The recent lawsuit filed by former Rivers State Deputy Speaker Marshall Stanley-Uwom challenging President Tinubu’s declaration of emergency rule in Rivers State raises profound questions about constitutional governance and democratic norms in Nigeria. As this case unfolds in the Federal High Court Abuja, it merits serious scrutiny from all concerned citizens.
Constitutional Crisis or Political Maneuver?
At the heart of this controversy lies a fundamental constitutional question: Can the federal government suspend a democratically elected governor and impose a sole administrator without proper parliamentary approval? Stanley-Uwom’s lawsuit directly challenges the procedural legitimacy of the emergency declaration, specifically targeting the absence of a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers of the National Assembly as required by Section 305(6)(b) of the Nigerian Constitution.
The plaintiff’s contention that the emergency declaration was approved through mere “voice votes” rather than a proper count raises serious concerns about procedural compliance. If accurate, this represents a dangerous shortcut around constitutional safeguards designed specifically to prevent the arbitrary suspension of elected officials.
The Overreach of Federal Power
Perhaps most troubling is the reported scope of Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas’s actions since his appointment as sole administrator. According to the lawsuit, Ibas has:
- Dismissed locally elected officials and appointed caretaker committees
- Removed the independently appointed Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission
- Gained control over federal allocations meant for local governments
- Utilized state funds without parliamentary appropriation
These actions, if proven true, represent an extraordinary concentration of power in the hands of a federally appointed administrator with no direct accountability to Rivers State voters. The dismantling of local democratic structures under emergency rule creates a dangerous precedent that could be exploited in future political disputes.
Financial Control as Political Leverage
Stanley-Uwom’s specific request to halt the flow of federal allocations to the sole administrator highlights another troubling dimension: the use of financial control as a mechanism of political dominance. By controlling both state and local government funds, the federal government effectively gains leverage over every aspect of governance in Rivers State.
The diversion of constitutionally guaranteed allocations away from elected local governments to federally appointed caretakers raises serious questions about fiscal federalism and local autonomy. This financial chokehold threatens to undermine the very foundation of Nigeria’s federal system, which depends on a balance of power between national, state, and local authorities.
The Political Context Cannot Be Ignored
While the lawsuit presents technical constitutional arguments, the political context cannot be ignored. Rivers State has been a flashpoint of political tension, particularly in the deteriorating relationship between Governor Siminalayi Fubara and his predecessor Nyesom Wike, now FCT Minister in President Tinubu’s cabinet. The timing of the emergency declaration has led many observers to question whether constitutional emergency powers are being deployed as instruments in personal political disputes.
That Stanley-Uwom served as deputy speaker during Wike’s tenure adds another layer of complexity to this legal challenge. The court case may represent not just a constitutional dispute but another front in the ongoing political battle for control of Rivers State.
The Judiciary’s Moment of Truth
As this case proceeds through the Federal High Court, the judiciary faces a crucial test of its independence and willingness to uphold constitutional principles even when they conflict with executive actions. The court’s ruling will have implications far beyond Rivers State, potentially setting precedents for the limits of emergency powers and the protection of federalism in Nigeria’s democracy.
The emergency rule in Rivers State and the subsequent legal challenge highlight the fragility of democratic institutions when constitutional procedures are circumvented. Regardless of the political affiliations of the actors involved, all Nigerians should be concerned when democratic norms are subordinated to political expediency.
The courts now face the critical task of determining whether President Tinubu’s administration followed proper constitutional procedures or overreached its authority. The outcome will not only determine who governs Rivers State but may well shape the future balance of power between federal and state governments in Nigeria’s democratic experiment.
As this case unfolds, it serves as a reminder that democracy depends not just on elections but on the consistent application of constitutional principles, even perhaps especially in times of political conflict.
Reference
Emergency Rule: Former Deputy Speaker Sues Tinubu, Others, Wants Allocations to Ibas Stopped