When President Bola Ahmed Tinubu declared a state of emergency in Rivers State in March, he sent a letter of proclamation to the National Assembly for passage. Relying on Section 305 of the Constitution, the President cited insecurity and violence as the basis for the declaration. The procedure for a valid proclamation of a state of emergency is clearly spelt out in Section 305(2) of the Constitution.
The Section reads as follows:
“The President shall, immediately after the publication, transmit copies of the Official Gazette of the Government of the Federation containing the proclamation, including the details of the emergency, to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, each of whom shall forthwith convene or arrange for a meeting of the House of which he is President or Speaker, as the case may be, to consider the situation and decide whether or not to pass a resolution approving the proclamation.”
When the President submitted his letter to both chambers of the National Assembly, the resolutions of both houses were supposed to be uniform and identical. It does not appear this happened. Both chambers approved the proclamation of a state of emergency—with what they each described as “different modifications.”
However, the legislative procedure for passage of a bill is clear: for it to be valid, it must be the same in both houses. Otherwise, the two chambers are expected to meet to harmonize any differences. That harmonization never took place.
In the resolution by the House of Representatives, lawmakers adopted the establishment of a National Committee to mediate and restore peace in the state. The Senate, on the other hand, adopted a different resolution, calling instead for the establishment of an ad hoc committee to mediate.
Furthermore, the Senate invoked Section 11(4), which authorizes the National Assembly to assume legislative powers of a state—but the House of Representatives did not pass this same resolution. The deliberation on the President’s proclamation letter concluded just a day after it was submitted, and there is no evidence that the differing votes of both chambers were reconciled, or that a uniform resolution was ever transmitted back to the President.
This violates the legislative process and suggests that the state of emergency proclamation for Rivers State was never validly concluded in the National Assembly. Critics argue this means the declaration never received proper legislative approval, as required under the Constitution.
More questions of unconstitutionality have also been raised, particularly over the use of voice votes—which critics argue is not what the Constitution envisions for such a weighty matter as a state of emergency proclamation.
Meanwhile, the situation continues to unfold. The House of Representatives is already in full gear, setting up what it calls an Ad Hoc Committee for Rivers State Oversight.
Again, constitutional concerns arise. Section 11(4) is very clear that the National Assembly—as a whole—may exercise legislative powers over a state, only under specific conditions. It does not empower a sub-unit like an ad hoc committee of just one chamber to do so. Nevertheless, the House’s ad hoc committee has proceeded to invite the so-called Sole Administrator to appear before it. It is unclear in what capacity—either for the Sole Administrator, or for the said ad hoc committee.
Once again, these constitutional transgressions are raising alarm bells among Nigeria’s democracy watchers.