There are indications that the Federal Government’s Naira-for-crude panel will be reconvening a meeting on Monday to consider continuation of the crude sales deal with Dangote Refinery amid petroleum products price uncertainty.

Reliable sources in the Ministries of Petroleum Resources and Finance, who preferred anonymity, made this known on Thursday.

This comes after Dangote Refinery on Wednesday announced the suspension of its petroleum products sales in Naira.

Dangote Refinery’s decision to suspend petrol product sales in Naira indicated that there is a stalemate in discussion between the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited and the Dangote Refinery over the continuation of the Naira-for-crude sale contract.

However, official sources familiar with the matter told DAILY POST that the scheme may continue.

It was confirmed that NNPCL faced a crude availability crisis following the fact that the state-owned firm had pre-sold large volumes to foreign creditors under its crude-backed loans.

“The scheme won’t end. The challenging point is the issue of crude availability, with NNPC claiming it has pre-sold large volumes of crude.

“The committee agreed to reconvene on Monday (next week) to review options that the Nigeria Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission has been mandated to come up with. The committee is trying to dimension solution options,” the official stated.

Recall that the committee last week met at the Ministry of Finance Headquarters in Abuja to assess developments and reaffirm commitments to the naira-for-crude policy framework.

The meeting had in attendance the Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy, Wale Edun (who joined virtually); the Executive Chairman of the Federal Inland Revenue Service, Dr. Zacch Adedeji; the Chief Financial Officer of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company; the Executive Commissioner of the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (who also joined virtually); and other stakeholders.

Reacting to the development, the National President of the Petroleum Products Retail Outlet Owners Association of Nigeria, Billy Gillis-Harry, said its members will not hesitate to seek alternative sources of petroleum products.

“The market is making preparations for any surprises. So, if there are surprises, we’ll have alternatives to go to,” he said.

On his part, the president of the Independent Petroleum Marketers Association of Nigeria, Hammed Fashola, appealed for government intervention in the continuation of the Naira-for-crude policy in order to maintain the tempo of the petrol price template.

“I would like to advise the FG to look into the agreement with Dangote again to maintain the tempo of the prices of petroleum products,” he said.

[DailyPost]

I am so upset about the unfair imposition of a state of emergency on Rivers State. I have totally lost faith in President Tinubu, FCT Minister Wike, their supporters and the National Assembly.

I have complained extensively about this crisis on YouTube. Today I am feeling too emotionally drained to write anything, so let me leave you with two commentaries that were written by other people.

The first, which I chanced upon online, has no name attached to it but neatly and cynically outlines the way in which Nigerians sleepwalk into nonsense and allow themselves to be enslaved.

The night after the declaration…

1. Television and radio stations will be full of legal and political analysts huffing and puffing .

2. They will weigh in on the propriety or otherwise of the president’s decision.

3. Newspapers’ pages will be filled with articles and editorial opinions in like manners.

4. President Tinubu will read and watch if he cares to.

5. His media handlers will watch and read and decide which ones to respond to and those to ignore.

6. The National Assembly led by Godswill Akpabio will meet and endorse the declaration.

7. Fubara and his deputy will be watching events from the fringes of Niger Delta.

8. Government will encourage and pay some militants to burn a small section of the vast pipelines in the Niger Delta to justify a state of anarchy and the state of emergency.

9. Nigerians will gather at beer parlours, social media platforms and exercise their two-week outrage.

10. Contractors and politicians in Rivers State will look for the phone number of the military man now in charge and renew contacts with him for contracts and appointments even if temporal.

11. In the end what Tinubu and Wike want will happen and life will go on.

12. Please forget the judiciary. It is the presidency that is the judiciary.

13. Please forget the NBA. They will issue statements and that’s it. Their members are the lawyers who argue cases before the courts from where any judgement can be delivered regardless of the facts and the laws.

14. Those who are too vociferously opposed to the declaration may be invited by the DSS or the EFCC.

15. Members of the House of Assembly will pretend to be affected while they are busy popping champagne bottled; they are the winners and will emerge stronger. Quote me!

16. The president is one of the most powerful leaders in the world.

17. Nigerians are some of the most docile, corrupt, tribalistic, nepotistic, and incompetent people in the world as far as politics is concerned.

18. That’s how things work here.

•This second commentary was written by Farooq Kperogi just before the National Assembly surprised nobody by doing the wrong thing: 

I just stumbled on a story in The Cable this morning claiming that President Bola Tinubu’s henchmen in the Senate and House are struggling to gather enough votes to rubber-stamp his unconstitutional suspension of democracy in Rivers State and installation of a retired military officer as sole administrator.

Frankly, it’s hard to believe. Most of our legislators have a reputation for having price tags attached rather openly to their principles, or what’s left of them.

Yet, if by some miracle this story checks out, I’ll gladly eat my scepticism. It might mean that amid Nigeria’s ocean of opportunists, there’s still a handful willing to occasionally pretend they have backbones.

Yes, the Constitution indeed allows Tinubu to declare a state of emergency, but nowhere does it grant him the authority to suspend elected governors, deputies, or legislators.

The idea of installing a “sole administrator” is a ghostly relic of Nigeria’s dark era of military absolutism.

Remember, former President Obasanjo pulled this stunt in Ekiti in 2006, not because the state burned uncontrollably, like Plateau State in 2004, but simply because he didn’t like the governor. So, he accused him of corruption, which became the basis for his unconstitutional ouster.

Of course, irony had a good laugh, given Obasanjo himself was swimming in allegations of corruption while citing corruption as his reason for undermining democracy.

Goodluck Jonathan, on the other hand, declared states of emergency in Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa because of the escalation of Boko Haram insurgency. But he did so without demolishing elected institutions.

Tinubu, a man who built his political career on the perception of battling military tyranny, now bizarrely aspires to mimic Obasanjo, the very authoritarian he once vehemently condemned.

Is irony on vacation or is hypocrisy now Tinubu’s political philosophy?

If we permit Tinubu to establish this precedent, democracy in Nigeria becomes a sitting duck.

Any future president with a grudge or craving for unchecked power can manufacture a crisis at will, dismantle elected institutions, and impose obedient lackeys as “sole administrators” to rule states by decree.

That’s not democracy; that’s dictatorship on drip-feed.

The two chambers of the National Assembly, yesterday, approved President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State which resulted in the suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy and other elected officials for six months, and the appointment of a sole administrator by a voice vote.

This is contrary to Section 305(4) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, which requires a resolution of the National Assembly supported by a two-thirds majority of members to back the president’s request.

As the 2023 presidential candidate of the Labour Party, LP, Mr. Peter Obi, slammed the National Assembly for the approval, arguing that a two-thirds majority could not be determined through a voice vote, Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, said the legislators’ approval was done with unanimity without a single nay.

While approving the emergency rule, the Senate said all regulations in Rivers State must be subjected to the approval and oversight of the National Assembly Joint Ad-hoc Committee.

It also urged the federal government to institute a reconciliation mechanism, including setting up a peace and reconciliation committee, composed of the National Assembly, the executive, eminent Nigerians and other relevant stakeholders, to ensure lasting peace and stability in Rivers.

In the House of Representatives, the legislators amended the proclamation of President Tinubu, insisting that Rivers State Sole Administrator, Vice Admiral Ibok Ibas, report back to the National Assembly and not the Federal Executive Council, FEC.

Reps amendments

The House made three amendments which were passed through a voice vote, with 243 members in attendance.
Another amendment was that a national committee, composed of members from the Presidency, National Assembly and other eminent Nigerians be set up to mitigate and restore peace to Rivers State.

The third amendment was that the President can review the period of emergency to a shorter period than six months.

Though few members were allowed to make comments on the president’s request, others expressed concerns over constitutional provisions.

Senate’s approval

The Senate approved the state of emergency in Rivers State after about one and a half hours closed door session.

Speaking after the closed-door meeting on the resolutions reached by senators, Senate President Akpabio said: “The Senate invokes the powers conveyed on it by Section 305 of Section 2 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended ), approves the proclamation of state of emergency declared by Mr. President in Rivers State of Nigeria.

“The Senate further directs that the declaration of the state of emergency stated in the proclamation documents demands that the President can review and even terminate the state of emergency at any given time, but not later than six months.

“The Senate further resolved that Section 11, Subsection 4 be invoked, providing the National Assembly the authority to set up a joint ad hoc committee of both chambers to oversee the administration of Rivers State, henceforth.

“The Senate further resolved that a committee of eminent Nigerians be set up to reconcile the warring groups in the government of River State within the period of the state of emergency.

“The Senate further resolved that a committee of eminent Nigerians to reconcile the warring factions in Rivers State be set up to carry out their action during the period of state of emergency.

“For final ratification, I put it to the Senate that those in favour of the proclamation of the state of emergency 2025 in Rivers State, should say aye “, which was affirmatively responded to by all the senators in the chamber.”

An elated Akpabio, who was impressed with the affirmative response to the question by senators, said “This approval is done with unanimity, without a single nay.”

The Senate President continued: “Therefore, pursuant to Section 60 of the constitution, Section 305 (2) and pursuant to our rules, Rule 1 (b) of the standing orders of the Senate and also pursuant to Rules 133, 134, 135 and 136 of the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the state of emergency proclamation in Rivers State was approved and other vital resolutions taken.”

To give the entire process the required legislative backing, the Senate, thereafter, adjourned for one hour and reconvened later to pass the votes and proceedings of the entire session and finally adjourned to Tuesday, March 25, 2025.

Disquiet at closed-door session

Vanguard gathered that during the closed door session, senators were sharply divided over the issue.
According to sources, quorum was not formed, hence senators present resorted to voice vote, against actual voting.

Senators Seriake Dickson, PDP, Bayelsa West; Enyinnaya Abaribe, APGA, Abia South; Aminu Tambuwal, PDP, Sokoto South; and others stormed out of the chamber in anger as a result.

Vanguard gathered that 64 senators signed the attendance register, though the presiding officers do not sign the register as they normally walk into the hallowed chamber with the principal officers.

Earlier, Akpabio had informed his colleagues of President Tinubu’s letter on the proclamation of emergency rule in Rivers State and the letter was read at plenary.

Akpabio, after reading the letter, said: This letter is committed to the committee of the entire Senate for immediate passage.’’

Akpabio, Dickson clash over Point of Order

Prior to the closed-door session, there was a mild altercation between Senate President, Akpabio, and Senator Seriake Dickson when Dickson raised a point of Order after Akpabio read Tinubu’s letter.

As Senator Dickson raised the point of Order, Akpabio told him to sit down and that he already knew where he stood on the state of emergency, having watched him on television on Wednesday, where he said his views would not align with that of the Senate.

Akpabio and Dickson disagreed sharply over the procedure for handling President Tinubu’s proclamation of a state of emergency in Rivers State.

The problem started when the Leader of the Senate, Opeyemi Bamidele, moved a motion to amend the order of proceedings, allowing the Senate to prioritize debate on the state of emergency before attending to other items on the order paper.

As Bamidele rose to present the motion, Dickson raised a point of order, seeking to draw attention to what he described as a procedural requirement that the Senate should first convene a closed-door session before debating such a sensitive matter.

Akpabio appeared reluctant to acknowledge Dickson’s point of order but as tension rose, he allowed Dickson to raise the point of order.

The Bayelsa lawmaker drew the attention of the Senate to Order 133 of the Senate Standing Rules, which required matters of state of emergency to be deliberated upon in a closed door session.

Akpabio upon hearing that, upheld his point of order, which was later held by the Senate where all its resolutions were taken on the state of emergency.

The motion for the adoption of votes and proceedings of Wednesday was adopted by Senator Barinada Mpigi, PDP, Rivers South-East and seconded by Senator Idiat Adebule, APC, Lagos West.

Faulting the National Assembly, Obi said the use of voice vote on such crucial issues was an insult to Nigerians and a breach of the 1999 constitution.

Obi, who had along with several other opposition leaders made a passionate appeal to members of the National Assembly to reject the illegal removal of Rivers State governor, Similaya Fubara, and the State Assembly, in a series of tweets on his X handle, yesterday, wrote: “While still agonizing over the ongoing deterioration of democracy in our nation, especially with the situation in Rivers State, and trying to reach out to our National Assembly members not to support and sustain the unconstitutionality and arbitrariness, I just heard that they have added salt to injury by using a voice vote.

“The constitution is clear that this cannot be done through a voice vote but by calling individuals to answer ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ You cannot determine a two-thirds majority by a voice vote.

“While a two-thirds majority is crucial, it does not justify bypassing proper procedures and undermining the principles of transparency and accountability. The use of a voice vote in such a significant decision not only disregards constitutional requirements but also erodes public trust in the democratic process.

“Decisions of such magnitude must be made with integrity, following the letter and spirit of the law. It’s disheartening that a decision as crucial as approving an emergency proclamation — one that could alter the course of the nation — was handled with such casual disregard for constitutional standards.

“The 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended) clearly requires that such a proclamation must be approved by at least two-thirds of all members of each arm of the legislature — the Senate and the House of Representatives.

‘’A simple call of “Aye” or “Nay” cannot accurately measure this crucial threshold. When a supermajority is required, it demands a recorded vote — whether by division, roll call, or electronic means.

‘’This isn’t just a technicality; it’s a matter of law and legitimacy. The Senate Standing Orders and House Rules were established to ensure that decisions of this magnitude are made transparently, with accountability. Ignoring these procedures is not just an oversight; it is a betrayal of the democratic process.”

Some lawyers also faulted the process of approving the state of emergency proclamation through voice vote, arguing that the process was not sufficient and could nt guarantee fairness and transparency.

A voice vote was insufficient to pass the resolution -Prof. Erugo, SAN

Prof. Sam Erugo, SAN, said: “It is apparent that the Senate and House of Representatives did not appreciate the gravity of the President ‘s proclamation, which was referred to them for approval.

‘’By Section 305(2) of the Constitution, they were required to ‘consider the situation and decide whether or not to pass a resolution approving the Proclamation.’

“Going by subsection (6), if there was no resolution supported by two-thirds of all the members of each House of the National Assembly approving the Proclamation, it would have lapsed after two days.
“This provision shows the seriousness of the matter the National Assembly treated just like any other business.

“That is the reason the two-thirds majority of each House is required. A voice vote is insufficient to pass the resolution approving the President’s proclamation, which, as it were, required a special resolution and, obviously, the voice vote is unconstitutional.

“There is no way to determine that two-thirds majority ‘of all the members’ voted in favour of the proclamation, as required by the Constitution.

“One wonders why the hurry. In other jurisdictions, we should have seen robust debates in both Houses, considering the situation in Rivers State, to determine whether it required the extreme measure of declaration of state of emergency, and to the extent of removing an elected governor.

“It is unfortunate that Nigerians were deprived the opportunity to have vital information beyond the President’s partisan remarks that would appear to have decided against the governor.”

Voice voting does not guarantee fairness, transparency -Edun, SAN

In his reaction, Kunle Edun, SAN, said: “The Rules of the House will guide the legislators how the voting would be done. However, members can insist on a transparent process and considering the national importance of this issue, they should request for physical or electronic voting and counting of the votes.

“Voice voting does not guarantee fairness and transparency as shown in previous sessions presided over by the Senate President particularly.

“To show to the whole world the fairness of the entire process, voting must be done either electronically or physically and how each senator voted must be published for Nigerians to see.”

Uzodimma backs Tinubu, says it’s national security necessity

The Chairman of the Progressive Governors’ Forum and Governor of Imo State, Hope Uzodimma, has thrown his weight behind President Bola Tinubu’s decision to declare a state of emergency in Rivers State. He described the move as a proactive step necessary to prevent a looming crisis that could destabilize both the state and Nigeria’s economy.

Addressing journalists in Owerri, Governor Uzodimma emphasized the significance of Rivers State to the nation’s economic survival, particularly in crude oil production. He noted that the ongoing political tensions and refusal of key players to heed advisory interventions had escalated into a national security concern. The governor referenced recent reports of pipeline bombings and explosions in the state, stressing that at a time when Nigeria is striving to boost crude oil production to strengthen its currency and economy, such unrest cannot be tolerated.

“The President was very proactive, and his actions are highly commendable. Prevention, they say, is better than cure. Imagine what would have happened if the impeachment went ahead—it would have triggered actions and reactions, leading to violence and widespread unrest,” Uzodimma stated.

He also commended the National Assembly for supporting President Tinubu’s decision, describing it as a step taken in the national interest. He expressed confidence in the Federal Executive Council’s ability to oversee the situation effectively and ensure that law and order prevail. While acknowledging that the Progressive Governors’ Forum had not yet convened since the declaration, Uzodimma assured that, as chairman, he could confidently affirm that the forum stands firmly behind the President.

“To the best of my knowledge, none of our members will go against the actions of the President. We support any decision that protects the security and stability of the country,” he concluded.

The recent declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State by President Bola Tinubu has ignited a national debate about the trajectory of Nigeria’s democracy. While the government justifies the move as necessary to restore order, critics argue that it is a dangerous precedent, signaling a shift toward authoritarian rule under the guise of democracy. This development raises fundamental concerns about constitutional governance, the separation of powers, and the potential erosion of democratic freedoms.

Nigeria operates a federal system where states should have significant autonomy. However, the president’s unilateral action in Rivers State undermines this principle. If a governor can be suspended at will under the justification of security concerns, what stops the federal government from extending this power to other states? This overreach threatens the ability of state governments to function independently, making them vulnerable to federal manipulation and political control.

One of the most alarming aspects of this crisis is the National Assembly’s swift approval of the president’s decision. Ideally, the legislature should act as a check on executive power, ensuring that decisions align with constitutional principles. However, their near-instant support raises serious concerns about the separation of powers. If lawmakers simply endorse executive actions without scrutiny, it signals a collapse of democratic safeguards, leading to a system where the president’s decisions go unchallenged.

Legal experts, including the Nigerian Bar Association, have challenged the constitutionality of this emergency rule. According to Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution, a state of emergency does not automatically dissolve elected governments. However, if the judiciary fails to assert its independence and rule against such unconstitutional actions, it will further cement the executive’s dominance over all arms of government. A compromised judiciary means that citizens can no longer rely on the courts to protect their rights against state overreach.

Authoritarian regimes often use legal mechanisms to weaken opposition, and this case appears to follow that pattern. The removal of an elected governor under the guise of security concerns raises the question: Is this about stabilizing Rivers State, or is it a political strategy to control the state? If opposition leaders can be removed so easily, Nigeria risks becoming a one-party state where dissent is silenced through executive power rather than democratic elections.

Today, the federal government has justified overriding an elected governor due to security concerns. Tomorrow, this justification could extend to suppressing protests, censoring the media, or even cracking down on citizens who criticize the government. The normalization of such authoritarian tactics can gradually erode democratic freedoms, creating an environment where fear replaces free expression.

Nigeria is at a crossroads. The nation can either uphold democratic principles, where power is decentralized, and institutions function independently, or continue down the path of executive dominance, leading to full-blown authoritarian rule. The key question remains: Will Nigerians, civil society organizations, and the judiciary push back against this trend, or will this moment mark the beginning of a new era where democracy exists only in name?

If history is any guide, unchecked executive power rarely reverses itself. It takes active resistance from the people, institutions, and the international community to prevent democratic backsliding. The world is watching, and the choices Nigeria makes today will define its democratic future.

Seriake Dickson, senator representing Bayelsa west, says he led a walkout from the upper legislative chamber before the senate approved President Bola Tinubu’s emergency rule in Rivers state.

The senate approved the president’s request through a voice vote on March 20 — shunning the constitutionally required two-thirds required for a subject of that magnitude.

The former governor of Bayelsa state described the action of his colleagues as unconstitutional.

He added that some senators like Aminu Tambuwal and Enyinnaya Abaribe opposed the majority resolution, and left the senate chamber in protest as well.

“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,” he wrote in a statement.

“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 recognised to speak.

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

Dickson urged the judiciary to wade in and save the people of Rivers from the state of emergency.

“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,” he added.

“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 in the court of the other arms of government, especially the judiciary, in the event of any challenge.”

‘AKPABIO TRIED TO CENSOR ME’

The former house of representatives member also took exception to the way the senate president addressed him during plenary.

He said Akpabio tried to silence him when he made attempts to raise a point of order for the senate to go into an executive 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,” he said.

“It is my opposition in principle to the declaration of a state of emergency, as well as the suspension of elected officials.

“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 Tinubu has appointed Ibok-Ete Ibas, a retired naval chief, as the sole administrator for Rivers during the emergency rule.

On Thursday, the national assembly ratified the decision of the president through voice votes.

[TheCable]

From the earliest beginnings of man there has always been that urge, the natural push to vault beyond the distorted present, questing beyond the limiting reality, casting his vision in enriching necessity to improve his position. 

There has always been that innate need for progression, the impulse towards a gradation to an higher value and signification. 

From the Neanderthals to the Cave man, to the Stone Age and the discovery of iron, man in his wandering enlightened passion, has always pushed far towards a greater vista of ennobling circumstances amid the thronging challenges of fate.

But it has never been the nature of man to withdraw, to crawl in cringing acceptability of the status quo. Man is instinctively an idealist, a restless, boundless spirit, yearning, working for what Ought to be. 

The idealistic man does not capitulate before the vagaries of fate. He rebels against oddities. He questions the incongruous. He grapples with the subsisting aberrations, insistent that there is always a better way.

To submit to the present, to plead extenuating circumstance and avert your gaze from the festering malady of the moment is to instigate self implosion. 

What IS can be changed. The present is not woven in stone save for those who reside within the delusional carapace of life. 

It is chimerical to pretend that tomorrow will not come with all its thronging revolutionary appetite to disembowel the present order, to instill an improved , freshly scripted better dawn, flinging the odious emblem into the withering dust. That is the nature of our cyclical universe. 

Tennyson puts it better: “The old order changeth, yielding place to new. And God fulfills himself in many ways lest one good custom should corrupt the world.”

Here the Tennysonian ringing leit motif is about the perceived good order which cannot be static. 

Nature abhors the frozen somnolence. There must be actuation ; a progression beyond now - a banishment of the festering crudity. 

Something new , something different; a nullifying stripping of the moment must always come to supersede the odious present.

Progression ! Progression ! That is the law of nature.

Nature does not dwell forever in the immobile present. The cyclical necessity must beckon. The Now must yield to another Truth. Tomorrow must come. It can’t be evaded . It can’t be voided by innumerable tons of lucre. It is an immutable certainty indifferent to the beckon of the transient immediacy. It is solidified in the constancy of renewal and progression. The present must yield to another Truth. 

Those who presently revel in bacchanalian license , thinking there is a permanence in drunken dictates of Bachus will invariably wake up in sweeping destruction. There is no avoiding the dictates of Heaven. 

Moral: The ideal, the greater horizon will invariably triumph over the puny, untoward ephemerality of the moment. That is the fated truth.

-Uthman Shodipe

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 roundlly 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.governments. 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 corrups 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 Governmen 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 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,l in my earlier research have now become real threats when constitutional violations are left unchallenged and unchecked.

PRESIDENT TINUBU ’S ATTEMPT TO RELY ON NONEXISTENT 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 onevemergency declaration at a time? History will surely judge us all.