Sagay backs Jonathan over emergency rule
Prof. Itse Sagay yesterday backed the partial declaration of state of emergency declared by President Goodluck Jonathan. He said the president is empowered by section 11 of the 1999 constitution to act in the interest of public safety and security.
The president had last night imposed partial emergency rule in Borno, Yobe, Plateau and Niger states.
Justifying the president’s action, Sagay, a professor of constitutional Law said: “A state of emergency gives the President and the National Assembly more powers to make laws for the good governance of the states affected.
Without the declaration of a state of emergency, the Federal Government cannot mobilize security and supply services for the use of those areas. These are the same materials probably meant to be used during wars.
“As long as he does not run contrary to the letters and spirit of the constitution, the president has certain powers to impose a curfew in those areas which otherwise would have been at the behest of the state governors.
He can send military troops to the affected places if doing so will help achieve the overall security objective of the state.”
Prof. Sagay who recalled that former President Olusegun Obasanjo set a bad precedence by forcibly removing Governors Joshua Dariye of Plateau and Ayo Fayose of Ekiti states, stressed that Obasanjo acted in clear violation of the constitution.
“It is expressly stated in section 11 of the constitution that the declaration of state of emergency does not include powers to remove the governors and the deputy governors of the states.”
Sub-section 4 of section 11, he stressed, “Gives the state houses of assemblies the powers to continue to converge and hold meetings and it also states that the National Assembly can also perform the role of the state houses of assemblies where the latter are unable to perform their constitutional duties.
But the constitution warns us that these powers cannot be exercised as long as the state houses of assemblies can hold meetings.”
He added: “The implication of the state of emergency is that there will be increased security presence, restriction of movements.
But the National Assembly will still have to pass a law restricting people to houses.
The constitution allows for a maximum of six months for the declaration of a state of emergency. However, should there be need for the extension of the exercise; the president has to go back to the National Assembly to obtain approval.”
Also, Bamidele Aturu while lauding the president’s action said it was a coming a wee late.
He said “While Nigerians must cautiously welcome the proclamation as a marked departure from the seeming inaction of the government, the point must be made that the proclamation is not sufficient to guarantee peace or put an end to the calamitous carnage taking place in those states in the name of religion.
We need to know the details and to be assured that the security agencies and their heads are now able to bridge the yawning intelligence gap.”
He added that unless there is an increasing use of intelligence even if the action is endorsed by the National Assembly, it will end up as a mere motion and may as well degenerate to needless trampling on the rights of the citizens of those states.
Prof. Itse Sagay yesterday backed the partial declaration of state of emergency declared by President Goodluck Jonathan. He said the president is empowered by section 11 of the 1999 constitution to act in the interest of public safety and security.
The president had last night imposed partial emergency rule in Borno, Yobe, Plateau and Niger states.
Justifying the president’s action, Sagay, a professor of constitutional Law said: “A state of emergency gives the President and the National Assembly more powers to make laws for the good governance of the states affected.
Without the declaration of a state of emergency, the Federal Government cannot mobilize security and supply services for the use of those areas. These are the same materials probably meant to be used during wars.
“As long as he does not run contrary to the letters and spirit of the constitution, the president has certain powers to impose a curfew in those areas which otherwise would have been at the behest of the state governors.
He can send military troops to the affected places if doing so will help achieve the overall security objective of the state.”
Prof. Sagay who recalled that former President Olusegun Obasanjo set a bad precedence by forcibly removing Governors Joshua Dariye of Plateau and Ayo Fayose of Ekiti states, stressed that Obasanjo acted in clear violation of the constitution.
“It is expressly stated in section 11 of the constitution that the declaration of state of emergency does not include powers to remove the governors and the deputy governors of the states.”
Sub-section 4 of section 11, he stressed, “Gives the state houses of assemblies the powers to continue to converge and hold meetings and it also states that the National Assembly can also perform the role of the state houses of assemblies where the latter are unable to perform their constitutional duties.
But the constitution warns us that these powers cannot be exercised as long as the state houses of assemblies can hold meetings.”
He added: “The implication of the state of emergency is that there will be increased security presence, restriction of movements.
But the National Assembly will still have to pass a law restricting people to houses.
The constitution allows for a maximum of six months for the declaration of a state of emergency. However, should there be need for the extension of the exercise; the president has to go back to the National Assembly to obtain approval.”
Also, Bamidele Aturu while lauding the president’s action said it was a coming a wee late.
He said “While Nigerians must cautiously welcome the proclamation as a marked departure from the seeming inaction of the government, the point must be made that the proclamation is not sufficient to guarantee peace or put an end to the calamitous carnage taking place in those states in the name of religion.
We need to know the details and to be assured that the security agencies and their heads are now able to bridge the yawning intelligence gap.”
He added that unless there is an increasing use of intelligence even if the action is endorsed by the National Assembly, it will end up as a mere motion and may as well degenerate to needless trampling on the rights of the citizens of those states.
No comments:
Post a Comment