Lawyers have fiercely criticized President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of a six-month suspension for Rivers State Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy Ngozi Odu, and all state lawmakers, branding it unconstitutional. The legal experts argue that Tinubu’s actions, announced in a live broadcast on Tuesday, violate the country’s constitution and the established processes for removing elected officials.
In his address, Tinubu explained that the emergency measure was taken in response to the ongoing political crisis that has been destabilizing the oil-rich state since September 2023. He said, “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.” To oversee the state during the period of emergency rule, the President appointed retired Vice Admiral Ibok-Ette Ibas as the state’s administrator.
The President cited Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution to justify his decision, stating that it was necessary to restore peace in the state. He also assured the public that the judiciary in Rivers State would continue to operate as usual. “This declaration has been published in the Federal Gazette, and a copy has been forwarded to the National Assembly,” Tinubu stated, emphasizing that the move was in the best interest of Rivers’ citizens.
However, legal professionals have raised serious concerns. Human rights lawyer Morakinyo Olasupo, based in the UK, strongly objected to the suspension, arguing that the President does not have the power to suspend a democratically elected governor. According to Olasupo, only the state House of Assembly or the courts can remove a governor, as outlined in Section 188 of the 1999 Constitution. He explained, “The President cannot suspend a governor who is democratically elected. Their removal must follow due legal processes, including impeachment by the state House of Assembly or a court order. There must be a clear constitutional pathway for such actions.”
Olasupo also challenged the emergency declaration process, stating that it is subject to National Assembly approval. He argued that a mere press release or broadcast from the President cannot constitute the legal instrument required for the declaration of a state of emergency. “Once the President has prepared the legal instrument, it must be sent to the National Assembly for deliberation and approval. Only after that can the declaration hold legal weight,” he stated.
Meanwhile, Ridwan Oke, Principal Partner at Iris Attorneys LP, took a different stance on the emergency declaration but still contested the legality of the suspension of the governor and lawmakers. Oke acknowledged that the state of emergency could be justified given the political unrest in Rivers State, but he also pointed out that the suspension of elected officials was unconstitutional. “The 1963 Constitution allows for the suspension of a sitting governor, not the 1999 Constitution. Section 305 of the current Constitution allows a state of emergency to be declared in cases of war, political unrest, or a breakdown of law and order, but not the suspension of a governor without due process,” he explained.
The legal battle over the suspension and the state of emergency in Rivers State continues to unfold. While the President’s decision has sparked intense debates, the National Assembly’s role in validating the declaration will likely be the next crucial step in determining whether the move will stand or be overturned. As the political landscape in Rivers remains volatile, the legal community is closely watching to see how the situation develops.
