Dr Fara Dagogo, has described the declaration of a State of Emergency in Rivers State by President Bola Tinubu as a slap on the Constitution.
Dr. Dagogo was a member of the House of Representatives member, (Degema, Bonny, Federal Constituency).
The former legislator made the remark on Tuesday in a statement issued to newsmen in Port Harcourt while reacting to the emergence rule declared on Rivers.
He said that the declaration was questionable under the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).
Dr. Fara added that Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) outlined the conditions under which the President might declare a state of emergency.
According to Dagogo, specifically, Section 305(1), the President may, by instrument published in the Official Gazette, issue a proclamation of a state of emergency in the federation or any part thereof.
‘’Section 305(3) states that the President may only declare a state of emergency in a state if the Governor of the state, with a resolution supported by two-thirds majority of the House of Assembly, requests the President to do so;
“If there is actual breakdown of public order and public safety requiring extraordinary measures;
“Or If there is a clear and present danger of an actual breakdown of public order and public safety in the federation or any part thereof;
“If there is an occurrence or imminent danger of invasion, war, or insurrection; or if there is a natural disaster or public health emergency;
“Or if there is any other danger threatening the existence of the federation,”Dagogo explained.
Dagogo said that President Tinubu admitted that the Governor and Deputy Governor did not request the proclamation (as required under Section 305(5).
He said that the legal basis for the declaration rested on whether or not the public order and public safety had truly broken down, justifying the invocation of emergency powers.
Speaking on legality of the Suspension of the Governor, Deputy Governor, and State House of Assembly, Dagogo said that the controversial aspect of the declaration was their suspension under the 1999 Constitution.
According to him, the only legal way to remove a Governor or Deputy Governor is through impeachment by the State House of Assembly under Section 188.
He stated that the Constitution does not grant the President the power to suspend or remove a Governor or Deputy Governor outside the impeachment process or a valid resignation.
Dagogo said that section 11(4) and (5) stated that only the National Assembly could take over legislative functions of a state House of Assembly in cases where it could not function.
It does not allow for the suspension of elected lawmakers.
Dagogo explained that given the constitutional provisions, President Tinubu’s suspension of elected officials was unconstitutional, as there was no provision in the 1999 constitution granting such powers.
“Even during a state of emergency, the Governor and Deputy Governor remain in office, unless removed in accordance with constitutional procedures,” he said.
He said that the appointment of Vice Admiral Ibok Ette Ibas (Rtd) as the Administrator to govern Rivers State raised another constitutional issue.
“The 1999 Constitution does not recognize the office of an “Administrator” in place of an elected Governor
‘’The constitution only provides for a Governor elected by the people (Section 176(1)), a Deputy Governor elected alongside the Governor (Section 186),” he said.
Dagogo mentioned that the only situation where an unelected official could assume control of a state is under military rule, which was not applicable under a democratic system governed by the 1999 constitution.
He noted the role of the National Assembly in approving the State of Emergency, saying that under section 305(2) and (6), the President must transmit the emergency proclamation to the National Assembly for approval within two days.
“If the National Assembly does not approve it within 10 days, the proclamation ceases to have effect.
Dagogo while giving the constitutional breaches in the proclamation of Judicial interpretation and possible legal challenges, said that there were strong grounds for legal challenges in court.
“The Supreme Court’s pronouncement in A.G. Federation v. A.G. Lagos State (2013) LPELR-20974(SC) reaffirms the principle that the President must act within constitutional limits, even in extraordinary situations,” he noted.
Dagogo stated that ‘’any action outside the scope of the 1999 constitution is illegal’’ and could be overturned by the courts.
