Despite the backlash surrounding Tinubu’s decision, the House of Representatives endorsed the president’s action through a voice vote, further complicating the ongoing crisis in the oil-rich state.
Dawodu, who represents Oshodi/Isolo in Lagos State, dismissed the criticisms regarding the lawmakers’ choice to utilize a voice vote. As a member of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), he asserted that the House has the authority to decide its voting procedures.
“My point is that it is constitutional for the House to determine its operational methods on a daily basis,” he stated during an appearance on a televised show. “That is the law.”
Dawodu explained that while electronic voting is employed for certain matters, the House of Representatives is not obligated to use it in every instance.
“The decision depends on the specific rules we are following. For instance, we used electronic voting during the election of the previous speaker [Femi Gbajabiamila], which is different from the current election of the speaker [Tajudeen Abbas]. The rules vary,” he elaborated on the current affairs program.
“In our daily practice, we frequently use voice voting. I don’t believe this situation is any different.”
Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers, along with the suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy Ngozi Odu, and members of the Rivers State House of Assembly, has faced significant opposition from various prominent organizations and individuals nationwide.
While President Tinubu justified his actions by citing pipeline explosions in the state and the necessity for peace, Afam Osigwe, the president of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), criticized the move. “We believe that the president should restore Fubara to power, as his removal was unconstitutional,” Osigwe stated during the program when asked about the president’s actions.
This is the reason we do not acknowledge a single administrator as the legitimate individual entitled to reside in the Government House in Rivers State, given that his appointment was unconstitutional.
“Even when I witnessed him taking the oath of office, I questioned the validity of the oath he was swearing, as it was not one recognized by the constitution, which does not acknowledge the role of an administrator.”
