The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has faulted the supreme court’s judgement affirming the president’s powers to declare a state of emergency and suspend elected officials in any part of the country.
BACKROUND
In March, President Bola Tinubu imposed emergency rule in
Rivers, suspended Siminalayi Fubara, governor of the state, and Ngozi Odu, his
deputy, and the house of assembly for six months.
Governors elected on the platform of the PDP questioned the
legality of the president’s actions, particularly on whether he can lawfully
suspend or interfere with the offices of a governor and deputy governor,
replacing them with a sole administrator.
The governors subsequently challenged the emergency rule at
the supreme court, arguing that Tinubu violated the provisions of the 1999
Constitution regarding the powers, independence and functions of state
governors and assemblies.
But delivering judgement on Monday, the supreme court upheld
the president’s powers to declare a state of emergency and suspend elected
officials within a set timeframe to forestall a breakdown of law and order.
Mohammed Idris, who read the majority judgement, said
section 305 of the 1999 Constitution gives the president the discretion to
decide what measures to take during a state of emergency.
In a split decision of six to one, the apex court also held
that the president could suspend elected officials for a limited period.
The court subsequently struck out and dismissed the
plaintiffs’ suit for want of jurisdiction.
Tinubu lifted the Rivers’ emergency rule in September.
‘DANGEROUS DEMOCRATIC BEND’
However, in a statement on Monday, Ini Ememobong, PDP
spokesperson, described the supreme court ruling as a “dangerous democratic
bend with far-reaching implications” for federalism and constitutional
governance.
“While we respect the authority of the apex court and
recognise its finality within our jurisdiction, we are nevertheless compelled
to draw attention to the grave dangers that can emanate from the interpretation
of the reasoning in this judgement on the political landscape of our country,”
the statement reads.
“Our concern is anchored on the age-long principle of law
that the express mention of one thing excludes others (expressio unius est
exclusio alterius), and the clear constitutional position that no person or
institution (other than the state house of assembly or a court of law) is
empowered to remove a governor from office, even temporarily, during the
subsistence of a constitutional term.
“To hold otherwise is to create a pathway by which a
president, with the active support of the national assembly, can compel
political alignment or compliance through the instrumentality of emergency
powers in ways not envisaged by the constitution.
“We submit that the interpretation of this judgment has the
potential to reverse the hard-won democratic gains by unwittingly making state
governments completely subservient to the federal government, forcing them to
seek to ‘connect to the centre’ by joining the ruling party, as we are already
witnessing.
“We cannot reconcile how, in a federation (not a unitary
state), an elected president can be empowered to dismantle the democratic
structures of a federating unit, sack elected officials, and appoint leaders
there, without consciously promoting authoritarianism and entrenching tyranny.
Ememobong asked the national assembly to “urgently initiate
constitutional and legislative safeguards” to clearly define and limit the
scope of the president’s emergency powers, to prevent imminent abuse and
preserve Nigeria’s federation.
Advertise on NigerianEye.com to reach thousands of our daily users
No comments
Post a Comment
Kindly drop a comment below.
(Comments are moderated. Clean comments will be approved immediately)
Advert Enquires - Reach out to us at NigerianEye@gmail.com