Carsel Obioma blasts Tinubu, National Assembly over Rivers Emergency rule
Hon. Carsel Obioma Sunday’s statement echoes the increasing concerns regarding the state of democracy in Nigeria, which has been plagued by persistent challenges, including electoral irregularities, corruption, and weak democratic institutions, and despite the adoption of a democratic framework, issues such as vote-buying, violence during elections, and low voter turnout undermine the legitimacy of its democratic processes.
Nigeria’s democracy has also struggled with ethnic and regional divides, poor governance, and systemic corruption, which have eroded public trust in leadership. Historical and recent elections have been marred by logistical failures and allegations of fraud, further complicating efforts to establish a stable democratic culture. This moment indeed calls for introspection among political leaders to address these systemic flaws and restore faith in governance.
Hon. Carsel Obioma Sunday, a prominent advocate for good governance in Rivers State, has expressed critical views on the current state of democracy in Nigeria. He stated that Nigeria’s version of democracy has become a mockery of its people, emphasizing the need for political leaders to reflect on their actions as the world observes the nation’s political climate.
His remarks highlight the ongoing challenges within Nigeria’s democratic framework, including issues of governance and accountability, urging leaders to prioritize justice and integrity in their practices
The rectification of the state of emergency in Rivers State by Nigeria’s House of Representatives and Senate has drawn criticism and disappointment from various quarters.
President Bola Tinubu declared the emergency on March 18, 2025, citing prolonged political crises, security concerns, and pipeline vandalism.
This action led to the suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, and the state legislature, with Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ekwe Ibas (Rtd.) appointed as interim administrator for six months.
Critics, including the Nigerian Bar Association, have labeled the move unconstitutional, arguing that the 1999 Constitution does not grant the president authority to remove elected officials under a state of emergency.
Legal experts have called for judicial intervention to address potential overreach and uphold democratic principles
Obiora has criticized the inability of PDP parliamentarians and other opposition parties to block the approval of the state of emergency in Rivers State. Despite their presence, both the House of Representatives and the Senate approved President Tinubu’s proclamation on March 20, 2025. The approval process, conducted through a voice vote, bypassed a detailed vote count, raising concerns about whether the constitutionally required two-thirds majority was met.
This situation highlights the opposition’s limited influence in preventing such measures, even amidst significant political and constitutional debates
The declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State by President Bola Tinubu and the subsequent suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara, Deputy Governor Ngozi Odu, and the state legislature have been criticized for allegedly violating Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution. Critics argue that the president’s actions bypassed constitutional requirements, such as the need for a request from the governor or a two-thirds majority approval from the National Assembly for the emergency declaration to take effect. Despite these concerns, both the House of Representatives and the Senate approved the emergency rule through voice votes
Though, the Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria grants the president the power to declare a state of emergency under certain conditions. However, it does not explicitly empower the president to suspend elected officials such as the governor, deputy governor, or members of the state legislature. Critics argue that the suspension of these officials exceeds the president’s constitutional authority and undermines democratic principles by bypassing the normal processes for removing elected officials, which typically involve impeachment or other legal mechanisms. This action has sparked legal and political debates about the limits of presidential power during a state of emergency.
Hon. Carsel Obioma Sunday has strongly criticized President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State, particularly the suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara, Deputy Governor Ngozi Odu, and members of the state legislature. He argued that these actions blatantly violate Section 188 of the 1999 Constitution, which outlines the procedure for removing elected officials. This section requires allegations of misconduct to be presented to the legislature and investigated by a panel before any removal can occur.
Furthermore, Obioma condemned Tinubu’s appropriation of legislative powers in Rivers State, describing it as dictatorial and an affront to democratic principles. Legal experts and the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) have similarly asserted that while Section 305 allows the president to declare a state of emergency, it does not grant authority to suspend or remove elected officials. These actions have been widely criticized as unconstitutional and a dangerous precedent undermining Nigeria’s federal structure and democratic governance.
Hon. Carsel stated so and goes further to explain that under Section 11 of the 1999 constitution it is only the National Assembly that can make laws for the state, under such circumstances.
Perhaps, Tinubu should have learnt lessons from former President Goodluck Jonathan. Going back memory lane when Jonathan declared state of emergency, specifically in the three embattled North-Eastern states of Adamawa, Borno and Yobe due to the monstrous rampaging monster of insecurity he made sure that no state governor was removed from office. That was in 2013.
He knows so well that a state of emergency allows the federal government to take firm control of security and impose restrictions on movement in certain areas.
Hon. Carsel Obioma Sunday has shed light on the constitutional implications of President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State, emphasizing that the president’s actions violate both Section 305 and Section 188 of the 1999 Constitution. He explained that while the 1961 State of Emergency Act allowed the removal of premiers, the 1979 and 1999 Constitutions do not permit the suspension or removal of elected officials under emergency rule.
Obioma firmly stated that Tinubu’s suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, and state lawmakers is unconstitutional and amounts to an aberration of the rule of law. He further argued that under Section 11, only the National Assembly can legislate for a state during such circumstances, making Tinubu’s unilateral assumption of legislative powers a breach of federal principles. Drawing comparisons, Obioma highlighted former President Goodluck Jonathan’s approach in 2013, where governors in states under emergency rule were not removed, respecting democratic structures while addressing insecurity.
Obioma described Tinubu’s actions as an impeachable offense, asserting that they undermine Nigeria’s democratic framework and set a dangerous precedent for executive overreach. Legal experts have echoed similar concerns, calling for judicial intervention to uphold constitutional provisions and prevent further violations.
“Inspite of previous attempts to find a sustainable solution to the face-off between Governor Fubara and Nyesom Wike, the latter who got appointment as the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, FCT Abuja on account of his open support for Tinubu’s presidency in 2023, the president has apparently pitched tent with Wike. That is the one man who believes his political might is his legal right. Subsequent to one court judgment after another, regarding the 27 lawmakers’ validity the pendulum of the Supreme Court judgement which eventually swung in their favour triggered the shockwaves beneath Fubara’s governorship seat. With that Wike and his allies were ready to nail his political coffin. But it is legally obnoxious that the President has violated the constitution, all in the bid to satisfy the bold and brazen ambition of Wike to play the demi-god in the political drama as it unfolded, not minding the consequences to the traumatized people of Rivers state. That situation has set off some burning questions.”
Critics are questioning why President Bola Tinubu effectively mediated the Lagos State House of Assembly crisis but did not apply similar diplomatic efforts in resolving the Rivers State political impasse. In Lagos, Tinubu intervened by endorsing Mudashiru Obasa’s return as Speaker, despite earlier recommendations for his resignation, thereby stabilizing the Assembly.
Regarding Rivers State, there are unsubstantiated claims that the conflict between Governor Siminalayi Fubara and Nyesom Wike may involve financial disagreements. However, these claims are not officially confirmed. The pipeline vandalism issue has been cited as a reason for declaring a state of emergency, but some speculate it might be used to discredit Fubara politically. There is no concrete evidence to support these assertions, and they remain speculative.
The National Assembly has a constitutional responsibility to act as the representative of the people and ensure adherence to the rule of law. Under Section 4 of the 1999 Constitution, it is empowered to make laws for peace, order, and good governance, and also to check executive actions through oversight functions. Critics have described President Tinubu’s suspension of elected officials in Rivers State as unconstitutional, arguing that it violates provisions like Section 305 and Section 188, which outline procedures for emergency declarations and removal of elected officials.
The National Assembly has investigatory powers under Section 88 to probe executive actions that may contravene legal provisions. If Tinubu’s actions are deemed illegal, it is within the Assembly’s authority to challenge them and prevent further erosion of democratic principles. This situation underscores the need for the legislature to assert its independence and protect Nigeria’s constitutional democracy.
