The declaration of a state of emergency by any government should be a significant and carefully considered action, one that requires thorough deliberation and adherence to the principles of democracy and the rule of law. In Nigeria, however, the proclamation of emergency rule in Rivers State last week that was rushed through the National Assembly raises serious concerns about the erosion of democratic processes, the undermining of the legislative body’s independence, and the disregard for constitutional principles.
An emergency proclamation issued by a sitting president is not just a procedural formality. It represents a significant suspension of regular constitutional order in a given region or state, that curbs civil liberties, imposes military control, and limits the scope of state government. As such, it demands stringent constitutional checks and balances, notably the approval of the National Assembly, which plays a key role in safeguarding the balance of power in a democracy.
In a functioning democracy, the National Assembly, which in the case of Nigeria comprises the Senate and the House of Representatives, must be a robust institution capable of scrutinizing the executive’s actions to ensure transparency as well as upholds the Constitution. However, this emergency proclamation passed through what has been described by critics as a “rubber stamp” assembly, one that blindly endorses decisions without genuine debate, has turned this foundational democratic process into a farce.
A rubber stamp legislature is one that unquestioningly approves the executive’s proposals, with no scrutiny, debate, or amendment. When a state of emergency proclamation is passed in such a manner, it exposes the assembly’s lack of independence and its willingness to serve the interests of the executive rather than its constitutional mandate to represent the people, particularly when there is a Supreme Court interpretation to precedent action in 2007.
The leadership of the Senate under Godswill Akpabio and the House of Representatives under Tajudeen Abbas is a critical element in understanding the erosion of the legislative body’s independence in Nigeria. Both leaders have been accused of steering the National Assembly into becoming a rubber-stamp institution that unquestioningly approves the executive’s requests, regardless of the constitutional safeguards that should govern such decisions.
The National Assembly, under the leadership of Akpabio and Abbas, has been accused of allowing major executive actions and proposals to pass without sufficient scrutiny or debate. This includes proposals for fundamental changes to Nigeria’s governance structure and national symbols.
When the President proposed a change to the national anthem, a matter that directly affects the country’s identity and heritage, it was rushed through the National Assembly with little debate or thorough evaluation. Despite the cultural, historical, and constitutional implications, the proposal sailed through without a meaningful challenge. This lack of debate highlights the subservient role the National Assembly has come to play under the current leadership, which betrays its role as a critical check on executive power.
The passing of the Tax Reforms Bill that proposed a comprehensive overhaul of the nation’s tax system, has also raised concerns. Despite its significant implications for various sectors of Nigeria’s economy, the Senate and House of Representatives failed to subject it to a thorough examination. Instead of holding gradual public hearings to question the philosophy behind the reforms in order to ensure transparency, the National Assembly hastily passed the bill.
The National Assembly has also failed in its duty to scrutinize major infrastructure projects, such as the Lagos-Calabar Expressway. Despite trillions of naira allocated, no serious inquiries or accountability measures have been pursued by the leadership of the Senate and House.
Critics of the emergency rule imposed on Rivers State, including former Speaker, now Senator Aminu Tambuwal, have pointed out that the two-thirds majority required by the Constitution for such an important decision was not met. Despite insufficient attendance in the Senate during the vote and the lack of transparency regarding the actual number of votes, the declaration was passed without the necessary rigor.
The rubber-stamping of such decisions, without due process or even proper quorum, is a serious breach of constitutional procedures. It raises questions about whether the National Assembly is fulfilling its duty to the Nigerian people or if it is simply acting as an extension of the executive’s will.
Section 305 of the Nigerian Constitution requires that before a state of emergency can be declared, it must receive approval from two-thirds of the members in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. This requirement is a safeguard against arbitrary actions by the executive to ensure that such a profound decision has widespread legislative support. It is a recognition that the declaration of an emergency should not be a tool of political expediency, nor should it be used to bypass democratic checks in the name of expediency.
How can we trust that a state of emergency has been passed with due diligence if the legislative body has not even ensured the required quorum? The notion of two-thirds majority becomes meaningless when the required number of members is not even present to deliberate on the issue.
Moreover, in cases where votes are forced through without proper debate or scrutiny, it becomes clear that the National Assembly is failing in its role as the voice of the people. Instead of checking and balancing the executive, it becomes a mere extension of the president’s will, devoid of its constitutional function to question, evaluate, and ensure that power is not being abused.
When the legislature is reduced to an obedient, non-critical body, it effectively strips citizens of their right to have their voices heard through their elected representatives. If the legislature is unwilling to challenge even the most significant decisions, it signals that the boundaries of democratic governance can be easily flouted. This sets a dangerous precedent for future governance, where presidential order, even if to the detriment of the federation, can be wielded with little to no accountability.
The emergency passage of emergency proclamations by a rubber stamp National Assembly represents a grave threat to Nigeria’s democracy. The National Assembly no longer serves its true purpose as the voice of the people but instead becomes an enabler of executive overreach. This erosion of legislative independence, coupled with the disregard for constitutional requirements, undermines the very foundation of democratic governance.
