Kenneth Okonkwo, a chieftain of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), has faulted the Supreme Court’s verdict affirming President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of emergency rule in Rivers State, warning that the decision has dangerous implications for Nigeria’s democracy.
The Supreme Court had ruled that the President has constitutional powers to declare a state of emergency in any state where there is a threat of a breakdown of law and order. The court further held that, during such a period, the President may suspend elected officials, provided the suspension is for a limited duration.
Speaking on Channels Television’s Sunrise Daily, Okonkwo argued that the apex court should have declined to comment on the matter entirely, especially after striking out the case for lack of jurisdiction. According to him, the court’s pronouncement could set a precedent that allows excessive executive power.
“What this means is that the President now has the right to suspend 36 governors at the same time. He can declare a state of emergency nationwide and rule Nigeria with the military for a limited time,” Okonkwo said.
The judgment followed a suit filed by states governed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), challenging President Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State, under which elected state officials were suspended for six months. The Supreme Court had reserved judgment on the case in October before delivering its ruling.
Okonkwo maintained that while the President is constitutionally empowered to declare a state of emergency, the Constitution does not grant him the authority to suspend elected officials. He also criticised the court for striking out the case for want of jurisdiction and still making substantive pronouncements on the issues raised.
“They said they don’t have jurisdiction, so they just stated an opinion. It means that what they stated is an opinion, but their opinion still matters in legal issues,” he said.
According to Okonkwo, the apex court should have limited itself strictly to declining jurisdiction without making additional comments that could create uncertainty in the country’s democratic process.
“If I were in their position, I wouldn’t have done that. As an apex court, they have the right to simply decline jurisdiction and not make any other comments, rather than throwing the nation into confusion,” he added.
