Connect with us
Maduka University Advert

News

Rivers Crisis: Outrage as NASS approves emergency rule through voice vote

Published

on

The Senate
Spread the love

The two chambers of the National Assembly, on Thursday, 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.

Maduka College Advert

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

It was 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 reports 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.’’

The Senate Leader, Senator Opeyemi Bamidele, APC, Ekiti Central, then raised Order 1(b) of the Senate Standing Orders to suspend all other items in the Order Paper to discuss only the Proclamation letter, he was seconded by the Minority Leader, Senator Abba Moro, PDP, Benue South, and the Senate immediately went into a closed door session.

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.

Obi slams NASS for approving emergency rule

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 not 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 a proactive step

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.

Vanguard

News

Attorney General asks Court to deregister ADC, Accord, three other parties

Published

on

The Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN
Spread the love

The Attorney General of the Federation has urged the Federal High Court in Abuja to compel the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister five political parties, arguing that their continued existence violates constitutional provisions and undermines Nigeria’s electoral integrity.

In court filings, the Attorney General contended that unless the court intervenes, INEC would “continue to act in breach of its constitutional duty” by retaining parties that have failed to meet the minimum requirements prescribed by law.

The filing stressed that the right to associate as a political party is not absolute and must be exercised within constitutional limits. It further argued that it is in the interest of justice for the court to grant the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs.

The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2026 and filed at the Abuja Judicial Division of the Federal High Court, lists the Incorporated Trustees of the National Forum of Former Legislators as the plaintiff.

The defendants include INEC as the first defendant and the Attorney General of the Federation as the second defendant, alongside five political parties: African Democratic Congress (ADC), Action Alliance (AA), Action Peoples Party (APP), Accord (A), and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP).

At the center of the issue in the case is whether INEC has a constitutional obligation to remove parties that fail to meet electoral performance thresholds set out in Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and reinforced by the Electoral Act 2022 and INEC’s own regulations.

Maduka College Advert

The plaintiffs argue that the affected parties have persistently failed to satisfy the constitutional benchmarks required to retain their registration. These include winning at least 25 per cent of votes in a state during a presidential election or securing at least one elective seat at the national, state or local government level.

They contend that the parties performed poorly in the 2023 general elections and subsequent by-elections, failing to win seats across key tiers of government, yet continue to be recognised by INEC as eligible political platforms.

The plaintiffs maintain that this continued recognition is unlawful and undermines the integrity of Nigeria’s electoral system.

In the affidavit supporting the suit, the forum’s national coordinator, Igbokwe Raphael Nnanna, states that allowing parties that have not met constitutional requirements to remain on the register “is unconstitutional, illegal and a violation” of the governing legal framework.

The suit asks the court to declare that INEC is duty-bound to deregister such parties and to compel the commission to do so before preparations for the 2027 elections advance further.

Beyond declaratory reliefs, the plaintiffs are also seeking far-reaching orders that would bar the affected parties from participating in the next general elections or engaging in political activities such as campaigns, rallies and primaries. They further request injunctions restraining INEC from recognising or dealing with the parties in any official capacity unless and until they comply strictly with constitutional provisions.

Central to the plaintiffs’ argument is their interpretation of the law as imposing a mandatory duty on INEC. They argue that the use of the word “shall” in the Constitution leaves no room for discretion once a party fails to meet the stipulated thresholds.

In their written address, they rely on statutory provisions and judicial precedents to contend that electoral performance is an objective condition that must be enforced to maintain discipline, transparency, and accountability in the political system.

Attorney General backs plaintiff
In a notice filed pursuant to Order 15 Rule 1 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019, the Attorney General, who is a defendant in the suit, formally admitted the plaintiff’s case to the extent of his constitutional responsibilities.

He maintained that, as the chief law officer of the federation, he is duty-bound to defend and uphold the Constitution, including ensuring compliance with the Electoral Act and other laws governing elections in Nigeria.

The filing emphasised that the Attorney General’s role extends beyond litigation to preventive oversight, ensuring that laws are faithfully implemented to maintain public confidence in the electoral process. It described the case as a public interest litigation aimed at safeguarding democratic integrity and promoting constitutional observance.

According to the document, the Attorney General argued that citizens, including the plaintiff group, have the right to challenge constitutional breaches, particularly where electoral processes are concerned. He added that supporting such litigation aligns with his dual role as both a defender of the state and an advocate for citizens’ rights.

The submission also highlighted the broader implications of non-compliance by political parties. It argued that the continued existence of parties that fail to meet constitutional thresholds contributes to ballot congestion, increases the cost of election administration, and undermines the intent of Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which empowers INEC to deregister underperforming parties.

The plaintiff further contended that INEC has no residual discretion to retain parties that do not satisfy the constitutional criteria, insisting that failure to deregister them constitutes a continuing breach of constitutional duty. The suit warned that such inaction could be challenged through public interest litigation, as is the case before the court.

Additionally, the filing noted that the plaintiff, comprising former legislators, possesses the requisite standing to institute the action, having been directly involved in the enactment and oversight of Nigeria’s constitutional and electoral framework.

The Attorney General also underscored the importance of access to justice, arguing that his support for the suit would help bridge gaps faced by citizens seeking to enforce constitutional rights. He maintained that collaboration between government institutions and civic actors is essential to strengthening legal literacy, accountability, and democratic participation.

The Attorney General of the Federation is represented in the suit by a team of lawyers led by Prof. J. O. Olatoke, SAN, alongside O. J. David, U. O. Olufadi, D. O. Bamidele, V. D. Maiye, Waheed Abdulraheem and A. K. Abdulmumin, all of whom signed the court filing before the Federal High Court in Abuja.

The case, which has drawn significant attention within political and legal circles, could have far-reaching implications for Nigeria’s party system ahead of future elections, particularly if the court grants the request to compel INEC to act against the affected parties. (TRIBUNE)

Continue Reading

News

Tinubu names Bianca Odumegwu-Ojukwu as Minister of Foreign Affairs

Published

on

Bianca Odumegwu-Ojukwu, Minister of Foreign Affairs
Spread the love

…Nominates Amb. Sola Enikanolaiye as Minister of State

President Bola Tinubu has appointed Ambassador Bianca Odumegwu-Ojukwu as Nigeria’s new Minister of Foreign Affairs after the resignation of Ambassador Yusuf Tuggar, who is reportedly preparing for a political move ahead of the 2027 general elections.

The President also forwarded the name of Ambassador Sola Enikanolaiye for appointment as Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, pending approval by the Senate.

The appointments were disclosed in a statement released on Wednesday by presidential spokesman Bayo Onanuga.

According to the statement, the reshuffle is aimed at improving Nigeria’s diplomatic strategy and ensuring that the country’s foreign policy supports the administration’s economic agenda more effectively.

“These adjustments are part of ongoing efforts to reposition Nigeria’s foreign policy architecture for greater efficiency, strategic engagement, and stronger global partnerships,” the statement read.

Odumegwu-Ojukwu, who previously served as Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and has years of diplomatic experience, is expected to oversee Nigeria’s international relations as the government intensifies focus on economic diplomacy, regional peace, and wider global partnerships.

Maduka College Advert

The presidency highlighted her long-standing involvement in global affairs, stating:

“Ambassador Odumegwu-Ojukwu brings decades of diplomatic experience and a deep understanding of Nigeria’s engagement with the global community,” the statement read.

Enikanolaiye, a seasoned career diplomat, had earlier worked as Senior Special Assistant to the President on Foreign Affairs and International Relations.

He has represented Nigeria in several cities around the world, including Addis Ababa, London, Ottawa, Belgrade, and New Delhi.

The statement noted that his nomination is expected to strengthen institutional continuity within the foreign service.

“Ambassador Enikanolaiye’s extensive experience across multiple diplomatic missions will support Nigeria’s evolving foreign policy objectives,” the statement added.

President Tinubu congratulated the two diplomats and urged them to place national interest at the forefront while promoting economic diplomacy and improving the welfare of Nigerians living abroad.

Continue Reading

News

Awka blacksmiths lament neglect by Govt, indigenes

Published

on

Spread the love

Continue Reading

Trending

Maduka College Advert