In yet another pivotal legislative decision, the Nigerian Senate has given its approval to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s proclamation of a state of emergency in Rivers State. This endorsement, aligning with an earlier resolution by the House of Representatives, invokes constitutional provisions under the amended 1999 Constitution. The approval empowers the President to enforce emergency measures in the state, subject to periodic legislative review, with a stipulated maximum duration of six months.
To ensure oversight, the National Assembly has mandated the establishment of a joint committee composed of members from both legislative chambers to monitor governance in Rivers State throughout the emergency period. This measure aims to prevent executive overreach and uphold constitutional principles in the administration of the state during this critical time.
Additionally, the Senate resolved to form a mediation committee comprising respected national figures tasked with facilitating dialogue and de-escalating political tensions within Rivers State. This initiative mirrors the House of Representatives’ earlier resolution, reinforcing the need for a peaceful resolution to the state’s ongoing crisis.
However, the manner in which this decision was reached has sparked significant debate. The approval was secured through a voice vote, a method where lawmakers verbally express their support or opposition. Critics argue that this approach lacks transparency, especially for a decision of this magnitude. Section 305(6) of the 1999 Constitution explicitly mandates a two-thirds majority vote for a state of emergency to be valid. Legal experts have pointed out that a voice vote, which does not provide a recorded count of individual votes, may not satisfy this constitutional requirement.
The implications of voice voting in this context are far-reaching. While the practice is common for minor legislative matters, its application in approving a state of emergency—a decision that temporarily alters democratic governance—raises questions about due process. Legal precedents, including Attorney General of Abia State v. Attorney General of the Federation (2002), have emphasized the necessity of strict adherence to constitutional provisions in legislative decisions. If challenged in court, the legitimacy of the National Assembly’s approval could be contested on the grounds that it did not meet the constitutional threshold.
During deliberations, the House of Representatives, in its plenary session presided over by Speaker Tajudeen Abbas, saw the attendance of 240 members. The House made crucial amendments, including the formation of the mediation committee, reinforcing the role of eminent Nigerians in resolving the crisis. Lawmakers also underscored the constitutional mandate that allows the National Assembly to legislate on behalf of a state legislature when it is unable to perform its functions, a provision that contrasts with the Federal Government’s initial suggestion of assigning this role to the Federal Executive Council.
More Read
As the Senate and House of Representatives stand united in approving the state of emergency, the focus now shifts to its implementation and the potential legal challenges that may arise. The decision has ignited critical discussions about democratic processes, constitutional interpretation, and the broader implications of emergency governance in Nigeria. Whether this resolution withstands legal scrutiny or sets a controversial precedent remains to be seen.
