Rivers: Rescind Fubara’s Suspension Now, US Law Institute Director Tells Tinubu

 Rivers: Rescind Fubara’s Suspension Now, US Law Institute Director Tells Tinubu

ABUJA – Prof. Cyprian Edward-Ekpo, the Director, Institute of Law Research & Development of United Nations (ILAWDUN), Washington D.C, USA, has written an open letter to President Bola Tinubu, demanding an immediate reversal of the suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara of Rivers State before the hearing of the suit filed by some governors on the matter at the Supreme Court.

Prof. Edward-Ekpo was shocked that President Tinubu relied on a “frivolous and corrupt motive, like misinterpretation of a Supreme Court decision and unverified claims of oil pipeline vandalization”, to declare the state of emergency in Rivers State.

Edward-Ekpo, a professor of International Environmental and Public International Law, told President Tinubu that the swift and corrective action will help reaffirm his commitment to democracy and reposition his image as a leader who values the rule of law, and demonstrates that he listens to the people.

He said the President, allowing the Supreme Court to dismiss the matter either by technicality or by forcing the parties to withdraw the suit, as some people anticipate, would damage his reputation as a pro-democracy advocate.

Seven governors of the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) comprising Adamawa, Bauchi, Bayelsa, Enugu, Osun, Plateau and Zamfara states had dragged the President to the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutionality of his suspension of Governor Fubara, his deputy, Ngozi Odu and members of the Rivers State House of Assembly on March 18; the appointment of a retired military sole administrator, and the ratification by the National Assembly two days later.

“I am aware that the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, are currently saddled with this matter.

“Mr. President, heeding my humble appeal is your best course of action. I understand that you are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea – a difficult choice – waiting for the court’s decision on this constitutional crisis or taking the more prudent and popular path of correcting the error now.

“Let me explain why the latter is the wiser option: (a) If the Supreme Court upholds the emergency declaration and the suspension of a democratically elected state governor and legislature by another democratically elected official (the President and the National Assembly), it will permanently stain your legacy” Prof. Edward-Ekpo wrote.

He posited that Tinubu will be remembered as the President who undermined constitutional principles and legitimized illegality, adding that regardless of the court’s ruling, the perception will be that the Supreme Court was influenced by him.

However, the US Law Institute Director, noted that “in their commitment to justice and constitutionalism, the Supreme Court Justices cannot, in good conscience, sustain such an obvious constitutional violation”.

Section 305 of the Constitution of Nigeria, he said, “does not grant a democratically elected President the power to suspend or remove a democratically elected state government under a federal system—under any guise.

“It also does not empower the National Assembly to take a voice vote to determine a two-thirds majority or override constitutional provisions to justify a state of emergency in this instance.

“Additionally, such an action of imposing a sole administrator on a state would directly contradict Section 1(2) of the Constitution of Nigeria, 1999, which explicitly forbids governance by a military-style sole administrator, Prof. Edward-Ekpo posited.

He argued that a state of emergency can only be justified when there is a genuine breakdown of law and order that overwhelms the Nigeria Police Force – conditions that were not present in Rivers State.

“Nevertheless, the Supreme Court of Nigeria, known for its tendency to violate the fundamental right to a fair hearing, may, in an attempt to evade addressing these critical constitutional questions, resort to dismissing the case on technical grounds.

“This could involve coercing counsel into withdrawing the case or employing other orchestrated means, tactics for which the Court has, unfortunately, become known.

“Should this happen, it will inevitably be perceived as judicial compromise under your influence, further eroding public trust in both the judiciary and your administration.

“(b) If the Supreme Court sets aside your actions, it will validate the allegation that you are an anti-democratic despot. This also goes to a larger negativity on your legacy”, the letter stated.