Tinubu’s Declaration Of State of Emergency in Rivers State Is An Impeachable Offence — Reuben Abati

Dr. Reuben Abati, former media aide to former President Goodluck Jonathan, has described President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State as an “impeachable offence.”

Speaking on The Morning Show programme on Arise News Television on Wednesday, Abati criticised Tinubu’s decision, arguing that the president has no constitutional power to remove a state governor through a proclamation.

His statement follows President Tinubu’s nationwide broadcast on Tuesday night, in which he declared a state of emergency in Rivers State.

Tinubu justified his decision by expressing deep concern over the ongoing political crisis in the state, particularly Governor Siminalayi Fubara’s alleged demolition of the State House of Assembly building.

According to Tinubu, the state of emergency, effective from March 18, was necessary to restore order.

However, Abati strongly disagreed with the President’s decision, saying that Tinubu’s actions violated Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution, even within the framework of Section 305, which outlines the conditions for declaring a state of emergency.

He described Tinubu’s declaration of state of emergency in Rivers State as an act of dictatorship.

Abati stated that Tinubu’s move was unconstitutional because he unilaterally assumed legislative powers meant for the National Assembly.

“Section 305 of the Constitution explains the circumstances under which the President shall declare a state of emergency. The conditions are properly stated — if the country is facing a threat of war or an imminent war. Is Nigeria facing the threat of war in Rivers State? That’s one question,” Abati said.

He further noted that the Constitution allows for emergency powers in cases where a state government fails to respond to a crisis.

However, even in such instances, due process must be followed.

“The same section 305 says that the President will give a proclamation, which will be gazetted, and then sent to the National Assembly. If the National Assembly is in session, it must act within 48 hours; if in recess, within 10 days.

“If the National Assembly does not validate the proclamation with a two-thirds majority, the decision is nullified,” Abati explained.

Abati argued that Tinubu went beyond his constitutional limits by granting his appointed administrator the authority to make regulations for Rivers State and allowing the Federal Executive Council (FEC) to enact laws for the state’s House of Assembly.

“In fact, he acted as a dictator by saying that the administrator he appointed can make regulations and that laws will be made for the Rivers State House of Assembly by the Federal Executive Council.

“The Federal Executive Council does not have such powers. Section 11 of the Constitution clearly states that only the National Assembly can make laws for a state House of Assembly during a state of emergency,” Abati said.

According to Abati, this overreach constitutes an impeachable offence.

“President Tinubu has appropriated unto himself the powers to make laws for the Rivers State House of Assembly. That’s an impeachable offence,” he stated.

He further questioned whether the National Assembly would have the “courage” to reject Tinubu’s proclamation or initiate impeachment proceedings against him for violating the Constitution.

He stressed that a governor could not be removed by presidential proclamation.

Abati also referenced Section 188 of the Constitution, which outlines the legal procedure for removing a governor from office.

He emphasised that Tinubu’s decision to suspend the governor, deputy governor, and the legislature was a blatant violation of the Constitution.

“A governor cannot be removed from office by the proclamation of the President of Nigeria. A governor can only be removed if there is gross misconduct, which must be presented as an allegation by the State House of Assembly.

“Then, the Chief Judge of the state appoints a panel of credible individuals to review the allegations. If the panel finds the allegations unsubstantiated, the process ends,” Abati explained.

“The President has not followed that. He has acted unilaterally. Section 1, subsection 2 of the same Constitution states that Nigeria cannot be governed except by the provisions of the Constitution.

“There is no provision in the 1999 Constitution that says the President can unilaterally remove a governor, deputy governor, or legislature,” he added.

Abati therefore called for accountability, stating that those advising the President on such actions should be held responsible.

“The people who advised the President must be called to order,” he said.

As the controversy unfolds, the political and legal implications of Tinubu’s declaration remain uncertain, with constitutional experts and political analysts closely monitoring the response from the National Assembly and the judiciary.