Connect with us
Maduka University Advert

News

PDP BoT rejects, demands reversal of Rivers’ emergency rule

Published

on

PDP BOT members during a meeting
Spread the love

The Board of Trustees of the main opposition Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, has rejected President Ahmed Bola Tinubu’s emergency rule in Rivers State.

This is as the BoT faulted the National Assembly for ratifying the President’s action via a mere voice vote instead of the constitutional two-thirds majority.

The body demanded the immediate reversal of the emergence rule, which it said “is a gross violation of the Nigerian Constitution.”

Chairman of the PDP BoT and former Senate President, Senator Adolphus Wabara, in a Sunday statement on behalf of the body, said the action of Mr President could only be imagined during a military era.

The statement read: “The Board of Trustees (BoT) of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, vehemently, and in very strong terms, condemns President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State, suspending the democratically- elected Governor, Deputy Governor, and members of the State House of Assembly. His decision to replace them with a sole Administrator is undemocratic and alien to our Constitution.

“This action is a gross violation of Nigeria’s Constitution – the foundational legal document that guarantees the rights of Nigerians to participate in the democratic process. It is an attack on the very essence of our Republic. It’s an action that deserves the strongest condemnation and corrective action by all well-meaning Nigerians, the judiciary, civil society, and the international community.

Maduka College Advert

“In my capacity as the Chairman of BoT of our great party, the PDP, and a former Senate President, I call for the reversal of this assault on our democracy. It’s sad and disheartening that Mr President ignored my earlier advice to ignore those calling for emergency rule in Rivers State.

” I had also advised him not to lean towards those attempting to hijack power through the back door in Rivers State. I had then sought his intervention as the father of the nation because the political crisis in Rivers State, if mismanaged, is capable of plunging the entire country into a needless political turmoil.

“I unequivocally denounce the President’s action, which disregards the rule of law and undermines the sovereignty of the people of Rivers State. This grossly- undemocratic action constitutes a violation of our Constitution, which the President solemnly swore to uphold, and threatens the very foundation of democracy in Nigeria.

“President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s action only reminded Nigerians of the better-forgotten era of military dictatorship. Could it be a mere coincidence that the day the PDP National Secretariat land in Abuja was revoked by the APC-led administration , was the same day the Governor of Rivers State was served impeachment notice?”

“Nigeria’s Constitution, under Section 7(1), mandates that each state shall have a government that is formed through the democratic process of elections. The people of Rivers State exercised their democratic rights in electing their leaders, including the State Governor, Deputy Governor, and Members of the House of Assembly.

“These leaders were not appointed by the President or any other authority but were chosen by the people to represent their interests. The Constitution guarantees their right to serve the duration of their mandate, and the President’s unilateral suspension of these duly elected officials is a direct breach of the people’s will.

The PDP BoT acknowledged the President’s power to declare emergency rule on any state, but it said the power is not limitless.

“Where as the President under Section 305 of the Constitution, is vested with the power to declare a state of emergency, such power is not without limits. The President can only declare a state of emergency in specific circumstances such as war, insurrection, or other situations that threaten the integrity of the nation. The situation in Rivers State does not meet the constitutional criteria for such a declaration. “

It further read: “The absence of any pressing national emergency renders the President’s decision not only unwarranted but also an abuse of power. A declaration of emergency does not automatically dissolve or suspend elected state governments. The Constitution does not empower the President to unilaterally remove or replace elected officials; such actions amount to an unconstitutional usurpation of power and a fundamental breach of Nigeria’s federal structure.

“The President’s decision to replace democratically elected officials with an unelected Sole Administrator is nothing short of a democratic travesty. It is a stark reminder of the fragility of our democratic institutions and the persistence of authoritarian tendencies by the President.

” By dissolving the elected government of Rivers State, the President has effectively denied the people their right to be governed by officials of their choosing. This move is not just unconstitutional; it is a blatant effort to subvert democracy and install unelected officials who are more likely to be subservient to executive power than representatives of the people.”

The PDP BoT expressed shock that President Tinubu, who stoutly opposed the emergency rule imposed by former President Goodluck Jonathan in the North East in 2013, would be applying the same measure he condemned.

“It’s surprising that Bola Ahmed Tinubu, who condemned President Goodluck Jonathan in 2013, when he proclaimed a state of emergency in Borno, Yobe and Adamawa States that Boko Haram insurgents ravaged, could declare a state of emergency in Rivers State and suspend democratically -elected government unprovoked.

“This is nothing short of hypocrisy and a well-orchestrated plan to highjack power from Rivers State Governor in the accomplishment of his 2027 presidential ambition. This is a veiled plot for APC to take over Rivers State.

The statement further read: “In a democracy, power belongs to the people, not to the whims of the executive. When the people of Rivers State chose their representatives, they entrusted them with the responsibility to govern according to their wishes and in accordance with the Constitution.

“The President’s action has upended that process and deprived the citizens of Rivers State of their constitutional right to self-governance. This is a dangerous precedent that could be replicated in other states across the country, and it is one that all Nigerians, regardless of political affiliation, should reject.”

The PDP BoT further accused President Tinubu of bias against Governor Siminalayi Fubara for blaming only the Governor for the crisis in Rivers while tactfully shielding other gladiators.

“President Bola Ahmed Tinubu was hypocritical, deceptive and playing to the gallery when he said in his nationwide broadcast that he made personal interventions between the contending parties for a peaceful resolution of the crisis, but his efforts have been largely ignored by the parties to the crisis.

“Can he deny that his allies are part of the political crisis rocking Rivers State? Why did he in his hypocritical broadcast fail to call them to order or blame them the way he blamed Gov. Fubara? It’s only obvious that Mr President tactfully shielded those acting out his script for unconstitutional takeover of power in Rivers State.”

The statement also faulted President Tinubu for accusing Governor Fubara of failing to prevent the explosion at the oil pipelines when the security agencies were not under the president’s command.

“Mr President claimed that the latest security reports made available to him showed that there had been disturbing incidents of pipeline vandalism by some militant without the Governor taking any action, as if the Governor was the Grand Commander of the Order of the Federal Republic (GCFR) or the Chief of Defense Staff. He was invariably looking for unjustifiable excuse for his dictatorial actions.”

The PDP BoT queried the constitutionality of the President’s pronouncement that the Sole Administrator he appointed for Rivers would “be free to formulate regulations,” alleging it is a ploy to gain illegal access to Rivers’ funds.

“Equally disturbing is President Ahmed Tinubu’s statement that “the Administrator will not make any new laws but will be free to formulate regulations as may be found necessary to do his job, but such regulations will need to be considered and approved by the Federal Executive Council and promulgated by the President for the state.

“This is a dangerous overreach and a terrible precedence that speaks volumes of the President’s intentions to un-democratically usurp power from Rivers State Governor and undermine the Legislative Arm of Government vested with the responsibility of making laws. Is this not a veiled plot to gain unholy access to Rivers funds?

“There is no gainsaying the fact that the struggle over the control of Rivers’ resources is the genesis of the political crisis rocking the state. It’s an open secret that those who see Gov. Fubara as an obstacle to their unfettered access to Rivers’ Treasury have been pushing to remove him from office at all costs.

PDP BoT said it was further devastated “by the provocative process adopted by the National Assembly in ratifying the action of Mr President.”

The body said that approving a state of emergency via a voice vote instead of the constitutional two-third majority “is another travesty of justice, legislative rascality and rape of democracy.”

“The claims by the Speaker of the House of Representatives that there were 243 members on the register is laughable. Those 243 members should be physically present in the chamber and not on the register. Names on the register without physical presence do not in any way translate to a two-thirds majority. What translates to a two-thirds majority is physical voting or electronic voting. The presiding officer will mention your name, and you say ‘Aye or Nay.’ Afterward, they will calculate the numbers and do the arithmetic until you get a two-thirds majority.

“Such a serious matter cannot be decided through a voice vote; otherwise, somebody may come up one day and say the President, Governor or Council Chairman has been impeached via a voice vote. It’s undemocratic! You must do the arithmetic physical counting or electronic ballot to arrive at a two-thirds majority, and that cannot be done by voice vote. In the Senate, the two-thirds majority is 73. The National Assembly must not be seen as a rubber stamp but serve as checks to the other arms of Government.
The National Assembly must not disappoint Nigerians in the discharge of their constitutional duties but rise to the occasion and help find a political and lasting solution to the crisis in Rivers State. They should engage Mr President and find a way to adopt a Doctrine of Necessity to salvage the situation.”

Therefore, it called on the National Assembly to protect Nigeria’s democracy from the Executive’s strangulation.

“The National Assembly must defend our democracy and protect the rule of law. Our Constitution must be upheld as the supreme legal authority in all circumstances, and we must ensure that power remains firmly in the hands of the people, where it rightfully belongs. The Nigerian people deserve no less.

PDP BoT expressed solidarity for Governor Fubara and the people of Rivers State over their current challenge.

“Members of the PDP Board of Trustees, join the PDP Governors Forum, and the NWC to stand in solidarity with His Excellency, Governor Siminalayi Fubara of Rivers State, and the good people of Rivers State at this very difficult and trying moment of the state’s political history.”

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