The political landscape in Nigeria has been thrown into turmoil following President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State. This unprecedented move, which effectively removed Governor Siminalayi Fubara from office, has sparked nationwide debate, with many questioning its legality.
Veteran journalist and former presidential spokesperson Dr. Reuben Abati has strongly condemned Tinubu’s decision, arguing that it constitutes an impeachable offense. Speaking on Arise Television’s Morning Show, Abati outlined multiple constitutional violations, stating that Tinubu acted as a dictator by assuming powers that only the National Assembly and the judiciary hold.
Reuben Abati’s Statement: Why Tinubu’s Action Is Unconstitutional
During his television appearance, Reuben Abati provided a detailed analysis of how President Tinubu violated the Nigerian Constitution, citing Sections 305 and 188 of the 1999 Constitution.
Key Points From Abati’s Statement:
- The President cannot remove a governor from office – The Nigerian Constitution does not grant the president the power to unilaterally remove an elected governor. Section 188 clearly outlines that a governor can only be removed through impeachment by the State House of Assembly, followed by an investigation by an independent panel.
- State of Emergency requirements were not met – Section 305 states that a state of emergency can only be declared in cases of war, insurrection, natural disaster, or when a governor fails to maintain order. Abati questioned whether Rivers State met any of these conditions.
- The Federal Executive Council (FEC) cannot make laws for Rivers State – Tinubu’s claim that his appointed Administrator can make regulations and that laws for the State House of Assembly would be made by the FEC is unconstitutional. Section 11 states that only the National Assembly has the power to make laws for a state under emergency conditions.
- Tinubu acted like a dictator – Abati accused Tinubu of appropriating legislative and executive powers, making decisions without the National Assembly’s approval, which he described as an impeachable offense.
Full Transcript of Reuben Abati’s Statement on Tinubu’s Decision
“Let me first comment from an interpretation of the Constitution which the President himself highlighted. He said he was acting within the purview of Section 305 of the Constitution.
“Section 305 of the Constitution explains the circumstances under which the President shall declare a state of emergency, and the conditions are properly stated. If the country is facing a threat of war or imminent war. Is Nigeria facing the threat of war in Rivers state? That’s one question.”
“It also talks about, you know, a situation whereby something could happen in any part of the Federation where, you know, Nigeria, could find itself in a chaotic situation, and the President is required to act.”
“Number three, where the governor in that particular state does not immediately respond, you know, to the crisis situation and does not approach the President to act in the national interest.”
“So those conditions are properly spelled out. However, that same Section 305 says that the President, you know, will give a proclamation, which will be gazetted, and then we’ll go to the National Assembly, and the National Assembly, if it’s in session within, I think, 48 hours would act. If it’s in recess within 10 days, it will act.”
“If the National Assembly does not consider that particular proclamation gazetted valid, then it will vote otherwise—two-thirds majority of the two houses, the Senate and the House of Representatives. And if that happens, the decision is abated.”
“Let me now say that Section 305, which the President quoted, is the operative principle. Now let’s look at what the President said. I think that the President has violated the Constitution even within the purview of Section 305, and he has violated the Constitution because he was not properly advised to respect that Section of the Constitution.”
“In what regard did he violate that Section of the Constitution? In fact, he acted as a dictator by saying that the administrator that he has 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 same Constitution says that, look, when there is a state of emergency, it’s only the National Assembly that can make laws for a state House of Assembly.”
“Now, President Tinubu has appropriated unto himself the powers to make laws for the Rivers State House of Assembly. That’s an impeachable offense.”
“I don’t know whether the National Assembly will have the courage either to reject his gazetted proclamation or to proceed on an issue of impeachment against him for violating the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”
“Now, the other relevant portion of the Constitution is Section 188, which spells out how a governor can be removed from office.”
“A governor cannot be removed from office by the proclamation of the President of Nigeria; he can only be removed if there is gross misconduct, as you know, put as an allegation by the House of Assembly, and then the Chief Judge is advised to form a panel of reasonable people—you know, people of distinguished qualities in the state.”
“And if that panel now decides, within the purview of Section 180, that those allegations are wrong, that puts an end to that process. The President has not followed that.”
“He has acted unilaterally. Section 1, Subsection 2 of the same Constitution says that this country, called Nigeria, cannot be governed except by the provisions of the Constitution.”
“There is no provision in the 1999 Constitution that says the President of Nigeria can unilaterally remove a governor, remove the deputy governor, or dissolve the legislature in any state.
“So, that, again, proves that this is a violation of the Constitution. The people who advised the President must be called to order.”
What Happens Next? Could Tinubu Face Impeachment?
Given the constitutional violations outlined by Abati, there are now calls for the National Assembly to challenge Tinubu’s decision. However, with the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) controlling the legislature, the likelihood of impeachment remains uncertain.
Legal experts argue that if the Supreme Court rules against Tinubu, it could overturn the state of emergency declaration, reinstating Governor Fubara. This would be a significant blow to Tinubu’s administration and could damage his credibility ahead of the 2027 elections.
FAQs on President Tinubu declares state of emergency in Rivers State
1. Can the President remove a governor from office?
No. Under the 1999 Constitution, only the State House of Assembly can remove a governor through impeachment.
2. What is an impeachable offense?
An impeachable offense includes gross misconduct, abuse of power, and violations of the Constitution, as outlined in Section 143.
3. What happens if Tinubu is impeached?
If impeached, Vice President Kashim Shettima would assume office until the next election.
4. Can the Supreme Court overturn Tinubu’s decision?
Yes. The Supreme Court has the authority to rule Tinubu’s decision unconstitutional, potentially reinstating Governor Fubara.
5. Has any Nigerian president been impeached before?
No, but attempts were made against Olusegun Obasanjo in 2002 and Goodluck Jonathan in 2012, though both failed.
