Tinubu’s Absence Not a Justification for Extending Emergency Rule in Rivers

Spread the love

Legal and policy expert Living Jamala has raised fresh concerns over discussions surrounding the possible extension of emergency governance in Rivers State, insisting that the absence of President Bola Tinubu should not be used as a basis for prolonging the arrangement.

Concerns Over Constitutional Boundaries

In his assessment, Living Jamala questioned the legality of key decisions taken during the emergency period, particularly the suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy Prof. Ngozi Odu, and members of the State House of Assembly. He maintained that such actions fall outside constitutional provisions and should be critically reviewed.

Gossip News Now reports that Jamala stressed the importance of adhering strictly to constitutional procedures, regardless of prevailing political tensions.

Presidential Authority Still Intact

Addressing arguments tied to the President’s temporary working leave, Jamala clarified that physical absence does not limit executive authority. He explained that the responsibility to formally end emergency rule rests solely with the President, who can act from any location to restore democratic structures.

He further conveyed that governance decisions are not dependent on physical presence, emphasizing that executive powers remain functional at all times.

Fixed Timeline Cannot Be Altered

According to the analyst, the emergency declaration in Rivers State was clearly defined with a six-month duration. He noted that once this period expires, the arrangement naturally comes to an end without requiring additional legislative approval.

Reframing his position, Jamala suggested that time itself acts as a legal boundary, meaning the expiration automatically signals the conclusion of emergency rule rather than any external political condition such as legislative recess.

Clarification on Fubara’s Position

On the issue of whether Governor Siminalayi Fubara would need to retake his oath of office, Jamala dismissed such claims as unnecessary. He likened the situation to the lifting of temporary restrictions, where normal governance resumes without resetting leadership legitimacy.

He also warned that requiring a fresh oath could create unintended political consequences, including affecting future electoral eligibility.

Chain of Command During Emergency Rule

Jamala further clarified the reporting structure under the emergency arrangement. He explained that the appointed Sole Administrator, Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas (rtd.), operates under the direct authority of President Bola Tinubu, not the suspended state leadership.

This distinction, he noted, is crucial for maintaining administrative clarity and avoiding conflicts of authority.

Legislative Gaps and Electoral Responsibility

While acknowledging that the State House of Assembly still holds its institutional relevance, Jamala pointed out that vacancies created by resignations must be addressed. He specifically referenced the exit of Edison Ehie, noting that such positions require proper replacement through electoral processes overseen by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

Commentary and Analysis

The ongoing discourse around Rivers State highlights broader constitutional questions about emergency powers in Nigeria’s democratic system. Jamala’s position reinforces the principle that emergency measures must remain temporary and strictly regulated to prevent misuse.

His arguments also bring attention to the delicate balance between executive authority and democratic continuity, especially in politically sensitive regions. The situation underscores the need for transparency, adherence to legal frameworks, and timely restoration of normal governance.

Final Thoughts

As debates continue, the stance of Living Jamala adds a strong legal perspective to the conversation, emphasizing that neither political convenience nor temporary absence should redefine constitutional timelines.