The Labour Party’s presidential candidate in the 2023 elections, Mr. Peter Obi, has strongly criticized the National Assembly for approving President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of emergency rule in Rivers State through a voice vote. Obi described this approach as unconstitutional and a blatant violation of the principles of transparency and accountability enshrined in the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).
Expressing his concerns in a series of tweets on his X handle on Thursday, Obi decried what he described as a further deterioration of Nigeria’s democratic values, particularly in the handling of the ongoing political crisis in Rivers State. He emphasized that such a significant decision should not have been made through an indiscriminate “Aye” or “Nay” vote but through a formal and transparent process that ensures accountability.
“While still agonizing over the ongoing deterioration of democracy in our nation, especially with the situation in Rivers State, and trying to reach out to our National Assembly members not to support and sustain the unconstitutionality and arbitrariness, I just heard that they have added salt to injury by using a voice vote,” Obi lamented.
He further highlighted that the Constitution explicitly requires a two-thirds majority approval for such a proclamation. However, he argued that a voice vote is an unreliable method for determining whether the necessary supermajority threshold has been met.
“The Constitution is clear that this cannot be done through a voice vote but by calling individuals to answer ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ You cannot determine a two-thirds majority by a voice vote,” Obi stated.
According to the former Anambra State governor, bypassing proper legislative procedures in such a critical matter undermines the democratic process and weakens public trust in the government. He insisted that decisions of such national importance must be made with integrity, transparency, and strict adherence to constitutional guidelines.
“While a two-thirds majority is crucial, it does not justify bypassing proper procedures and undermining the principles of transparency and accountability. The use of a voice vote in such a significant decision not only disregards constitutional requirements but also erodes public trust in the democratic process,” Obi noted.
He further condemned what he described as a casual and reckless approach to approving a state of emergency, stressing that such a move has far-reaching consequences on governance and the rule of law.
“It’s disheartening that a decision as crucial as approving an emergency proclamation, one that could alter the course of the nation was handled with such casual disregard for constitutional standards.”
Obi reiterated that the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended) mandates that at least two-thirds of all members of both the Senate and the House of Representatives must approve a proclamation of emergency rule. He argued that a mere voice vote cannot accurately ascertain whether the required number of lawmakers supported the decision.
“The 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended) clearly requires that at least two-thirds must approve such a proclamation of all members of each House the Senate and the House of Representatives. A simple call of ‘Aye’ or ‘Nay’ cannot accurately measure this crucial threshold. When a supermajority is required, it demands a recorded vote whether by division, roll call, or electronic means.”
Describing the process as not just a technical oversight but a direct violation of the law, Obi cautioned against setting a dangerous precedent where constitutional guidelines can be easily disregarded for political convenience.
“This isn’t just a technicality; it’s a matter of law and legitimacy. The Senate Standing Orders and House Rules were established to ensure that decisions of this magnitude are made transparently, with accountability. Ignoring these procedures is not just an oversight; it is a betrayal of the democratic process.”
He warned that allowing such a flawed procedure to stand could lead to further abuse of power in the future, where critical decisions affecting citizens’ fundamental rights could be subjected to similarly questionable methods.
“A voice vote for such a critical matter is not just insufficient; it’s a dangerous precedent. If we can bend the rules so easily, what stops us from undermining other pillars of democracy? Today, it’s a voice vote on a state of emergency tomorrow, it could be a voice vote on citizens’ fundamental rights.”
Obi concluded by expressing disappointment in members of the National Assembly who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution but participated in a process that he believes sidesteps due process. He urged Nigerians to reflect on the implications of a democracy where the rule of law is no longer the foundation of decision-making.
“It is painful to think that members of the National Assembly, who swore to uphold the Constitution, could participate in a process that sidesteps the very essence of due process. We must ask ourselves: If the law no longer anchors our decisions, then what does?
This is not just a flawed procedure; it is a warning signal. We cannot afford to gamble with the soul of our democracy.”
Obi’s strong stance adds to the mounting criticism from opposition figures and legal experts who have questioned the legality of both the emergency declaration in Rivers State and the legislative process through which it was approved.
