In a report by DAILY INDEPENDENT, a constitutional lawyer Osigwe Ahmed Momoh has raised serious concerns about the legality of the president’s decision to declare a state of emergency in Rivers State. He argues that this move directly violates the rights of Governor Simi Fubara and contradicts constitutional provisions designed to protect sitting governors.
At the core of Momoh’s argument is Section 308 of the Nigerian Constitution, which grants immunity to governors, their deputies, the president, and the vice president. This immunity protects them from arrest, prosecution, or any legal action while they remain in office. By suspending the governor, the federal government appears to be bypassing this constitutional protection, raising serious legal and ethical questions.
Momoh contends that suspending a governor is not a legally recognized process under the Nigerian Constitution. The law only allows for a governor’s removal through due process, such as impeachment by the state legislature. Without following this procedure, any attempt to strip a sitting governor of power would be a direct violation of constitutional provisions and an abuse of authority.
According to him, “The question is simple. Now that you have suspended the governor, have you fettered the power invested in the governor by section 308? Basically, that’s what you are claiming to have done. Are you saying if the governor refused to leave the office, you could have forced him out, you could have arrested him, you could have brought an order of court against him? Absolutely you cannot.”
He also criticizes the reported role of security agencies in enforcing the governor’s removal. If Governor Fubara was forcefully removed from his residence, it suggests an unlawful use of state power against an official who is still constitutionally protected. Such actions, Momoh warns, could establish a dangerous precedent where legal safeguards for elected officials can be ignored at will.
Momoh urges the Attorney General and other legal authorities to provide a clear justification for the president’s decision. He believes that failing to address these concerns could lead to a constitutional crisis, especially if the governor challenges his removal and seeks to reclaim his position.