must stand hallowed, unassaulted, or democracy will fall and perish. Although time shall tell, but time is certainly not on our side.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR A STATE OF EMERGENCY
The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, at page 379, defines “Declaration” as an official or formal statement, especially about the plans of a Government or an organization; the act of making such a statement.
Declaration or proclamation of a state of emergency therefore means proclaiming or making known a situation of emergency. What does “emergency” itself mean?
Emergency Doctrine is variously referred to as “emergency”, “imminent peril” or “sudden peril” Doctrine [Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, Page 523).
A “state of emergency” is defined in Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (P.1620) as “when a government gives itself special powers in order to try to control an unusually difficult or dangerous situation, especially when this involves limiting people’s freedom”. “Emergency powers” are such powers as are conferred on a Government during such an unusual situation to hold the state together.
The Constitution in Section 305, of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as altered (the organic law and grund norm of the land) embraces three adjuncts of a declaration of a state of emergency: (1) Reasons for proclaiming it; (2) How it is proclaimed; (3) How it can be halted both before and after its proclamation. It also envisages two types of State of Emergency: (i) By Mr. President under Section 305 (3) (a) and (b), when the Federation is at War; or the Federation is in imminent danger of invasion or involvement in a state of war. (ii) The scenario where it is the Governor of a State who personally calls for the state of emergency under situations envisaged in Section 305 (3) (c), (d) and (e). This occurs where the threat does not extend beyond the boundaries of the State.
Section 305 of the 199 Constitution, as altered, provides:
1) “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the President may by instrument published in the Official Gazette of the Government of the Federation issue a Proclamation of a state of emergency in the Federation or any part thereof.
2) The President shall immediately after the publication, transmit copies of the Official Gazette of the Government of the Federation containing the proclamation including the details of the emergency to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, each of whom shall forthwith convene or arrange for a meeting of the House of which he is President or Speaker, as the case may be, to consider the situation and decide whether or not to pass a resolution approving the Proclamation.”
None of the factors envisaged in Section 305 of the Constitution has occurred at all to warrant the steps taken by the president. In present scenario the bi-camera National Assembly had not even first met, discussed and approved the president’s emergency proposals before he acted. He did it in advance (in futuro) in expectation of rubber-stamping by a pliable and malleable NASS.
I hereby call on the NASS to show class for once by roundly rejecting the President’s unconstitutional act of first declaring a state of emergency before its approval and also for acting altra vires by accompanying it with the suspension of elected democratic structures. This will place them on the right path of history. Otherwise, they should be prepared to be damnified by history.
I must emphasize that the declaration of a state of emergency does not translate into a dissolution of governance structures within the affected state. Under a state of emergency, the Governor, as the chief executive of the state, remains in office, whilst the institutions of government at the state level continue to function, unless expressly provided otherwise by law. There is no such law in Rivers State or at the national level.
The framers of the 1999 Constitution were deliberate in ensuring that the power to declare a state of emergency is not an avenue for executive overreach or imperious excursion into the realm of narcissm or ego trip. While the President may take extraordinary measures to maintain peace and order, those measures must align with the provisions of the Constitution. There is no provision howsoever, express or implied, that allowed President Tinubu to remove a sitting Governor and state House of Assembly legislators under the thin guise of emergency powers. There is no war in Nigeria. There is no threat of external aggression or invasion either across the country or in Rivers State. All that we have seen have been tussle for power between the Governor and the House of Assembly and the courts had already waded in with the Governor declaring he would comply with the Supreme Court’s judgement. A mere blow up of oil pipes in two communities by unidentified persons certainly does not constitute a war or external invasion situation.
THE PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION of POWERS AND FEDERALISM
Nigeria operates a federal system of government, which means that power is divided and shared between the federal, state and Local Government Areas. This structure is designed to prevent excessive concentration of power in any one level of government, for as Lord Acton once explained, “power tends to corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. The President’s authority over the states is limited, just as a Governor cannot interfere with presidential functions at the federal level.
Furthermore, the principle of separation of powers, a cornerstone of constitutional democracy as ablly propounded in 1748 by a great French philosopher, Baron de Montesquieu, ensures that no single branch of government has unchecked authority. The removal of a Governor is a matter strictly within the purview of the State House of Assembly, as stipulated under Section 188 of the Constitution. The process is quite detailed, lengthy and rigorous; and requires a legislative super majority to accomplish. It is not a power and prerogative the President can usurp and exercise as did President Tinubu, regardless of the circumstances.
CAN THE PRESIDENT SUSPEND OR REMOVE A SITTING GOVERNOR, DEPUTY GOVERNOR, OR HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY EVEN UNDER A STATE OF EMERGENCY?
Nigeria stands at a critical juncture in its democratic evolution. Recent developments in Rivers State, where President Bola Ahmed Tinubu purportedly suspended Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his Deputy, and the entire House of Assembly, call for a meticulous constitutional examination and analysis. At the heart of this matter lies an age-old question: Can the President, under the guise of emergency rule, lawfully suspend or remove a democratically elected Governor, Deputy Governor, or Legislature?
The answer, based on constitutional provisions, legal precedents and the very principles of federalism which we operate, is an unequivocal NO. The 1999 Nigerian Constitution (as amended) does not, under any circumstance, empower the President to remove, suspend, or torpedo duly elected state officials even under Section 305, which governs the declaration of a state of emergency.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS OF EMERGENCY POWERS
In no place does Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution grant the President the power to suspend a Governor, Deputy Governor, or the State House of Assembly. This reality is backed by constitutional jurisprudence and was reaffirmed in Attorney-General of Abia State v. Attorney-General of the Federation (2002) 6 NWLR (Pt. 763) 265, where the Supreme Court clarified that the Constitution is supreme and that no authority including the President can act outside its provisions.
Yet, this is not the first time that Nigeria has witnessed an outright abuse of emergency powers. Former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s 2004 suspension of Plateau State’s Governor Joshua Dariye and the House of Assembly remains a painful reminder of how emergency provisions have been misused to subvert democratic structures.
That unconstitutional precedent, which many Nigerians condemned then as executive overreach reminiscent of military juntas, appears to have resurfaced in Rivers State where President Tinubu’s action has eerily followed that same better-forgotten pattern, with the Judiciary left untouched as a token concession to constitutionalism. But can democracy survive when two out of the three arms of government are arbitrarily dissolved? I believe not.
FEDERALISM, SEPARATION OF POWERS, AND THE ROLE OF STATE GOVERNMENTS
Nigeria operates a federal system, meaning that power is distributed between the central and state governments, as explicitly outlined in Sections 4, 5, and 11 of the 1999 Constitution. Under this system, a Governor is not an apron string of or mere extension of the Presidency. He is an independently elected authority answerable to no one but only the people of his state who elected him.
The Constitution does not permit a President to unilaterally whimsically and arbitrarily remove a Governor—not by fiat; not by emergency decree; and certainly not by mere executive pronouncement. The doctrine of separation of powers, a fundamental pillar of democracy, dictates that such removals must be carried out strictly in accordance with constitutional provisions.
This principle was reinforced in Attorney-General of Ogun State & Ors v. Attorney-General of the Federation & Ors (1982) 3 NCLR 583, where the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Government cannot unilaterally impose duties or restrictions on state officials. This means that even if a state of emergency is lawfully declared, the Governor remains in office unless impeached through due process.
The Constitution provides only one legal pathway for the removal of a state Governor, and that is through impeachment, as stipulated in Section 188 of the Constitution. The process is legislative, not executive, requiring a State House of Assembly to initiate and conduct impeachment proceedings as dictated by the Constitution. In any event, the Rivers State House of Assembly (whether rightly or wrongly) had already commenced one against the Governor. Why truncate the constitutional process through an unconstitutional executive fiat? Why? Why?? Why???
THE PUBLIC ORDER ACT AND THE LIMITS OF FEDERAL CONTROL
Some have sought, in most illogical and unscholarly manner, to justify the President’s emergency intervention in Rivers State under the masquerade and facade of maintaining public safety. They cite the Public Order Act, which grants state Governors powers over public assemblies, meetings, and processions. However, even this statute does not authorize the suspension of an entire government structure.
The irony, of course, is that while Governors are designated as the Chief Security Officers of their states, they lack actual control over security forces. Section 215 of the Constitution subordinates a State Commissioner of Police to the Inspector General of Police and the President, meaning that even if Rivers State were experiencing insecurity, it was ultimately to the same traducing Federal Government it would have turned to.
The absurdity of this power imbalance, even though Rivers State had not gotten there, was noted in Attorney-General of Abia State v. Attorney-General of the Federation (2002) 6 NWLR (Pt. 763) 264, where the Court observed that the Federal Government cannot pass the blame for state security failures to a Governor who lacks the constitutional means to deploy security personnel.
THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY: A CONSTITUTIONAL FIREWALL?
Even if the National Assembly, sought to legislate on emergency rule, section 11(4) of the 1999 Constitution explicitly prohibits it from removing a Governor or Deputy Governor. This means that not only does the President lack the power, but even the National Assembly itself is equally barred from such unconstitutional act.
Prof. Ben Nwabueze, one of Nigeria’s foremost constitutional scholars, had long warned that allowing a President to wield unchecked emergency powers would erode democracy and lead to an authoritarian system where Governors served as vassals at the pleasure of the President rather than the electorate.
In line with this reasoning, Chief F.R.A. Williams had condemned the Plateau State emergency declaration as “a contradiction of all known principles of true federation operating in a democratic society.” Are we not now witnessing history repeat itself in Rivers State?
THE PRINCIPLE OF EXPRESSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS
One of the most fundamental principles of statutory interpretation is expressio unius est exclusio alterius, meaning that the explicit mention of one thing implies the exclusion of all others. Sections 4 and 5 of the 1999 Constitution donate specific executive and legislative powers; but nowhere do they mention any inherent powers allowing the President to remove Governors undemocratically.
This principle was applied in Attorney-General of Bendel State v. Aideyan (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 118) 187, where the Supreme Court held that powers not expressly granted by the Constitution cannot be assumed. Thus, any claim that the President possesses inherent emergency powers to remove a supposedly erring Governor is legally baseless. The President can not dorn the garb of a Primary School headmaster who has absolute control over and supervises his pupils.
HOW A GOVERNOR MAY BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE
If Not the President, then who can remove a Governor under emergency rule? The answer remains the State House of Assembly as the only body constitutionally empowered to initiate impeachment proceedings against an erring Governor.
Under Section 188, impeachment is a rigorous and multi-step process, requiring:
a. A written notice signed by at least one-third of Assembly members;
b. A two-thirds majority vote to proceed further;
c. The formation of an investigative panel by the state Chief Judge;
d. A full blown hearing granting the Governor a right to defence either by himself or through a counsel of his choice;
e. A final two-thirds majority vote for removal after thorough hearing, recommendations, etc.
If a Governor remains in office, it is because the State House of Assembly has not found legal grounds for removal. The President’s personal opinions, political considerations, or security concerns do not change this constitutional scenario.
ANY HISTORICAL PRECEDENT FOR RIVERS STATE?
The declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State and the subsequent suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his Deputy, and the State House of Assembly by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu brings Nigeria into another moment of constitutional crisis and democratic reckoning. While this may appear to be a novel occurrence, history reminds us that this is not the first time a Nigerian President had wielded emergency powers in a manner that undermined the very essence of democracy.
Emergency rule in Nigeria has precedents, but each instance had always been marred by legal controversy, constitutional breaches and political opportunism. The most striking parallel to Tinubu’s action in Rivers State can be drawn from the 2004 Plateau State emergency declared by former President Olusegun Obasanjo. In that case, Obasanjo had suspended the Governor and the State House of Assembly, replacing them with a Sole Administrator, Major-General Chris Alli (Rtd.). That action was roundly criticized as an overreach of executive power, much like what is unfolding today in Rivers State. I was one of the critics.
However, even further back in Nigeria’s history, the Western Region crisis of 1962 under the First Republic presents another instructive example. Under the 1960 Independence Constitution, the then Governor-General, Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, acting on the advice of Prime Minister Tafawa Balewa, had declared a state of emergency in the Western Region due to political turmoil. Balewa had removed the Premier, the Governor, all Ministers, and members of the Regional Assembly, installing Dr. Moses Majekodunmi as Sole Administrator.
The striking difference, however, is that this took place under a Westminster parliamentary system, where Parliament held sovereignty. In contrast, Nigeria’s current presidential system operates under constitutional supremacy, not parliamentary supremacy. The framers of the 1999 Constitution deliberately excluded any provision that would allow such sweeping executive powers, particularly those that could enable a President to remove a sitting Governor or dissolve a State House of Assembly under emergency rule.
WHY TINUBU’S EMERGENCY RULE IN RIVERS STATE IS UNPRECEDENTED
Even within the history of emergency rule declarations, Tinubu’s action in Rivers State is particularly alarming. While previous Presidents who declared emergency rule (Balewa in 1962 and Obasanjo in 2004) did so under questionable legal interpretations, they at least had some statutory backing, however flimsy.
Tinubu, on the other hand, has no legal foundation whatsoever to suspend an elected Governor, Deputy Governor, or the State House of Assembly. There is no enabling law, no precedent under the 1999 Constitution, and no Supreme Court ruling that grants the President such sweeping powers.
The 1999 Constitution, as amended, is as clear as a whistle that section 305 which grants the President powers to declare a state of emergency does not provide for the removal or suspension of an elected Governor.
Section 11(4) explicitly denies even the National Assembly the power to remove a Governor under emergency rule; meaning it certainly cannot authorize the President to do so.
The principle of federalism, which underpins Nigeria’s governance structure, dictates that Governors derive their mandate directly from the people and not from the President.
WHAT COULD HAPPEN IF THIS PRECEDENT IS ALLOWED TO STAND?
One of the most dangerous aspects of President Tinubu’s action is the precedent it sets for the future of democracy in Nigeria. If a President can wake up one morning and, under the guise of an emergency, remove a Governor and dissolve the State Legislature, what prevents the same President or future Presidents from doing the same in other states?
In fact, if the logic of this unconstitutional action is stretched further, it raises an even more disturbing possibility:
What if a President wakes up tomorrow and declares an emergency in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT)? The Constitution recognizes the FCT as a state.
Could the President then suspend the Senate and the House of Representatives that supervise the FCT and appoint himself as Sole Administrator of the FCT and Federal Republic of Nigeria?
These hypothetical scenarios, once dismissed as absurd, in my earlier research have now become real threats when constitutional violations are left unchallenged and unchecked.
PRESIDENT TINUBU’S ATTEMPT TO RELY ON NON EXISTENT EMERGENCY LAWS
To compound the legal crisis, Tinubu’s government seeks to justify its actions by invoking emergency regulations that do not exist in Nigeria’s current legal framework. The 1961 Emergency Powers Act, which was made pursuant to Section 65(1) of the 1960 Constitution, is no longer in force. That law had allowed the Governor-General to make sweeping regulations, including appointing an Administrator, restricting fundamental rights, and even suspending state governments.
However, this law ceased to have effect long ago. When Nigeria transitioned from the Westminster system to the presidential system in 1979, the framers of the Constitution deliberately omitted any provision that could allow such broad emergency powers.
The Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990, provide a clear confirmation: the 1961 Emergency Powers Act is described as “omitted; spent”. This means that it has since been consigned to the vehicle of historical oblivion and cannot be resurrected to justify Tinubu’s current unconstitutional acts.
A CLOSING CAVEAT: THE PERILOUS PRECEDENT OF TINUBU’S EMERGENCY RULE IN RIVERS STATE
Not a few Nigerians have argued quite plausibly, too, that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s recent declaration of emergency rule in Rivers State and the suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his Deputy, and the State House of Assembly was not purely a matter of law and order, but an act driven by political expediency and personal indignation.
The President finds himself presiding over a nation teetering on the brink economic hardship, rising insecurity, public angst, and deep-seated political fractures. Yet, rather than confront these crises headlong with statesmanship, his administration appears to be flexing emergency powers in a manner that raises more questions than it answers. If Rivers State warranted emergency rule, why then have states like Zamfara and Niger where armed bandits and insurgents have reduced governance to an afterthought not received the same treatment?
Even the most ardent defenders of Tinubu’s emergency Decree ( for a Decree it is in reality) must pause and ask: Is Rivers State the greatest threat to national stability, or is it merely the most convenient political battleground? If emergency rule in Rivers was truly about law and order, why was a hand-picked Administrator imposed while duly elected officials were unceremoniously suspended from office? Is this about democratic governance, or is it about power and control?
If Nigeria remains a constitutional democracy, then the same Constitution must apply to all, irrespective of political affiliation or convenience. If Tinubu’s draconian action in Rivers State is allowed to stand, it sets a dangerous precedent where emergency powers become a tool for political suppression and repression rather than a last resort for genuine intractable crises.
So, the question remains: Is this the Nigeria we want or deserve? Or shall we, in our studied silence, watch democracy dismantled piecemeal with one emergency declaration at a time? History will surely judge us all.
Related
You may like
The Oracle
The Oracle: When a Nation Undermines Citizens’ Rights (Pt. 4)
Published
2 days agoon
December 5, 2025By
Eric
By Prof .Ike Ozekhome SAN
INTRODUCTION
In our last outing on this treatise, we addressed the operational weaknesses and structural mismanagement of the Police; the failure of internal accountability; collusion of its men with criminal networks; erosion of civil liberties by its illegitimate enforcement practices; and cycle of impunity. And later followed by analysis of the abuse of judicial power as well as executive lawlessness directed at the Bench. We then concluded with suggested pathways and recommendations. Today, we shall continue with the same theme focusing on strengthening judicial independence; institutionalizing a comprehensive anti-corruption framework; enhancing the protection of civil liberties; community-based security initiatives; electoral integrity; transparency in the public sector; protecting vulnerable and marginalized groups as well as institutionalizing a culture of consequences. Enjoy.
Judicial Strengthening and Independence
The Judiciary should be insulated from political interference through secure tenure, adequate remuneration, and independent budgetary control. Court processes must be digitized to reduce delays and enhance transparency. Special courts should be created to fast-track cases of corruption, rights violations, and electoral offences so as to prevent them from being lost in a backlog of other matters.
Comprehensive Anti-Corruption Framework
Anti-corruption agencies must operate without political bias. Investigations and prosecutions should be based solely on evidence, regardless of the political or social standing of the suspect. Asset recovery processes should be transparent, and recovered funds must be channeled directly into public services such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure.
Strengthening of Civil Liberties Protections
Security laws and policies must be reviewed to remove provisions that allow arbitrary arrests, prolonged detention without trial, and excessive surveillance. The rights to free expression, peaceful assembly, and privacy should be reaffirmed through legislation, judicial precedent, and administrative directives. Security personnel should receive specific training on respecting these rights in the course of their duties.
Enhanced Community-Based Security Initiatives
Community policing structures should be developed in partnership with local stakeholders, including traditional leaders, civil society, and youth groups. These initiatives should focus on early conflict detection, intelligence sharing, and non-violent dispute resolution. Proper integration of community policing into the national security architecture can improve trust and cooperation between citizens and the State.
Electoral Integrity and Protection of the Political Process
To reduce politically motivated violence, security forces must adopt a neutral stance in elections and enforce the law impartially. Electoral offenders, including those within security agencies, must face swift prosecution. The deployment of technology in elections, such as biometric verification, should be protected by strong legal safeguards to prevent manipulation. More importantly, the Electoral Act must be urgently amended to include the use of BIVAS, electronic voting and real time transfer of results into IReV.
Public Sector Transparency and Open Data
Transparency in governance can significantly reduce opportunities for abuse of power. All government agencies should be required to publish regular reports on budgets, procurement, and performance indicators. Public access to information should be enhanced through stronger Freedom of Information laws and proactive disclosure of records.
Protection of Vulnerable and Marginalized Groups
Special attention should be given to protecting women, children, marginalized vulnerable persons and minorities and communities, who are disproportionately affected by rights violations and insecurity. Law enforcement and judicial olicers should be trained to handle cases involving such vulnerable groups with sensitivity. Dedicated units within security agencies should be tasked with preventing and responding to gender-based violence, child labour, human trafficking and exploitation.
Institutionalizing a Culture of Consequence
The single most important factor in ending impunity is ensuring that misconduct always attracts consequences. Disciplinary actions, criminal prosecutions and public reporting of case outcomes should become the norm. Political leaders must set the example by submitting themselves to the rule of law. They must lead by example and not by precepts.
CONCLUSION
The challenges confronting Nigeria in the areas of security, protection of citizens’ rights and enforcement of the rule of law are deeply rooted in a pattern of institutional neglect and governance failure. Throughout this work, it has become evident that insecurity in the country is not only result of violent crime or terrorism but also a product of weak and compromised institutions that allow such threats to flourish. When the very institutions tasked with safeguarding the people become unreliable or complicit, the result is a petrified environment where justice is selective, rights are precarious, and the social contract between citizens and the State is broken.
The evidence is clear that insecurity in Nigeria is a multi-dimensional crisis. Political violence undermines democratic processes. Economic hardship is exacerbated by corruption and the diversion of resources. Physical insecurity in many regions persists because law enforcement is either absent or compromised. The deterioration of education and healthcare further exposes the population to long-term instability. Each of these problems is interconnected and magnified by the failure of the justice and enforcement systems to function impartially and effectively.
Civil liberties, guaranteed by the Constitution and supported by international treaties, are repeatedly undermined by arbitrary arrests, unlawful detentions, and the suppression of free expression. When citizens live in fear of those entrusted to protect them, the legitimacy of the State is called into question. A society where speaking out invites retaliation and where wrongdoing by the powerful is met with silence or even approbation cannot claim to uphold the principles of democracy and justice.
The normalization of impunity is perhaps the most dangerous of all the trends identified. Impunity corrodes public trust, emboldens offenders, and creates a culture where breaking the law is not an aberration but an accepted norm of political and social life. Without decisive action to reverse this culture, every other reform will be weakened before it begins to take root.
Nigeria’s peculiar security realities demand a holistic approach. This includes rebuilding law enforcement into a professional, rights-respecting institution, ensuring the judiciary is free from political interference, and creating genuine accountability mechanisms that apply to everyone regardless of status. It also requires an investment in transparency, community trust, and the protection of vulnerable groups who suffer most from both insecurity and rights violations.
The task is undeniably challenging, but it is not impossible. The pathway to a more secure and just Nigeria begins with the recognition that true security cannot exist without justice, and justice cannot thrive without the rule of law. By committing to comprehensive reforms and by holding both leaders and institutions accountable, Nigeria can reclaim the promise of a society where rights are protected, laws are respected, and security is the shared foundation for national progress. In all these, one may ask, where is the Bar and what is its historic role? A once vibrant Association feared by the corrupt and dreaded by all successive governments has since become comatose, hardly responsive to societal needs. Aside many lawyers now professionally practising Bar instead of practising law by oscillating from one office to another over a period of decades, what has the Bar got to show for its continued relevance in terms of interrogating the status quo and challenging impunity? How has the Bar fared in holding governments responsible and accountable to the Nigerian people? Aside converging every year at designated venues for the annual ritual of the AGC, what dividends have we yielded from our usual banal communiqué?
How have we pushed to ensure we engaged the three arms of government to overhaul or at least improve on the status quo? Can we now blame some lawyers who are increasingly feeling disenchanted with the status quo and seek alternative platforms such as the Nigerian Law Society (NLS)? I think not. Colleagues, let us as lawyers and Judges wake up from our deep slumber of complicit silence and stop seeing law solely as a bread-and -butter profession. We must see law from the prism of Professor Dean Roscoe Pound-an instrument of social engineering. Anything short of this is not befitting of the legal profession. (Concluded).
THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK
“We cannot reform institutional racism or systemic policies if we are not actively engaged. It’s not enough to simply complain about injustice; the only way to prevent future injustice is to create the society we would like to see, one where we are all equal under the law”. (Al Sharpton).
Related
The Oracle
The Oracle: When a Nation Undermines Citizens’ Rights (Pt. 3)
Published
1 week agoon
November 28, 2025By
Eric
By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN
INTRODUCTION
The last installment of this series continued from where the inaugural one stopped: the analogy of each corpse buried without justice being a clause in the Constitution buried in effigy. It then explained how inequality breeds violence, before moving onto how systemic lapses in law enforcement is the hidden engine of insecurity and erosion of rights. Later, it examined the contrast between constitutional mandate and institutional reality, followed by the politicization and weaponization of law enforcement; corruption as operational culture; and finally operational weaknesses and structural management. The week, we shall continue with same theme, after which we shall delve into the failure of internal accountability; collusion with criminal networks; erosion of civil liberties through enforcement practices; the cycle of impunity; abuse of judicial power and executive lawlessness targeted at the Bench. Thereafter, we shall consider various pathways and recommendations for addressing insecurity, rights protection and institutional weakness. Enjoy.
OPERATIONAL WEAKNESSES AND STRUCTURAL MISMANAGEMENT
Nigeria’s police-to-population ratio remains alarmingly low. With about 371,800 officers serving a population of over 236 million people, the country is well below the United Nations’ recommended benchmark of 222 officers per 100,000 people. This manpower gap severely hampers the Force’s capacity to tackle crime, especially in volatile areas plagued by insurgency and communal violence. To make matters worse, many of the limited officers available are deployed to safeguard high-profile politicians and elites rather than serving the broader public. In rural communities, especially in conflict-affected northern states, residents report waiting hours, sometimes days, for police to respond to distress calls, if they ever respond at all.
Compounding this problem is inadequate training. Many recruits receive minimal exposure to forensic methods, human rights protocols, or community policing principles. As a result, investigative work relies heavily on confessions, which are frequently extracted through coercion or torture. This not only violates constitutional guarantees against inhuman treatment but also produces unreliable evidence that weakens prosecutions.
Logistical deficits are equally damaging. Many police divisions operate without functioning patrol vehicles, secure communication equipment, or modern crime labs. The Inspector General of Police has acknowledged that, outside of Lagos, forensic capability is virtually non-existent. Without scientific investigation, crimes are either left unsolved or result in wrongful arrests, further undermining public trust
FAILURE OF INTERNAL ACCOUNTABILITY
In a functioning democracy, law enforcement personnel are subject to robust oversight, both internally and through independent bodies. In Nigeria, oversight mechanisms exist in name but not in consistent practice. The Police Service Commission (PSC), which is meant to handle recruitment, promotion, and discipline, is itself politically influenced and suffers from inadequate funding. Complaints of misconduct often disappear into opaque disciplinary processes, and there is little transparency about the outcomes.
When abuses are too public to ignore, as with the October 2020 End SARS protests, Commissions of Inquiry are established, testimonies are heard, and reports are submitted. Yet, implementation of recommendations remains rare. In Lagos, for example, despite the panel’s findings implicating specific officers in excessive force and unlawful killings, few have been prosecuted. Instead, many have returned quietly to duty. This pattern sends a dangerous message to the rank-and-file officers: violations carry reputational risk but rarely legal consequence.
COLLUSION WITH CRIMINAL NETWORKS
Perhaps the most alarming dimension of enforcement failure is the documented collusion between security personnel and criminal actors. In the Niger Delta, security forces have been implicated in illegal oil bunkering, the very crime they are deployed to prevent. In parts of the North-West, reports from Amnesty International and local media allege that bandit groups pay “protection fees” to avoid military or police raids.
Such collusion transforms law enforcement from an adversary of crime into a stakeholder in it. This is not merely passive negligence; it is active participation in the shadow economy of insecurity. In these areas, communities quickly learn that reporting crimes may not only be futile but dangerous, as information shared with authorities can be leaked to perpetrators.
EROSION OF CIVIL LIBERTIES THROUGH ENFORCEMENT PRACTICES
The systemic lapses in law enforcement also directly erode civil liberties. Arbitrary arrests, prolonged detentions without trial, suppression of lawful assembly, and harassment of journalists are not isolated acts but part of an entrenched enforcement culture. The constitutional right to personal liberty under Section 35 is regularly violated under the guise of maintaining public order.
Protesters face preemptive crackdowns, often justified by vague references to national security. During the #Revolution Now protests in 2019, dozens of demonstrators were detained, some for weeks, without formal charges. In many cases, court orders for their release were ignored by security agencies, underscoring the absence of legal consequence for disobedience of judicial authority.
This disregard for civil liberties creates a chilling effect on political participation and civic engagement. Citizens learn that speaking out carries personal risk, and self-censorship becomes a survival strategy. Over time, this quietens public dissent, enabling further abuses by both government and non-state actors.
THE CYCLE OF IMPUNITY
The combination of politicization, corruption, operational weakness, and lack of accountability feeds into a self-reinforcing cycle of impunity. Officers learn that their actions are judged not by legality but by political expediency. Politicians, in turn, see law enforcement as a tool to protect themselves and punish adversaries. Criminal networks exploit these gaps, securing protection through bribery or political patronage.
Once entrenched, this cycle is difficult to break. Each unpunished violation becomes a precedent, normalizing the idea that power grants immunity from the law. This normalization spreads beyond law enforcement to other institutions, eroding the very foundations of democratic governance.
THE ABUSE OF JUDICIAL POWER AND EXECUTIVE LAWLESSNESS AGAINST THE BENCH
In a functioning democracy, the judiciary serves as the impartial referee between the powerful and the powerless. It is the last line of defence for the citizen and the final hope for justice. But what happens when that sacred institution itself becomes the object of aggression? What happens when the enforcers of state power turn their weapons not on criminals, but on the judges who interpret the law? Nigeria confronted these very questions in October 2016, when the homes of senior judges across the country were invaded by heavily armed operatives of the Department of State Services under the cover of night.
These raids, carried out in Abuja, Gombe, and Port Harcourt, targeted some of the most senior members of the judiciary, including Justices Walter Onnoghen and Sylvester Ngwuta of the Supreme Court, and Federal High Court judges Adeniyi Ademola and Nnamdi Dimgba. The DSS claimed they were investigating corruption, yet their conduct betrayed a more sinister motive. Homes were stormed in Gestapo fashion, judges were treated like fugitives, and search warrants reportedly carried incorrect names or were not presented at all. The judiciary was under siege. In Rivers State, Governor Nyesom Wike arrived at the residence of one of the judges to intervene and was reportedly shoved, injured, and threatened by DSS operatives. It was not an arrest. It was a constitutional assault.
I spoke firmly and publicly against this invasion. I said then what I still affirm now: the DSS acted outside the bounds of the law. As I told journalists and as reported by Premium Times, the operation was not only illegal and unconstitutional but a dangerous desecration of the rule of law. No agency of government, including the DSS, has the authority to arrest or search the premises of serving judicial officers without going through the National Judicial Council, which is constitutionally empowered to discipline judges. If there are allegations of corruption, there is a process. That process was willfully ignored. What we saw instead was a show of force meant to intimidate and humiliate. It was executive lawlessness under the guise of anti-corruption.
The greatest tragedy, however, was not merely that these events occurred. It was the manner in which they were received. The Bar, which ought to have risen as a united force, was sluggish in its response. Statements were issued, but no real action followed. There were no mass protests, no urgent court filings to challenge the illegality. The judiciary itself offered little more than murmurs of disapproval. That silence was deafening. It spoke to a larger issue: the slow death of institutional courage. When judges are raided in their homes and lawyers look away, then the entire legal profession stands indicted. If we cannot defend our own, how then can we defend the people?
This unfortunate episode also calls into question the internal health of the judiciary. The Nigerian Law Society recently criticized the widespread abuse of power within judicial institutions, pointing to opaque appointments, poor welfare, and inconsistent rulings. According to their statement reported by the Guardian, the lower courts remain underpaid and under-respected, leaving many judicial officers vulnerable to compromise. It is undeniable that some within the judiciary have failed in their duties, and that corruption has indeed crept into its chambers. However, even in the face of that, the remedy is never brute force. It is lawful accountability, constitutional procedure, and institutional reform. The rule of law must never be sacrificed on the altar of expediency.
When security agents raid the homes of judges without due process, they are not upholding the law, they are undermining it. And when the legal community reacts with silence or justification, it invites a repeat. What began with judges will not end there. Such violations set a precedent that can easily extend to journalists, lawmakers, academics, and eventually, ordinary citizens. Today it is the gavel. Tomorrow it will be the pen, the vote, the voice. That is how authoritarianism begins not always with a declaration, but often with silence.
It is not too late to reset the balance. But we must remember that a judiciary that submits to fear is no judiciary at all. A legal profession that only whispers in the face of injustice is unworthy of its robes. We must return to our roots, as defenders of liberty and protectors of due process. Let the judiciary regain its independence, and let the Bar reclaim its courage. Only then can we begin to restore the broken faith between the Nigerian people and the system that was meant to serve them.
PATHWAYS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADDRESSING SECURITY, RIGHTS PROTECTION, AND INSTITUTIONAL WEAKNESS IN NIGERIA
The challenges outlined in this paper reveal a complex web of governance failures, enforcement gaps and systemic disregard for constitutional rights. Addressing these issues requires deliberate and sustained action across multiple fronts. The following ten pathways provide a practical blueprint for reform.
Reform of Law Enforcement Institutions
The Nigerian Police Force, the Department of State Services, and related agencies need deep structural reforms. Recruitment should be based on merit and integrity rather than political patronage. Training should include human rights education, forensic investigation, and conflict-sensitive community policing. The practice of diverting a large proportion of officers to serve political elites must be stopped so that policing resources are redirected toward public safety.
Creation of Independent Oversight and Accountability Mechanisms
A civilian-led oversight authority should be established with the power to investigate and prosecute cases of misconduct by law enforcement officials. This body must have full access to records, the ability to compel testimony, and legal safeguards for whistleblowers. Its findings should be made public to ensure transparency and build trust. (To be continued).
THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK
“Money and corruption are ruining the land, crooked politicians betray the working man, pocketing the profits and treating us like sheep, and we’re tired of hearing promises that we know they’ll never keep” – Ray Davies
Related
The Oracle
The Oracle: When a Nation Undermines Citizens’ Rights (Pt. 2)
Published
3 weeks agoon
November 14, 2025By
Eric
By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN
INTRODUCTION
The inaugural installment of this treatise dealt with the scope of insecurity in Nigeria and examined its dimensions. It was followed by a discussion of the constitutional framework of the right to life graphically depicting it as “each corpse buried without justice” being a clause in the Constitution burned in effigy.
This week’s episode will continue with same theme, followed by an in-depth analysis of how inequality breeds violence as well as how systemic lapses in law enforcement are the hidden drivers of insecurity and the erosion of rights. Thereafter, we shall discuss the contrast between constitutional mandate and institutional reality of law enforcement; its politicization and weaponization; the incidence of corruption as operational culture in law enforcement and its inherent operational weakness and challenges in its structural management. Enjoy.
EACH CORPSE BURIED WITHOUT JUSTICE IS A CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION BURNED IN EFFIGY (Continues).
Even the criminal justice system, meant to operationalize the Constitution, has virtually collapsed into spectacle. The police extort with impunity. The courts delay justice until justice becomes irrelevant. Prisons overflow with awaiting trial inmates while politicians accused of looting billions of our common patrimony stroll freely through airport lounges, attending graduation events where they are conferred with purchased honorary doctorate degrees. A man who steals bread is lynched. A senator who steals a nation is given a chieftaincy title. Is this the rule of law, or the rule of rot?
Let us not forget Chapter II of the Constitution, the so-called Directive Principles of State Policy. These are the clauses that outline a vision for a just and egalitarian society free education, affordable healthcare, equal opportunity, protection of the vulnerable, decent wages, access to housing, food security, and the equitable distribution of national wealth. But here lies the deception: these provisions are rendered non-justiciable under Section 6(6)(c). In plain terms, they are promises the people cannot enforce. The Constitution dreams on their behalf, but denies them the legal means to wake that dream into action.
When a State says to its citizens, “we guarantee you food, education, and health,” and then adds a footnote saying, “but you may not ask us for it,” what emerges is not democracy it is deception. And deception is the mother of despair. Despair, when left to fester, breeds defiance. And defiance, when met without justice, becomes insurrection. That is the cycle Nigeria is now trapped in a spiral of constitutional promises turned into societal wounds.
The Constitution becomes a parody in the mouths of politicians who have never read it and judges who are too timid to enforce it. For the powerful, it is a shield; for the poor, a sword turned inward. The elite recite its sections during legal battles over electoral fraud. But where are these recitations when 652 children die of hunger in Katsina? Where are the legal arguments when a woman in Makurdi loses all her children to a communal massacre? When the man in Sokoto can no longer afford petrol, food, or peace of mind, what legal relief can he seek?
It is also worth noting the performative constitutionalism that plagues Nigeria’s legislative process. Lawmakers gather to amend the Constitution every four years like surgeons with blunt scalpels. They debate the minutiae of electoral timelines, federal character quotas, and party primaries. But no one rises to demand justiciability for Chapter II. No one proposes constitutional protections for internally displaced persons. No one fights to enshrine the right to a living wage. They adjust the frame while the house is on fire.
In the final analysis, a Constitution that cannot be felt in the body of the poor, in the belly of the child, in the safety of the mother, and in the labour of the working man, is a document not of power but of pretense. A parchment without protection. A creed without consequence.
Yet, it is not too late. What is written may still be made flesh. But first, we must acknowledge the gap. We must look the failure in the face and name it for what it is: a breach of trust, a betrayal of covenant, a blood-soaked irony. For the Constitution, like the prophets of old, still cries out: “Will you honour me with your lips and deny me with your deeds?” The answer, for now is a crass denial of deeds.
HOW INEQUALITY BREEDS VIOLENCE
Poverty is not just a condition; it is an accelerant of conflict. There is a direct and growing body of empirical evidence linking economic inequality with national insecurity. A 2024 study revealed that in Benue State, each 1% rise in insecurity led to a 0.211% drop in crop production and a 0.311% drop in livestock output. This data translates into a disturbing truth: insecurity is not only the consequence of poverty it is its co-creator. In rural communities, farmers flee their land not because of market pressures, but because of fear of bandits, herdsmen, and armed militias who now prowl agricultural heartlands, maiming, killing, raping and burning.
In the same year, Reuters reported that over 31 million Nigerians nearly 15% of the population were pushed into acute food insecurity, largely due to a combination of rising prices, mass displacement, and insecurity in farming regions. Nigeria, once a net food exporter, is now reliant on imports for survival. This is not just an economic regression; it is a national humiliation, a betrayal of the very right to life itself.
Without access to these basic social services, rights such as freedom of expression, political participation, and even the right to vote become illusory. The weaponization of poverty in Nigeria is not simply an unfortunate byproduct of mismanagement. It is a system. A structure. A design. It is the very architecture of modern power. In this architecture, deprivation is used to secure obedience, silence dissent, and eliminate competition. The economically excluded are not merely poor they are disempowered, voiceless, and disposable. That is the Stalin philosophy: impoverish and demean the people and their obedience is guaranteed in the form of Stockholm Syndrome.
This is a direct affront to the Constitution, which promises in its Preamble to promote “the welfare of the people.” It is a betrayal of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, ratified by Nigeria, which enshrines the right of all peoples to the satisfaction of economic, social and cultural rights essential to development (Article 22). It is a violation of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, especially Goal 1 (No Poverty) and Goal 10 (Reduced Inequality).
SYSTEMIC LAPSES IN LAW ENFORCEMENT: THE HIDDEN ENGINE OF INSECURITY AND RIGHTS EROSION
The crisis of insecurity in Nigeria cannot be understood without confronting the institutional collapse of its law enforcement architecture. While terrorism, banditry and economic collapse dominate headlines, these phenomena are but symptoms; the underlying illness is a chronic and systemic failure of the bodies meant to enforce the law. This failure is not simply operational, a matter of inadequate equipment or insufficient manpower, it is structural, political, and cultural. It shapes the relationship between the citizen and the State, corrodes the rule of law, and serves as the silent engine powering the erosion of civil liberties and the normalization of impunity.
CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE VS. INSTITUTIONAL REALITY
Under Section 214 of the 1999 Constitution, the Nigeria Police Force (NPF) is established “for the maintenance of law and order, and for the protection of lives and property.” Supplementary security agencies such as the Department of State Services (DSS), Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC), and specialized military units exist to support this mandate. In theory, these agencies stand as the custodians of safety and justice, sworn to uphold both constitutional rights and statutory law.
In practice however, these institutions are often the very conduit pipes through which laws are brazenly violated. The gulf between the constitutional ideal and the operational reality is vast. A system intended to serve the people now often serves power, wealth and political expediency against the very people. The principle of equality before the law has been replaced by a hierarchy of enforcement, where the reach and rigour of the law depend on the identity of the suspect.
POLITICIZATION AND WEAPONIZATION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
One of the most corrosive dynamics in Nigerian policing is its politicization. Rather than functioning as neutral enforcers of the law, security agencies are frequently deployed as instruments of partisan advantage. Opposition protests are met with rapid deployment of armed police, teargas and mass arrests. In contrast, political rallies for ruling party figures proceed with minimal security interference, but with reinforced security protection even when they breach public safety and order regulations.
This political double standard is not a matter of perception alone; it is reality evidenced by documented patterns. During the 2019 and 2023 general elections, numerous observers including the Transition Monitoring Group and international missions reported instances where law enforcement personnel either failed to intervene during ballot snatching episodes, or were directly complicit. Police units habitually provide cover for armed gangs removing election materials. In many of such cases, no officers have been disciplined, further embedding the perception that law enforcement loyalty is to political patrons, not the law or the country.
The politicization extends beyond elections. Journalists investigating corruption or security failings have been arrested and detained under dubious charges, often invoking broadly worded laws such as the Cybercrimes Act or Terrorism Prevention Act. Meanwhile, known political figures implicated in large-scale embezzlement routinely enjoy “soft landing” agreements or indefinite delays in prosecution.
CORRUPTION AS OPERATIONAL CULTURE
Corruption within Nigerian law enforcement is neither sporadic nor isolated; it is systemic. The 2019 Global corruption Barometer for Africa found that Nigerians rate the police the most corrupt institution in the country. Half of those surveyed reported paying a bribe to the police in the previous 12 months.
This corruption operates at multiple levels. At street level, officers extort motorists at checkpoints, detain individuals without charge to compel “bail” payments, and demand fees before registering complaints. At higher levels, investigators may bury case files in exchange for cash; prosecutors may dilute charges; and senior officers may shield their subordinates from accountability if they share in illicit proceeds.
Even operational deployments are shaped by rent-seeking. Officers are routinely assigned to guard private residences, businesses and political figures for unofficial payments, leaving ordinary citizens with limited police presence in their communities. This practice distorts the deployment of resources, creating a policing landscape where protection is essentially commodified.
OPERATIONAL WEAKNESSES AND STRUCTURAL MISMANAGEMENT
Nigeria’s police-to-population ratio remains alarmingly low. With about 371,800 officers serving a population of over 236 million people, the country is well below the United Nations’ recommended benchmark of 222 officers per 100,000 people. This manpower gap severely hampers the Force’s capacity to tackle crime, especially in volatile areas plagued by insurgency and communal violence. To make matters worse, many of the limited officers available are deployed to safeguard high-profile politicians and elites rather than serving the broader public. In rural communities, especially in conflict-affected northern states, residents report waiting hours, sometimes days, for police to respond to distress calls, if they ever respond at all. (To be continued).
THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK
“Money and corruption are ruining the land, crooked politicians betray the working man, pocketing the profits and treating us like sheep, and we’re tired of hearing promises that we know they’ll never keep”. (Ray Davies).
Related


Soldiers Strike in Benin Republic, Removes Talon, Takes over Govt
The Incredible World of Capt. Segun Sotomi @45
Adding Value: Heal and Move On by Henry Ukazu
Open Letter to Global Leadership: Forging New Intergenerational Partnership for Sustainable Governance
Meet Muhammad Ashfaq Hussain, CEO at Profound Realtors
How Dr. Fatima Ibrahim Hamza (PT, mNSP) Became Kano’s Healthcare Star and a Model for African Women in Leadership
Era of Nationwide Fuel Queues Has Come to An End, Says Dangote
Alex Otti Pays Solidarity Visit to Nnamdi Kanu in Sokoto Prison
After Weeks of Incarceration, Cameroon Opposition Leader Dies in Detention
US Moves to Impose Visa Restrictions on Sponsors, Supporters of Violence in Nigeria
Just In: Defence Minister Abubakar Badaru, Resigns, Tinubu Accepts
Redefining Self-leadership: Henry Ukazu As a Model
US Lawmakers Meet Today over Reported Christian Genocide
Tinubu Names Immediate Past CDS Chris Musa As New Defence Minister
Trending
-
Featured6 days agoAlex Otti Pays Solidarity Visit to Nnamdi Kanu in Sokoto Prison
-
Featured6 days agoAfter Weeks of Incarceration, Cameroon Opposition Leader Dies in Detention
-
World4 days agoUS Moves to Impose Visa Restrictions on Sponsors, Supporters of Violence in Nigeria
-
News6 days agoJust In: Defence Minister Abubakar Badaru, Resigns, Tinubu Accepts
-
Opinion4 days agoRedefining Self-leadership: Henry Ukazu As a Model
-
USA5 days agoUS Lawmakers Meet Today over Reported Christian Genocide
-
National5 days agoTinubu Names Immediate Past CDS Chris Musa As New Defence Minister
-
Featured4 days agoDavido Hails Uncle, Gov Adeleke on Resignation from PDP

