Dr. Reuben Abati, a seasoned journalist and former Senior Adviser on Media and Publicity to ex-President Goodluck Jonathan, has accused President Bola Tinubu of committing an impeachable offense after he declared a state of emergency in Rivers State. Abati, speaking on Arise Television’s Morning Show, argued that Tinubu’s actions violated the Nigerian Constitution, specifically Section 305, which governs the declaration of a state of emergency.
Abati raised several constitutional concerns regarding Tinubu’s proclamation. He pointed out that Section 305 of the Constitution outlines the conditions under which a state of emergency can be declared, including situations where there is a threat of war or chaos, or when a state governor fails to address a crisis. However, Abati questioned whether these conditions were met in Rivers State and emphasized that the President’s actions were not in line with the provisions of the Constitution. He noted that for a state of emergency to be valid, the proclamation must be gazetted, and the National Assembly must act within a set time frame.
Abati also highlighted that the President had exceeded his constitutional powers by claiming the right to make laws for the Rivers State House of Assembly and giving the appointed administrator the power to make regulations. He stated that only the National Assembly has the authority to make laws for a state House of Assembly during a state of emergency, as outlined in Section 11 of the Constitution. By overstepping these boundaries, Abati argued, President Tinubu had acted like a dictator, which he believes is an impeachable offense.
Furthermore, Abati pointed out that under Section 188 of the Constitution, a governor can only be removed through a formal impeachment process by the state House of Assembly, not by the President’s proclamation. He concluded that Tinubu had acted unilaterally and in violation of the constitutional provisions that govern the functioning of Nigeria’s federal structure.
Abati’s statements call into question the legality of Tinubu’s actions and suggest that the President’s advisors may not have properly guided him on the constitutional requirements surrounding such a significant decision.