As Rivers State anticipates the conclusion of its six-month emergency rule on Thursday, significant disagreements have surfaced regarding Governor Siminalayi Fubara’s reinstatement. Lawyers, politicians, and activists are divided on whether this necessitates new presidential or parliamentary action, or if it occurs automatically under constitutional provisions.
The expiration of the emergency rule reignites the power struggle within the state, challenging the equilibrium between federal authority, constitutional processes, and state autonomy.
Additionally, it raises wider concerns regarding the legality and implications of suspending a sitting, democratically elected governor.
At the same time, disputes over handover procedures could result in political instability in the state if the transition is not managed effectively.
Lanre Suraj, Chairman of the Human and Environmental Development Agenda (HEDA), asserted that the governor is not required to take a new oath since he was suspended rather than impeached. He clarified that the process of his return is unrelated to the National Assembly, emphasizing that it is irrelevant whether the legislature is in recess.
Suraj stated, “Ibas only needs to transfer authority to either the Secretary to the State Government or the Head of Service on Wednesday evening for power to be seamlessly transferred to Fubara on Thursday without fail.”
He maintained that the National Assembly’s only responsibility is to oversee how Ibas managed the finances of Rivers State during his six-month tenure. Suraj further noted that it is inconsequential whether President Tinubu is on a working leave. “What is crucial is for the Sole Administrator to hand over to either the SSG or HoS on Wednesday evening.
“If Ibas fails to transfer power by Wednesday evening, he could face arrest and prosecution for a criminal offense,” Suraj cautioned.
A former member of the House of Representatives from Rivers State, Bernard Mikko, contended that the President is not required to deliver a national broadcast to facilitate Fubara’s return, nor does the National Assembly have any involvement in this matter. He concurred with Suraj that there is no necessity for the suspended governor to take an additional oath of office.
Nevertheless, the two individuals disagreed on the issue of whether Fubara’s term should be extended by six months. While the HEDA chairman asserted that the six-month extension is unnecessary, Mikko maintained that the National Assembly and legal experts would need to interpret this particular aspect.
In contrast, Idowu Adelusi, a former Chief Press Secretary to the previous Governor Ayo Fayose, who was suspended by ex-President Olusegun Obasanjo in Ekiti State, argued that Fubara’s return cannot be automatic, as some individuals are suggesting.
He criticized the assertion that the National Assembly has no role, emphasizing that Fubara was suspended by President Tinubu through a legal instrument, which was ratified and approved by the House of Representatives. “It is therefore the responsibility of the same President to utilize the same legal instrument to lift the suspension on Fubara, which must also be communicated to the legislature,” he stated.
Adelusi insisted that Fubara cannot simply return to office on Thursday without the involvement of the President and the National Assembly. Referring to Fayose’s situation under Obasanjo, he recalled that the National Assembly was properly notified even when Fayose’s suspension was prolonged.
He warned: “Something substantial must be executed by the President and the National Assembly between today and Wednesday evening, as Ibas cannot continue beyond Wednesday evening as Sole Administrator, and similarly, Fubara cannot just return to the office without due process. However, there can never be a vacuum in Rivers. I speak from experience.
In a separate statement, attorney Living Jamala cautioned that the current absence of President Tinubu, who is on a 10-day working leave, along with the ongoing recess of the National Assembly, should not serve as a rationale for prolonging the emergency rule in Rivers State.
Jamala, also a policy and political analyst, asserted that the imposition of emergency rule and the suspension of the democratically elected governor, his deputy, Prof Ngozi Odu, and the members of the State Assembly were unlawful. He clarified, however, that the process to terminate the state of emergency still requires a proclamation from the President, noting that such a declaration can be made from any location.
“While not conceding that the President was justified in declaring a state of emergency in Rivers State, the procedure for concluding the emergency rule remains the proclamation by the President. Even though he is on a 10-day working leave, he can issue the declaration to restore democratic governance from wherever he may be. The President’s absence from the country should not be a criterion for extending the emergency regime,” Jamala stated.
“The emergency regime was instituted for a defined period of six months. If the President is unable to issue a declaration to terminate such a proclamation, the emergency regime in Rivers State will automatically conclude after the six-month period due to the passage of time. There is no legal provision requiring the National Assembly or any other law stipulating that the National Assembly must convene and approve the declaration by a majority vote to end the emergency rule.
“Therefore, the President’s absence and the Assembly’s recess cannot dictate the conclusion of the emergency regime,” he added.
When asked if Governor Fubara is anticipated to take a new oath, Jamala responded negatively, explaining that a simple declaration by the President that democratic governance has been reinstated would suffice to return Fubara to his position.
