This whole-out removal of elected officials of Rivers State sets a dangerous precedent for democracy. Presidential overreach can be addictive. Once a leader becomes accustomed to exerting unchecked power, it becomes the modus operandi for governance. The question is, who or what is next? In a system where opposition exists only during electoral contests, Nigeria risks sliding into dictatorship, with politicians and citizens retreating into fear to avoid the president’s wrath.
In a recent conversation with some friends, I argued that two key political contentions might have been settled in Nigeria. The first is the issue of tenure extension. The failure of President Obasanjo’s third-term bid and President Goodluck Jonathan’s inability to secure what some called his third election seemed to have resolved the contentious issue of tenure elongation, which has plagued both civilian and military leadership in Nigeria. Earlier, the coup against General Gowon stemmed from his decision to delay handing over power in 1976, just as Babangida’s prolonged transition and Abacha’s despotic attempt to transmute into a civilian president demonstrated the dangers of indefinite rule.
The second issue that seemed settled was the declaration of a state of emergency leading to the removal of elected officials. Historically, this has been a controversial subject, from the emergency in the Western Region during the First Republic to those declared by Obasanjo in his early presidency. However, judicial pronouncements, particularly the Supreme Court’s ruling on the illegality of forcefully removing elected officials, seemed to have put the matter to rest. President Goodluck Jonathan’s failure to secure support for an all-out emergency rule in Borno, Adamawa, and Yobe states during the Boko Haram crisis reinforced this precedent. Even President Buhari, despite the temptations in Benue and Zamfara, refrained from declaring an emergency and removing elected officials during his eight-year tenure.
|
|
Recent developments, however, have proved me wrong. Like the Nigerian economy, its politics defy all conventions, not just due to complexity but also because of rampant opportunism, corruption, institutional decay, and disregard for the rule of law. Policies, laws, judicial pronouncements, executive decisions, and precedents are disregarded in favour of the idiosyncratic interest of the ruling class. Otherwise, how does one explain the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State and the outright removal of all elected officials?
I have read various arguments regarding this issue, and while I agree with many, I strongly disagree with those attempting to justify such executive overreach and blatant lawlessness. My concern is not the legality of the action. The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and other senior legal practitioners have addressed that, but rather the broader implications for our democracy.
|
|
|
|---|
How do you justify removing an elected governor and replacing him with an unelected retired military officer? What message does this send? To be sure, I do not subscribe to the view that the military has no role in democracy; they do, both in service and post-service. While in service, they are tasked with securing the nation and supporting civil authorities in maintaining law and order. In retirement, they are free to run for office or accept appointments. Many have contributed positively to this capacity, from Obasanjo to David Mark and many others. However, directly replacing an elected governor with an unelected retired military officer undermines democratic principles and echoes the justifications used by military putschists throughout Nigeria’s political history.
This action is eerily reminiscent of the arguments driving the democratic reversals in the Central Sahel, particularly in Niger, Burkina Faso, and Mali. It is even more shocking that President Tinubu, who has positioned himself as a champion against democratic backsliding in the region as Chair of ECOWAS, would take such a step. This is nothing short of a presidential coup against the Rivers State government.
This crisis has escalated to this point because leadership has collapsed across most of our institutions, from political parties to elected officials and even the judiciary. The turmoil in Rivers State is well-documented, with clearly identifiable actors and gladiators. Yet, this is not an unprecedented scenario. Many states have witnessed political conflicts between predecessors and successors or between political godfathers and their protégés. However, such disputes, no matter how intense, do not justify the outright removal of elected officials.
Stay Ahead with Premium Times
Follow us on Google News and never miss breaking stories, investigations, and in-depth reporting.
Add as a preferred source on Google
One particularly concerning aspect of this crisis is the involvement of Nyesom Wike, the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory. While the President has taken drastic, albeit unconstitutional, measures against one faction, he has chosen to keep Wike in his cabinet. How can such an imbalance be justified? Admittedly, some of Governor Fabura’s actions, such as demolishing the State House of Assembly, governing with only a handful of assembly members, and allegedly inciting violence, are deeply problematic and unacceptable. However, as repugnant and condemnable as these actions were, they were largely reactions to a coordinated effort to undermine or forcibly remove him. Ultimately, the President’s intervention provided Wike with the political victory he had long sought.
This whole-out removal of elected officials of Rivers State sets a dangerous precedent for democracy. Presidential overreach can be addictive. Once a leader becomes accustomed to exerting unchecked power, it becomes the modus operandi for governance. The question is, who or what is next? In a system where opposition exists only during electoral contests, Nigeria risks sliding into dictatorship, with politicians and citizens retreating into fear to avoid the president’s wrath.
It is both embarrassing and predictable that the National Assembly ratified this blatant presidential overreach without hesitation. This comes as no surprise, given that the Assembly has long abandoned its role as a representative body meant to hold the executive accountable. Instead, it has devolved into a transactional arena where self-enrichment and power negotiations take precedence over democratic responsibility. The executive will always have its way, not because of legitimate authority, but because it always has something to offer. This anomaly is further exacerbated by the increasing number of former governors in the National Assembly, who approach lawmaking with an executive mindset, prioritizing power consolidation and resource accumulation.
This highlights one of the greatest threats to our democracy: all three branches of government are complicit in its erosion. The judiciary, through its rulings, has provided tacit justification for executive overreach, while the legislature has willingly endorsed it. In essence, none of the institutions meant to safeguard democracy seem invested in preserving it.
This is a perilous time for Nigerian democracy. President Tinubu, of all people, should not be the one to take such a step. As governor of Lagos, he was a beneficiary of presidential restraint. No governor confronted President Obasanjo as he did, yet despite Obasanjo’s reputation for political vindictiveness, he exercised restraint in dealing with Lagos State.
Democracy is not just about elections; it requires nurturing. It demands respect for electoral integrity, constitutional tenure, and the legal processes for removal from office. Democracy is rooted in ethical governance, not merely constitutional powers. Even when legal authority exists, it must be exercised ethically and with democratic principles in mind. President Tinubu must reconsider this action. Nigeria cannot afford to normalise executive overreach. The future of the nation’s democracy depends on leaders upholding, not undermining, the fundamental tenets of governance and constitutional rule.
Hussaini Abdu is a political scientist, public intellectual and chair of the board of YIAGA Africa.
Discover more from Premium Times Nigeria
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
More News
