The Anambra State Police Command has rescued Reverend Father Stephen Echezona, abducted by gunmen at a petrol station in Ichida, Anaocha Local Government Area.

The assailants, operating in a white Lexus SUV without a plate number, took the priest in his own vehicle after abandoning theirs during a gun exchange with security operatives who responded to the attack.

In a statement on Sunday, the command’s spokesperson, SP Tochukwu Ikenga, said the victim was rescued in the early hours of March 23, 2025, by a joint security team comprising the police, military, Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps, and local vigilante groups from Ichida and Ihiala. 

“In the early hours of today, March 23, 2025, a Joint Security team comprising the Police, Military, Civil Defence, AVG Ichida, and Ihiala respectively secured the release of Rev. Father Stephen Echezona at Ihiala. The priest was returned unharmed,” Ikenga said.

He added that the kidnappers abandoned their Lexus SUV in an attempt to escape after a gun battle with security forces.

“The victim was abducted at a fuel station in Ichida where a joint security force engaged the armed criminals in a gun duel.

“The assailants abandoned the white Lexus and, in a bid to flee the scene due to the superior firepower of the Joint Security Team, held the Rev. Father hostage.

“The operatives also recovered the white Lexus vehicle,” he further stated.

Ikenga explained that a coordinated chase led to multiple security checkpoints being alerted, forcing the kidnappers to abandon the priest in Ihiala and escape through a nearby bush.

“In a coordinated hot chase by the operatives, different security checkpoints and security operatives in the state were alerted, which resulted in the criminals abandoning the Priest at Ihiala and escaping through a nearby bush.

“The joint security team has taken over the scene in Ihiala for possible arrest of the armed criminals and recovery of the Toyota Highlander belonging to the Rev. Father.

“Further developments would be communicated, please,” Ikenga added.

In Nigeria, history tends to repeat itself with unerring accuracy and in tiresome syntax. When he wrote his Report on the Amalgamation of Northern and Southern Nigeria and Administration in 1919, Frederick Lugard described Nigeria as an “anomaly…. of a country with aggregate revenue practically equal to its needs, but divided into two by an arbitrary line of latitude.” While one portion was fiscally viable, he suggested, the other “was dependent on a grant paid by the British taxpayer.” Through the Amalgamation in 1914, Lugard created a Customs Union in which extraction could be sustained by administering mechanisms of fiscal compensation to smooth over these disparities.

From the get-go, the invention of Nigeria was about the exploitation of resources and property. Rivers state is at the centre of these resources. Towards this goal, the powers of government have historically been mobilised. More than 111 years after the Amalgamation, this raison d’être of the Nigerian estate remains resilient. It is both evident and explicit in the machinations that have now eventuated in the declaration of a state of emergency over Rivers state.

When he addressed the country on March 18, 2025 to proclaim a state of emergency in Rivers, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Nigeria’s president, claimed that he acted on “security reports made available to [him]” showing “disturbing incidents of vandalisation of pipelines by some militant without the governor taking any action to curtail them.” Importantly, he had not bothered to speak to the state governor to hear his own side of the story, nor did he indicate that any humans had been injured or killed.

Security reports in such situations are provided by the State Security Service, (SSS). It is currently headed as Director-General by Oluwatosin Ajayi, whose stint as State Director of Security (SDS) in Rivers State coincided with the tenure as governor of Nyesom Wike, a principal belligerent in the political conflict in the state.

As a result, the president continued, “no good and responsible president will standby and allow the grave situation to continue without taking remedial steps prescribed by the constitution to address the situation in the state, which no doubt requires extraordinary measures to restore good governance, peace, order and security”.

These words were not new. When he moved the motion in the federal parliament on May 29, 1962 for the declaration of a state of emergency in the old Western Region, Prime Minister, Abubakar Tafawa-Balewa uttered the original version of the same sentence. After rendering his version of the events in the regional parliament in Ibadan the previous week, the Prime Minister declared: “No responsible Government of the Federation could allow an explosive situation such as that which now exists in Western Nigeria to continue without taking adequate measures to ensure that there is an early return to the Region of peace, order and good Government.”

Then in the Western Region, as today in Rivers state, there was a political dispute between a predecessor and his successor, both of them of the same party. The predecessor was Chief Obafemi Awolowo, leader of the Action Group, who had transitioned from the office of regional premier to being leader of the opposition in the federal parliament. His successor as premier was Ladoke Akintola. Although both lawyers, these men had fundamental differences of both provenance and ideology. Awolowo was Ijebu from the south of Yoruba-land. Akintola, who grew up in Northern Nigeria, was from Ogbomosho in the north of Yoruba-land. Ideologically, Akintola’s politics tended towards conservative populism; Awolowo was more towards democratic socialism.

In May 1962, the National Executive Committee of the Action group resolved to request Akintola to resign as both deputy leader to Chief Awolowo in the party and as premier of the Western Region. Rival factions emerged in the party claiming a majority in the regional parliament. Akintola sought to have the parliament convened for the purpose of procuring a vote of confidence on his government. Both the regional governor and the speaker of the parliament rebuffed his overtures. Instead, outside the parliament, some party officials led by Bola Ige, secured the signatures of a majority of elected members withdrawing support from Akintola’s administration.

The party presented these signatures to the governor, Oba Adesoji Aderemi, then the Ooni of Ife who thereafter invited Alhaji Dauda Adegbenro to form a new government as regional premier. Attempts to re-convene the regional parliament ended in fracas. As recalled by Chief Awolowo, “one Mr. Oke, a supporter of Chief Akintola, a member from Ogbomosho, jumped on the desk and was running about on the desk and then lifted a chair and struck somebody on the head. That is how it started, and then thereafter one Mr. Ebubedike, the Member for Badagry, who lives in Ajeromi, took the Mace and then in an attempt to strike the Speaker with the Mace, the Mace struck the table and broke into two.”

On receiving notification of the governor’s decision removing him and designating Alhaji Adegbenro as regional premier on 21 May 1962, Akintola began proceedings at the High Court of the Western Region. The Chief Justice of the Region – they were called Chief Justice then –Samuel Okai Quashie-Idun, had acted as Chief Justice of Ghana under the government of Kwame Nkrumah. He headed to Nigeria after resigning from Ghana’s judiciary in 1958 over disagreements with the Nkrumah government in the first flush of post-colonial authoritarianism. In 1960, Quashie-Idun became Chief Justice of the Western Region in succession to Robert Yorke Hedges. As Chief Justice, he was said to enjoy the support and patronage of Premier Akintola. 

The expectation of Akintola was reportedly that the Chief Justice would afford him expedited hearing and a favourable verdict, handing him under colour of law the boost he needed in this battle of his political life. Instead, Chief Justice Quashie-Idun decided to distil the legal issues and, rather than rule on them, transmitted those to the then Federal Supreme Court for decision. The case eventually traveled up to the Privy Council where Akintola lost the legal dispute. It is said that a disappointed Ladoke Akintola withdrew patronage from Quashie-Idun and their relationship never recovered. The following year, Quashie-Idun left the judiciary of the Western Region to East Africa, becoming the President of the East African Court of Appeal, where he died in 1966.

It is thought that Quashie-Idun tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to recover the relationship. In June 1963, he dismissed the action by Alhaji Adegbenro of the Action Group seeking to invalidate the appointment of Odeleye Fadahunsi as regional governor, and denied Adegbenro leave to appeal to the Federal Supreme Court.  

The disagreement between Quashie-Idun and Akintola was in reality unbridgeable. As Chief Justice, he saw a legal dispute which deserved judicial dispassion. For Akintola, it was a political dispute in which the role of the judiciary was to serve as his instrument. In 1962, Quashie-Idun chose to stick with his judicial brief. Today in Nigeria, judges at the highest levels have chosen to discard judicial robes and purchase sides in the political dispute in Rivers state, becoming shamefully complicit in instrumentalising the highest courts for a proverbial mess of political pottage.

When he addressed the country this past week, therefore, the president was not content with merely plagiarising Tafawa-Balewa; he found comfort in the partisanship of a willful judiciary.

On 28 February, the supreme court restrained the Central Bank from releasing the federal allocations of Rivers state until the state house of assembly had passed a lawful budget. In his address declaring the state of emergency, the president said his newly appointed military administrator in Rivers state would not be able to make any laws. In effect, he could not pass a budget to implement the supreme court judgment. 

Yet, the day after he was installed, the Central Bank released the withheld allocation to the military administrator. On the same day, the national assembly approved the emergency proclamation on an unlikely voice vote. If the statutory allocation of Rivers state was used to purchase an emergency proclamation over the state, it is entirely in keeping with the project originated by Frederick Lugard to preserve Nigeria as a proposition in extractive anomaly.

A lawyer and a teacher, Odinkalu can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

THE constitutional aberration last Thursday in which an indeterminate number of the National Assembly members ousted the provisions of the Constitution to please President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is a reckless step in democracy worsened by the intentionality of its execution.
Section 305 of the Constitution interprets a state of emergency as a situation of “national danger, disaster or terrorist attacks in which a government suspends normal constitutional procedures to regain control.” There are parts of Nigeria that meet these conditions. Did the President impose a state of emergency?

The President has the constitutional power to declare a state of emergency in any part of Nigeria. However, this proclamation must be published in the official government gazette and ratified by the National Assembly, requiring approval from two-thirds of its members.

The President exceeded his powers and knew his men at the helms of the National Assembly will pass the proclamation suspending elected officials in Rivers State.

What stopped the President, who gloats about his democratic credentials, from building on the sound democratic and constitutional examples former Goodluck Jonathan laid when confronted with terrorist attacks in North East and North Central Nigeria?
President Jonathan on 31 December 2011 declared a state of emergency in Borno, Niger, Plateau, and Yobe States without removing elected officials. On 14 May 2013, Jonathan imposed emergency rule in Adamawa, Borno, and Yobe States with the elected government structures still intact.

President Tinubu should have used these most recent examples of interpreting the Constitution which aimed at heightening security in the affected States to regain control of the areas and stop the insecurity from spreading.
Tinubu’s reaction when Jonathan declared state of emergency without removing elected officials:
“It is a display of unpardonable mediocrity and diabolic partisanship geared towards 2015. Borno and Yobe States have been literally under armies of occupation with the attendant excruciating hardship experienced daily by the indigenes and residents of these areas,” Tinubu had said in 2013.

“This government now wants to use the excuse of the security challenges faced by the Governors to remove them from the States considered hostile to the 2015 PDP/Jonathan project.
“No Governor of a State in Nigeria is the Chief Security Officer. Putting the blame on the Governors who have been effectively emasculated for the abysmal performance of the government at the centre, which controls all these security agencies, smacks of ignorance and mischief.”

The same Tinubu 12 years on blames Governor Sim Fubara for not maintaining security in Rivers State as if there had been constitutional amendments awarding Governors such powers.
Godswill Akpabio, Senate President, and Tajudeen Abass, Speaker, House of Representatives were more interested in approving the declaration than following constitutionally stated procedures.

They would not allow debates. They did not permit “reminders” that members present needed to be counted to ensure, first that two-thirds of them was in attendance, and a count of those who voted for or against the declaration was needed to reach a decision, according to the Constitution.
An uncertain number of legislators in both houses of the National Assembly passed the declaration by voice vote.

How many members were present? Did the numbers reach the two-thirds required for the proceedings to continue? Where are the records of the attendance?
Akpabio and Abbas should explain to Nigerians what volume of voice votes represents the two-thirds of members which the Constitution requires. They may also need to tell us which Constitution they used or when they amended the Constitution to give them powers to opt for two-thirds of voice votes.

MultiChoice as FCCPC’s choice

THE Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, FCCPC, established by the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act, FCCPA, in 2018, is a very powerful Commission that should be working for the interests of Nigerians, all Nigerians, and residents of Nigeria.
Grand expectations from the Commission include to develop and promote fair, efficient and competitive markets in the Nigerian economy, facilitate access by all citizens to safe products, and secure the protection of rights for all consumers in Nigeria.

If one is to make a list of goods and services that benefit Nigerians, they would run into hundreds of thousands and their producers and providers could run into millions. What does FCCPC do about them? It does something.
The story was about recently of the Vice President calling Mr. Olatunji Bello, Chief Executive Officer/Executive Vice-Chairman of FCCPC, to re-open a shop that belonged to the Vice President’s friend. Whatever the offence was, the FCCPC clampdown on the shop was lifted.
Other times one hears about FCCPC are when it takes on MultiChoice, apparently its service provider of choice to exercise its regulatory authority which is still at most vacuous. What is so special about MultiChoice to elicit such attention? The question is pertinent because other providers of the services as MultiChoice do not undergo the same scrutiny.

The issue is always about price adjustments. Once MultiChoice announces a change in the rates for accessing its services, FCCPC bares its regulatory fangs as if its researches do not capture the increases in prices of goods and services across all sectors. Government agencies have been increasing from travel documents, cost of filings in court to petroleum products.
One never heard a whimper from FCCPC. Even shops that it insisted should display prices of goods, determine the mode of compliance which is not in the interest of consumers. FCCPC’s silence may be related to the Vice President’s calls and the fact that market forces are sometimes political forces – most big businesses know who to call.

Rising energy costs, whether petroleum products or electricity, and insecurity are driving high prices of goods and services. FCCPC knows this but maintains a grave silence about these service providers whose services are more critical to the survival of the economy and Nigerians than digital television.
Cost of financial services has gone up. Merely keeping a bank account comes with new costs. Medications and health services have higher prices daily. School fees are continously on the rise, including in government institutions. These are goods and services that are very important for the survival of the society.

How many million Nigerians subscribe to MultiChoice which keeps millions of Nigerians employed through the value chain of its service? Why is FCCPC not concerned about the providers of other services and goods that affect more millions of Nigeria?

Every organisation is also blaming the high exchange rate for high prices of goods and services. Is MultiChoice exempt from high foreign exchange costs when it pays for most of its programmes in foreign exchange?
How does FCCPC “promote fair, efficient and competitive markets in the Nigerian economy” which its mandate prices? Competition is supposed to propel market forces to deal with service providers whose services are beyond the reach of consumers.

Does FCCPC have the powers to determine the prices and services? What has it done with the airlines operators, producers of alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages, who increase their prices, particularly when demand is high?
FCCPC should stretch its attention to goods and services that are essential. Digital television is not an essential service. Those who can afford it should pay, others can go elsewhere.
Essential as foods are, many Nigerians are dropping some items from their menu. They cannot afford them. FCCPC should know about it or it does not matter.

FCCPC has gone to court to enforce its orders on digital television rates. When will FCCPC go to court over the rising prices of essential goods and services?

Finally…

TWO sets of Nigerians have to be commended for lessening the burden of an extraordinarily sad week of constitutional vandalisation, deaths from accidents and bandits:
Senators Seriake Dickson, Enyinnaya Abaribe, and Aminu Waziri Tambuwal who finally walked out as Akpabio pursued his determined outcome. Representatives Obi Aguocha and Fred Agbedi had their calls for constitutional procedures ignored. Abbas too was on a mission. There were others in both houses, who worked hard to rescue the Constitution. And the Super Eagles who turned in a 2-0 defeat of Rwanda in a World Cup qualifier, when they were hardly given a chance to win.

ISIGUZO is a major commentator on minor issues

Nobel Laureate Wole Soyinka says President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers state betrays the spirit of federalism.

Tinubu declared emergency rule in the oil-rich state on Tuesday over the political crisis and instability in the state.

He also suspended Siminalayi Fubara, governor of the state; his deputy, Ngozi Odu; and all members of the Rivers assembly for an initial period of six months.

The president immediately appointed Ibok-Ete Ibas, a retired naval chief, as the state’s sole administrator.

Speaking with The Africa Report, Soyinka said the Nigerian constitution gives the president too much powers.

Commenting on the legality of the declaration, Soyinka said there is a need to amend some sections of the constitution.

He also said it is debatable if the move was a wise one.

“If it is constitutionally right, then I think it is about time we sat down and amended the constitution to make sure that it operates as a genuine federal entity,” Soyinka said.

“The government is over-centralised. The debate will go on whether this (state of emergency) was, in the first place, a wise decision but in terms of fundamental principles, I believe that this is against the federal spirit of association.

“I find that the constitution has put too much power in the hands of the president. The system we are operating right now is not the best for a pluralistic society like ours. That is a fundamental principle I have always held.”

The playwright further reiterated his call for a national conference which he said would provide an opportunity to “really accord ourselves an authentic people’s constitution”.

“The federal spirit of association is a cardinal principle… right now, in principle, this action is against the federal imperative,” he said.

[TheCable]

Democracy is often considered the foundation of freedom, equality, and national stability. It provides a system where leaders are accountable to the people, laws are upheld fairly, and citizens have a voice in governance. 

However, when democracy is undermined or destroyed, the consequences can be devastating. 

Throughout history, many nations have faced severe political, social, and economic crises due to the collapse of democratic institutions. 

The lessons from these nations serve as stark warnings about the dangers of allowing democracy to erode.

One of the most infamous examples of democracy’s destruction leading to chaos is Nazi Germany. 

After World War I, Germany had a democratic government under the Weimar Republic. However, economic struggles, political instability, and public dissatisfaction created an environment where democracy was weakened. 

Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party exploited these weaknesses, rising to power through both democratic means and authoritarian tactics. Once in control, Hitler dismantled democratic institutions, silenced opposition, and imposed a brutal dictatorship. The result was not only a loss of freedoms for German citizens but also a catastrophic global war and the horrors of the Holocaust.

Similarly, the fall of democracy in Venezuela provides a modern example of how undermining democratic principles can devastate a nation. 

Once one of Latin America’s wealthiest countries, Venezuela’s democracy began eroding under Hugo Chávez and later Nicolás Maduro. 

The gradual concentration of power, suppression of opposition, and manipulation of elections led to authoritarian rule. 

As a result, the country suffered from economic collapse, hyperinflation, widespread poverty, and a humanitarian crisis, with millions of citizens fleeing the country. 

The destruction of democracy directly contributed to the suffering of the Venezuelan people.

Another critical lesson comes from the military coup in Myanmar in 2021. After years of progress toward democracy, the military overturned election results, arrested leaders, and reinstated a dictatorship. 

The consequences were immediate and severe: widespread protests, brutal crackdowns, economic decline, and global condemnation. 

The military’s actions not only crushed democratic hopes but also plunged the country into instability, highlighting how destroying democracy often leads to political violence and repression.

In contrast, nations that have upheld democracy through crises have often emerged stronger. 

The United States, despite facing internal challenges such as civil rights struggles, economic recessions, and political polarization, has maintained democratic institutions for over two centuries. 

By preserving the rule of law, ensuring fair elections, and allowing for peaceful transitions of power, the U.S. has remained a global leader and a symbol of democratic resilience. This demonstrates that even in difficult times, commitment to democracy can lead to long-term stability and progress.

South Africa is another example of how upholding democracy can prevent chaos. During the apartheid era, the country was ruled by a racist, authoritarian regime that oppressed the majority of its population. 

However, through democratic reforms and leadership, particularly from Nelson Mandela, South Africa transitioned peacefully to democracy in 1994. 

This transition helped prevent a civil war and set the foundation for economic and social progress, proving that embracing democracy can heal a divided nation.

The destruction of democracy often leads to widespread corruption, weakened institutions, and the loss of human rights. Without checks and balances, leaders can act with impunity, silencing critics and making decisions that benefit only a select few. In contrast, upholding democracy ensures transparency, accountability, and protection of citizens’ rights. History has shown that once democracy is lost, it is difficult and often costly to regain. Restoring democratic governance after authoritarian rule usually requires years of struggle, sacrifices, and rebuilding trust in institutions.

Ultimately, the lessons of history make one thing clear: democracy must be protected at all costs. The erosion of democratic values can lead to dictatorship, economic ruin, and human suffering. 

However, when citizens and leaders remain committed to democratic principles—such as free and fair elections, freedom of speech, and the rule of law—nations can thrive. Every generation has the responsibility to learn from history and safeguard democracy, ensuring that the mistakes of the past are not repeated.

Nigeria, as Africa’s most populous nation and largest economy, stands at a crucial crossroads in its democratic journey. Since returning to democracy in 1999 after years of military rule, the country has made significant progress in governance, civil liberties, and economic development. However, challenges such as electoral fraud, political violence, corruption, and disregard for the rule of law continue to threaten democratic stability. The history of military takeovers in Nigeria serves as a reminder of the dangers of losing democracy. Each time democracy was overthrown in the past, the country suffered repression, economic setbacks, and human rights abuses. Upholding democracy ensures that power remains with the people and that leadership is accountable, preventing a return to authoritarian rule.

For Nigeria to achieve sustainable development and political stability, democracy must always be protected and strengthened. This requires free and fair elections, judicial independence, press freedom, and active civic engagement. When democracy thrives, the rule of law is upheld, economic policies are more stable, and citizens have a voice in shaping their future. Conversely, undermining democratic principles can lead to dictatorship, instability, and suffering, as seen in other nations. Nigerians must remain vigilant in defending democracy, ensuring that leaders govern with integrity, and that institutions remain strong. Only by upholding democracy can Nigeria fulfill its potential as a truly great nation, offering prosperity, justice, and security for all its citizens.

— Hon. Obi Aguocha (Ogwumabiri) is the member representing Ikwuano/Umuahia North and South Federal Constituency 

The most recent judicial pronouncement in Nigeria as at today is the Supreme Court’s decision, a few days ago which reaffirmed the principle of Party Supremacy and directed the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), to manage its own affairs. At the hearing of an appeal by Senator Sam Anyanwu who had been sacked as National Secretary of the PDP by the Appeal Court, Enugu Division, the Supreme Court unanimously re-emphasized that “political parties possess the autonomy to manage their internal affairs without undue interference from external bodies, including the judiciary, provided such actions align with their constitutions and the laws of the land.”Many Nigerians will not only agree with the Supreme Court but are likely to also urge Nigerian judges to leave our political parties alone.

The position of the Supreme Court is not new. It was the same when it allowed the All-Progressives Congress APC to choose Senator Ahmed Law an as its flagbearer, for the 2023 Senatorial Election in Yobe North constituency instead of the winner of the primaries, Bashir Machina. But it is simplistic for anybody to assume that what the Apex Court really meant was that political parties are free to handle their internal affairs. This is because over the years events have shown that what our courts say and what they mean are hardly ever same. Indeed, while empowering political parties to handle their affairs, the court also added that “provided such actions align with their constitutions and the laws of the land.” Can anyone in future stop some judges from looking into whether the actions of some political parties align with their constitutions and the extant laws?

Once such opportunity arises, the judges would then begin to look into cases which contradict the autonomy of political parties which the Supreme Court has affirmed. We all know that political parties by their own rules are expected to organize party primaries to pick their flagbearers. We also know that the electoral law provides for party primaries to be monitored by the Independent National Electoral Commission INEC. Why then did the Supreme Court allow the APC to substitute those who emerged from the party’s process with persons who did not participate in the process? Having done that, does the Supreme Court have the moral right to direct lower courts from doing same especially if the lower courts have the same motivation as their superiors? Do our judges not know that examples are better than precepts? 

It is also important to tell our judges that communication is not just the passing of information and messages from one source to another; the sender and receiver of such messages and information must in addition have the same meaning for them. Perhaps because our judiciary mix English and Latin quite often, not many understand the communication by the judiciary. But today’s judiciary is not same as that of the colonial government whose goal was to deceive the people. Our judiciary is now that of the people. It is a societal institution which relies on tax-payers’ money to survive. Accordingly, it is time for our judiciary to learn to speak to our people rather than to only lawyers and litigants. Our judiciary should therefore avoid circumlocution and speak clearly to its real owners – the Nigerian people. 

In so doing, it needs not be reminded that its decisions affect the entire society. For example, if it chooses to stop funds from going to a state because of the attitude of some leaders, the fate of many persons who are not before it that would suffer from its statements must always be taken into consideration. Besides, the judiciary must endeavour to engage in communication that would be easily understood by people just as it should be cautious in saying things that are capable of having several meanings. In the last 3 days, both Senator Anyanwu and the PDP have told the rest of the nation that they won the case, not only because they are bad losers but more because they are able to find in the judgment some statements that can be amplified to support their position.

One judgment that would have been difficult for ordinary human beings to understand concerns the order of an Abuja Federal High Court that certain lawfully elected delegates for the last Edo PDP primaries must not be excluded from the party’s primaries which had been held 5 months earlier. Similarly, it is not only the ordinary man that does not know which courts have jurisdiction in Nigerian cases, some lawyers and judges up to the level of the Court of Appeal do not also know. Hence, Senator Anyanwu’s case got to the Supreme Court before it was remembered that internal political party matters should not be entertained. Perhaps it is really difficult to remember things when they concern political cases that we hear are lucrative. The last time I raised this same issue at a public debate, I was told to go and find out why policemen are always at checkpoints notwithstanding the number of times their Inspector Generals had told the public that checkpoints are illegal. 

In the case of the judiciary, some of these bad habits can stop if the National Judicial Council NJC can be more decisive with erring judges. It is not possible to have a good judiciary if top Judges are as dishonest as ordinary persons. Some months ago, 2 state Chief Judges were found to have used affidavits to change their ages in order to remain in office. All that they got from the NJC was retirement from office. Is that the punishment for perjury? What would be the result if such judges have the opportunity to handle political cases? Can we distant such judges from the new trend of forum shopping in which cases emanating from other towns end up at the federal high court Abuja. Yet, there are federal high courts in such towns but those who tell others to go to court know where, when and how the cases would end. It is time for the judiciary to put an end to ‘go to court.’

Unknown to the judiciary, how it handles INEC has a way of making people lose faith in its decisions. At election tribunals, many petitioners always cry in vain over hurdles which INEC often places on their way to retrieve required evidence to prove their claims. In the last governorship election in Osun state, for example, the then governor Gboyega Oyetola cried in vain more than once to the relevant tribunal for help. If INEC belongs to us all, it should not be allowed to take sides by immediately standing with a winner during an election petition as if it has something to hide. The commission should also not be allowed to toy with court orders requiring it to bring certain information/documents to court – a conduct that is clearly regarded as contemptuous in other climes.

The argument by INEC that such data are in its state offices amount to hoarding of information. Are those state offices not part of one INEC? If INEC headquarters can access all the information it collated into a complete election result from all polling units, it should not become impossible to access materials when the request is from a party that participated in the election. The point to be made is that in an election-troubled society, people can become more convinced that an election tribunal has done a good job, if in addition to asking petitioners to prove their case, it also requires the body that conducted the election to establish her thoroughness. Our courts have no business protecting INEC which gets huge sums of money to procure technology and which later decides to distort, ignore or hoard digital information.

The saying that the decisions of the Supreme Court are final means different things to different people. To the ordinary man something is final only when it completes action on a relevant subject. If an opinion poll is done today concerning how the Rivers State controversial cases were handled, it would be difficult to find anyone who will agree that all sides to the case have actually ended. No one understands for instance how the purported defection of law makers of the state House of Assembly was concluded. If something remains undone concerning a subject, what does final mean to interested parties? The finality of the old case of the Imo State Governorship election in which the winner scored more votes as collated by the judiciary than the number of voters remains finally laughable. What was final about the case was that the Judiciary forgot that the person it declared winner was not the person the same judiciary accepted as the real candidate of his party.

President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State has whipped up a lot of passion and even some tension. This is not unexpected. Apart from oft-raised questions about constitutionality, process and partisanship, a state of emergency is an intervention that has far-reaching implications beyond the immediate actors, and can produce significant unintended consequences. Such consequences could include the needless widening of ethnic, regional and religious fault-lines, and even the seeding of future and more consequential instability. Since a lot depends on the judgement call of one man—the president, who can also be an interested party—this is a highly sensitive tool.  The declaration of a state of emergency should only be a last resort, invoked after all other good-faith interventions have evidently failed, and its use should be seriously circumscribed.

There are some safeguards erected in Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution. But it appears these may not be sturdy enough. There is the latitude about actual breakdown and potential breakdown of public order “requiring extraordinary measures to avert such danger.” Emergency rule, whether mild or maximum, by itself suggests the suspension of normalcy. The window to take unusual measures deemed necessary to restore order is, in my view, too much room. My sense is that the drafters of the constitution intended the legislative arm to provide appropriate and adequate checks. The threshold for legislative approval for emergency is deliberately set high, same as what is needed to approve changes to our rigid constitution: two-thirds of all members of each of the two chambers of our parliament (plus 2/3 of the states for constitutional amendment). However, the drafters obviously did not envisage the various ways in which these could play out in practice.

This is the fourth time emergency rule that will be proclaimed in almost 26 years of uninterrupted civil rule. Without fail, though not without some drama and minor amendments, the parliamentarians have always approved the requests by the different presidents. This is not necessarily because the legislators have been compromised or because they are always in bed with the executive but may be due to some other reasons that I will get to later. Many speak authoritatively that the emergency powers granted the president in the constitution do not include the suspension of governors, deputy governors and state legislators. They may well be right.

But in three out of four times, the governors and legislators have been suspended in the affected states, with approval by the National Assembly, because such suspensions were deemed by their promoters to have fallen within the scope of “extraordinary measures” required to restore order. The final authority on this should be the Supreme Court, and on two occasions the highest court in the land has dismissed suits brought by suspended governors, albeit on technical grounds: that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction only in matters instituted by the states or the Federal Government and those governors were not in a position to institute cases for the states when they were under suspension.  

To refresh my memory, I have gone back to read media coverage of the three previous proclamations of emergency rule in the Fourth Republic: Plateau State in 2004; Ekiti State in 2006; and Adamawa, Borno and Yobe states in 2013. The details are different, illustrating the point that no two emergencies are the same. Taken together with the current case and the reactions to all of them, I can see some broad patterns. I will use relevant examples from the three cases to illustrate these patterns, without getting into the weeds of the present case.

Before doing this, a quick recap of the contexts. On 18^th May 2004, President Olusegun Obasanjo declared a state of emergency in Plateau State. That was the first in this dispensation. Plateau State had been rocked by ethno-religious violence that, by some account, led to the death of about 5000 people. In his broadcast, Obasanjo savaged the governor of the state, Mr. (later Senator) Joshua Dariye: “As at today, there is nothing on ground and no evidence whatsoever to show that the state governor has the interest, desire, commitment, credibility and capacity to promote reconciliation, rehabilitation, forgiveness, peace, harmony and stability. If anything, some of his utterances, his lackadaisical attitude and seeming uneven-handedness over the salient and contending issues present him as not just part of the problem, but also as an instigator and a threat to peace.”

Obasanjo suspended Dariye and the members of the state’s House of Assembly. (He initially didn’t suspend the deputy governor, but the National Assembly included this in their approval.) Obasanjo appointed General M.C. Alli (rtd.) as the sole administrator for a period of six months.

It was the turn of Ekiti State on 18^th October 2006. Prior to the proclamation of emergency rule in the state by President Obasanjo, three people were claiming to be the governor of the state: Mr. Ayo Fayose, who had been impeached in a controversial manner by the state legislators on 16^th October 2006; Mrs. (later Senator) Abiodun Olujimi, the state’s deputy governor, who was impeached alongside the governor; and Chief Friday Aderemi, the speaker of the House of Assembly, who had upgraded himself to acting governor.

It is worth adding that 24 of the 26 legislators started the move to impeach Fayose after they were repeatedly quizzed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). The legislators sacked the Chief Judge of the state, Justice Kayode Bamisile, when he set up a seven-member investigatory panel that they thought was loyal to Fayose. They appointed an acting chief judge who did their bidding; then they proceeded to impeach Fayose and his deputy to make the speaker the acting governor. Obasanjo said there was a breakdown of constitutional order which could lead to further violence and instability. He came hard on the state legislators for their overreach. He suspended the governor, the deputy governor, the acting governor and the state legislators for six months. He appointed Brig-Gen Tunji Olurin (rtd.) as administrator for the same period.

On 14^th May 2013, President Goodluck Jonathan proclaimed a state of emergency in three states in the North East after an escalation of attacks by Boko Haram on government targets and security forces in the affected states. The emergency was to ensure a surge in military deployment and to give the troops and other security agencies the latitude “to take all necessary action… to put an end to the impunity of insurgents and terrorists.” The governors and state legislators were not suspended, and rightly so—probably because they were not evidently part of the crisis (unlike the way Dariye and Fayose were in their respective states).

However, part of the approval that President Jonathan got was for the three governors and the legislators to take instructions on security issues from him or whoever he designated and to have power over the allocations to the states only for compensation and rehabilitation of those affected by the order. These too were extra-ordinary measures not expressly allowed in the constitution. If the gazetted proclamation had not been amended by the National Assembly, Jonathan wanted the governors and legislators to take instructions from him on all matters while their states were under emergency rule and for him to have the liberty to expend the allocations due to the states. The state of emergency in these states was extended twice but denied the third time. This was the only emergency that went beyond six months.

Now, to the patterns. The first is that there is always a sharp and strong difference of opinion anytime a state of emergency is declared. There has not been any time that a proclamation met with universal approval. Or disapproval. No matter the proximate cause and no matter how light or harsh the extraordinary measures deployed are, the declaration of emergency rule usually surfaces division. This division can take interesting turns. Obasanjo suspended Dariye and Fayose, both of whom are Christians, one from the North Central and the other from the South West. And both were governors produced from the same party as Obasanjo, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). That didn’t make the suspensions less controversial.

The leadership of PDP supported and lobbied for both suspensions. The opposition was divided on Dariye’s: the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) supported the suspension while the Alliance for Democracy (AD) and All Progressive Grand Alliance (APGA) strongly opposed it. The Conference of Nigerian Political Party (CNPP) accused Obasanjo of having a hidden agenda. The north was divided: the Christian north was against; while most from the Muslim north were in support. Middle Belt Forum described the emergency as hasty and unjust. The Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) and the Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria (PFN) not only condemned the state of emergency as unfair but also called for same treatment for Kano State where there had been reprisal attacks. 

The emergency in Ekiti was opposed not just by the opposition parties but also by the Nigeria Governors Forum (then headed by Governor Lucky Igbinedion) and a group of parliamentarians mostly from PDP under the aegis of the 2007 Movement who alleged that Obasanjo was trying to resuscitate the defeated Third Term Agenda by moving to declare emergency in states and possibly in the whole country. This was the time when a legislative approval of the proclamation looked most unlikely. The states affected by Jonathan’s state of emergency in 2013 were opposition and northern states; and all Muslims while he is Christian. The fact that he didn’t remove the governors should have minimised the division. But most northerners, especially those from the North East, condemned the action. The main opposition parties, Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) and the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC), naturally opposed Jonathan.

The second pattern, which is related to the first, is that political parties and prominent individuals pitch their tent based on their political alignments or interests. All Progressives Congress (APC) whose legacy parties stridently opposed earlier iterations of emergency rule and suspension of governors is now the leading advocate of what it used to oppose. In the same vein, PDP is now the leading antagonist of what it used to actively promote. There are also individuals who have taken interesting positions. The case of a certain Bola Ahmed Tinubu, as governor of Lagos State, is well known. On 19 May 2004, he issued a statement declaring the suspension of Dariye as unconstitutional: “there is no doubt that the proclamation…is a brazen breach of the constitution and portends grave danger to the republic.” He is now the same person who, as president, has imposed emergency rule in Rivers State and has suspended the governor, deputy governor and the state legislators.

Late Gani Fawehinmi, SAN, condemned Dariye’s suspension as wrong and “a violation of the constitution” and a throwback to 1962 (when the first state of emergency was declared in the Western Region). He asked Obasanjo himself to resign. But Fawehinmi expressly supported Fayose’s suspension, urged the National Assembly to ratify the presidential proclamation and called on EFCC to arrest and try Fayose for alleged corrupt practices. It is possible to square Fawehinmi’s position: he probably believed the president (and not the governors) should have overall responsibility for security in states but he would support any means to fight corruption. But how is one suspension inferior to another suspension? 

The 2013 emergency in Borno, Adamawa and Yobe states had an unusual critic: Chief E.K. Clark. He said there was nothing like a partial state of emergency and that the three governors and the state legislators should be suspended. On 24^th April 2014, Chief Clark issued a statement that: “There is nothing like partial declaration of a state of emergency in the 1999 Constitution; what section 305(c) of the 1999 Constitution contemplates is the recourse to ‘…extraordinary measures to restore peace and security’ where there is ‘breakdown of public order and public safety.’ This in effect means that all democratic institutions should be suspended to permit the military exercise full control until peace and order returns.” It is conceivable that, were he alive, Chief Clark would have (for obvious reasons) decried the state of emergency in Rivers State. 

The third pattern is that despite the strident opposition, within and outside the political space, National Assembly members have always approved presidential proclamations of state of emergency. In some instances, there would be open debate; but in all instances, they go into executive sessions (including sometimes into more than one such session in a day) where they are possibly briefed on and where they likely discuss intelligence reports that cannot be put in the open. I don’t know if they find such intelligence reports convincing. But I reckon that legislators concede that whoever is the president has overall responsibility for national security and has more information than they could possibly have and they would therefore not want to second-guess him or stand in his way or give him an excuse.

I think this applies even when the president and the legislators are at loggerheads or have a cold relationship as in 2006 (when they threw out Third Term but still approved a state of emergency in Ekiti) and in 2013 (when Sen. Aminu Tambuwal as speaker and Jonathan were not the best of buddies and the House still approved emergency in the three North East states). This may also be the reason why the Supreme Court that found against the Federal Government on many issues would decline to rule that the suspension of governors is illegal.

Sometimes, there are other considerations such as small opposition parties going along with their bigger parties because of the day they would need them. Quid pro quo is part of parliamentary politics. Some of the legislators can also be conflicted: having openly supported state of emergency while in the ruling party, some may find it difficult to oppose just because they are now in opposition. So, after the huffing and puffing, the approval process usually becomes a way to fulfil all righteousness: the minority have their say while the majority have their way. Those opposed put their position on record and for those who look up to them. This is also probably why they don’t insist on division or actual counting of votes. Also, members pick their battles, as it is not every hill that is worth dying on. Only three members were seen on record to have spoken against the approval on Thursday and largely they focused on process issues: Senator Seriake Dickson and Hon. Fred Agbedi, both Ijaws from Bayelsa State; and Hon. Obi Aguocha, a Labour Party (LP) member from Abia State.

Another pattern is that though the constitution specifically prescribes ratification by two-thirds of all members of each of the two chambers, the voting is mostly done through consensus or results announced without actual tallying done. The closest to a vote was in 2004 when 95 senators were present on the day the proclamation was approved. After the executive session it was announced that 90 senators voted for and five voted against. The then Senate President, Senator Adolphus Wabara, asked those against to move to a side of the chambers reserved for minority parties: four from AD and one from PDP (Sen. Uche Chukwumerije). Senator Tokunbo Afikuyomi, one of the four AD senators, protested, asking for a proper division where each senator would stand up, mention their name and signify how they vote. He was overruled. In the House of Reps, it was reported that 261 members voted in favour and 30 against. But there was no record of actual tallying. In fact, Hon. John Longhor, spokesperson of the Plateau State caucus they had a list of 59 people against.

The situation was the same in 2006 and 2013: either those opposed failed to turn up or just allowed the majority to have their way. Sometimes, a number would be announced (as in the total of members that signed the attendance register that day). In 2013, for example, it was announced that 100 senators and 253 members were in attendance when the harmonised version of the proclamation was passed in the two chambers on 24^th May 2013. Sometimes, these numbers are contested, but feebly. Even for constitutional amendment, which equally requires two-thirds of all members, there is no evidence that actual rollcall or headcount takes place even when there are mechanisms for electronic voting in the chambers now.

There is a special buzz about inappropriateness/inadequacy of voice vote/community voting for approval of the state of emergency in Rivers State. A solid case can be made for this. The fact that approval was done unanimously/collectively in the past does not mean such a practice should become the norm. The fact that questions were not asked before does not nullify the need for the current questions. Today should be better than yesterday. Especially on contested issues, the threshold for transparency and accountability should consistently be high. I have gathered that some of those opposed to the state of emergency believed that the supporters did not have the numbers for legislative approval. They may or may not be right.

The way to check that would have been to actually test it by doing the heavy lifting of mobilising the applicable party and zonal caucuses before and during the vote for approval. You can’t change a system if you don’t understand its workings or you are not ready to do the work that can move the needle. Imagine if the leadership of the opposition parties had met with their parties members (and even sympathisers in the ruling party) and taken a unified positions before Thursday, had secured a list of those who would be voting against, had all gathered in the gallery to monitor proceedings and to provide guidance and support to their members, and if the opposition parties had insisted on division or actual headcount or had threatened to walk out en masse if that was not done. That is the realm of real politick. The majority could still have had its way, but would have had to sweat really hard for it. Such an approach would have been more meaningful than vacuous and performative acts like addressing the press while the voting was going on or releasing statements or sowing threads on social media after the fact.

President Bola Tinubu has dealt a fatal punch on Nigeria’s democratic prospects. As the head of the executive branch, he has injured the judiciary and subverted the legislature in what promises to be a dangerous drift towards authoritarianism.  On the Rivers crisis, the Supreme Court ruled on the side of deploying democratic methods to resolve outstanding issues in the crisis. The embattled Governor, Mr. Siminalayi Fubara, was in the process of obeying the Supreme Court when Tinubu struck a lethal political blow. The path of democratic resolution was shut in preference for the President’s preference for authoritarian fiat.

An untidy State of Emergency was declared to the astonishment of the nation. The President hastily announced a suspension of the governor and his deputy as well as all democratic structures in the state. He appointed a sole administrator for the state and inaugurated Mr. Ebas, a retired Navy Chief to run the oil rich State as he deems fit for the next six months. With literally no immediate national security concern, the  Attorney General of the federation tacitly admitted that the presidential action may have been somewhat hasty but was in a bid to avert an anticipated ugly security situation in the future;  the fear of what had not yet taken place. But the constitution provides for real credible security threats or real insecurity, not speculative fears of dangers lurking in the unknown future. You cannot invoke a constitutional measure against an anticipatory risk!

The expectation that the National Assembly could overturn the strange emergency declaration has also been dubiously subverted. Instead of a straightforward electronic or manual vote count followed by a numerical count to determine two thirds majority on either side of the proposition, the two arms of the National Assembly adopted a nebulous voice vote to hastily and sheepishly approve the presidential declaration of an emergency over Rivers state. There was hardly any informed debate on such a serious matter took place on the floor of the National Assembly. There was scarcely any review of the security situation in the state to necessitate the emergency declaration. Just a robotic rubber stamp “yes” in a manner that has become signature for the Tinubu era legislature. No one has yet verified the veracity of beer parlor rumours that the parliamentary rubber stamp came at a prices ranging from $25,000(for senators)  and $10,000 (for representatives)!

Prior to this sorry rubberstamp endorsement, national outcry against the declaration of the emergency had gone viral and widespread. Informed voices in Rivers State had cried out. So also had the leaders of the South South region, the Ijaw ethnic nationality and opposition political figures in the state. Governors of the South South zone had unanimously opposed the president’s declaration and suspension of Fubara and his Deputy. Notable lawyers in the nation have either as individuals or associations punched legal holes on the process and substance of the emergency declaration.

More significantly, key national opposition figures have since been screaming themselves hoarse on the illegality of the path taken by the president to arrive at this curious emergency declaration. Messrs Atiku Abubakar of the PDP, Peter Obi of the LP, Nasir El-Rufai of the SDP and a host of other smaller party voices have screamed out at the illegality and unconstitutionality of the entire process. It has been reported that the main opposition PDP has headed to court to challenge the emergency imposition.

Ordinarily, a security deterioration in any part of the nation that could warrant a State of Emergency ought to be self evident. The danger to national security ought to be so self-evident that the public mood would in fact demand that the president declare a state of emergency. None of that was evident in Rivers state in the last one week. But the president went ahead to make his curious declaration, giving the judgment of the Supreme Court or the democratic process no room to resolve the issues in question through dialogue. Instead, the President assumed the role of grand arbiter by declaring governor Fubara guilty on all counts. He accused the governor of willful damage to public property through the malicious demolition of the State House of Assembly. He equally accused the governor of single-handedly precipitating the political crisis in the state and rebuffing earlier peace overtures towards a resolution.

In its totality, the presidential broadcast making the emergency declaration was anything but statesmanlike. It was one-sided. It failed to balance the blames between Fubara and his traducers, especially the bullish FCT Minister, Nyesom Wike. It hardly mentioned Mr. Wike who is clearly the architect of the entire Rivers crisis. In assuming that Wike is innocent, the president was taking on a partisan stance that vilified the PDP and exonerated his own APC. The trouble though is that his man Wike is neither in PDP nor in APC. He is a political bat that can only happen in the Nigerian political landscape. It is a matter of serious concern that the president of the federal republic of Nigeria seemed too afraid to mention the name of Mr. Wike who is commonly known as the author of the crisis in Rivers State.

Not in one instance did the president mention the nefarious role of his Minister of the FCT and de facto Warrant Chief, Mr. Nyesom Wike, who has made the political destabilization of Rivers State an adjunct of his role as FCT Minister. It is road side knowledge that since he was appointed FCT Minister, Mr. Wike has spent more time fomenting political trouble in Rivers state than ensuring tolerable governance in the disorderly Federal Capital Territory which has recently become the crime headquarters of the nation.

On a political scale, the entire declaration of an unwarranted State of Emergency in Rivers State flies in the face of all sensible definitions of statesmanship or adherence to constitutional democracy. Its political undertone is implicit in Tinubu’s inclusions and exclusions in the text of the broadcast.

The move increasingly resonates with the President’s anxiety about his political future in 2027. It is common knowledge that in order to win a presidential election in Nigeria, a candidate needs to win the majority vote in a number of key population centres and states: Lagos, River/Port Harcourt, Kano and Abuja. In 2023, Tinubu nearly lost the presidential election because he was trounced in his Lagos home base, Abuja and Kano. He only ‘won’ in Rivers because Wike was on ground to allegedly manipulate the votes in  his home Obio Akpor Local Government area of Port Harcourt to deliver Rivers to Tinubu. This feat and fiat by Wike added to what sold Wike to Tinubu as a political contractor of immense value coupled with his use value as a permanent destabilizer of the opposition PDP and neutralizer of the Atiku Abubakar threat.

As things stand today, Wike remains Tinubu’s most valuable political  asset outside his South West home base where his stronghold has narrowed to the Lagos and Ogun areas from where the majority of his political appointees have been drawn. The other major vote catchment centres are all up for grabs by strong political opponents.

Beyond this nefarious investment in Wike as a dangerous geo political capital, Tinubu recognizes the strategic importance of the Niger Delta in the nation’s economics and politics. It is a zone of sleeping instability  that can alter –for good or ill- the context of the nation’s economy and security architecture. The heavily armed miscreants in the Ijaw creeks can negate the billions of dollars annually budgeted on defence spending by the Nigerian state Those rough kids in dugout wooden boats can alter the calculations about the global energy outlook and even determine oil prices in far away Vienna. It is therefore quite possible that Mr. Tinubu may have erred on the side of political caution by this hasty declaration to avoid security embarrassment should the Rivers situation get out of hand.

Whatever may be his prompting on this disastrous State of Emergency declaration, Mr. Tinubu has walked into a political minefield of multiple bad possibilities. By failing to name Wike as a wrong egg in the pack, he has consecrated the man into a political Warrant Chief of sorts who can hardly be touched without grave harm coming to the political calculations of the president towards 2027. By single-handedly suspending or impeaching Fubara, Tinubu has made himself a partisan  in  the political fight in Rivers. And to the best of my knowledge, Rivers is a precarious place to declare your partisanship so early in a brewing political fight.

As things now stand, it would be difficult to dissuade the common people of Rivers state from feeling a sense of victimhood. The Supreme Court had ruled against their entitlement to their constitutionally guaranteed federal revenue  because of disagreements among politicians. Now the president has declared an emergency garrison rule over them thus placing them under an implicit military rule, thereby reducing further their freedoms and rights as Nigerian citizens. The ordinary Rivers person in Port Harcourt or Bonny is bound to ask: “What have we done to deserve this treatment?” Do the peoples of the South South region have a right to feel that Tinubu is treating them like a zone of conquered people? Such a feeling of alienation has political consequences which I am sure both Tinubu  and his handlers fully understand.

Worse still, by taking unconstitutional steps to declare and sustain his State of Emergency, Tinubu may have walked in the direction of early steps towards unconstitutional and authoritarian rule. On that route, his highly informed opponents in the race for 2027 are waiting with a public that is already weaponized and angry against him for reasons of economic desperation and hardship. A largely unpopular president would be taking a big risk by taking actions  that alienate significant populations.

A slide towards naked authoritarianism and unconstitutional rule cannot possibly enhance the re-election chances of an unpopular president who is merely surviving on a tenuous mandate.