•Peter Obi
The Labour Party (LP) presidential candidate for the 2023 election, Mr. Peter Obi, has slammed members of the National Assembly for using voice vote to approve President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of emergency rule in Rivers State.
He described the legislators’ action on such a crucial national issue as a breach of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), reports Vanguard.
Obi, along with several other opposition leaders, had made a passionate appeal to members of the National Assembly to reject the illegal removal of Rivers State Governor Siminalayi Fubara and the State Assembly.
In a series of tweets on his X handle today, Obi wrote, “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.
“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.
“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.
“Decisions of such magnitude must be made with integrity, following the letter and spirit of the 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.
“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.
“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.
“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.
“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.”
