A Disquisition on Reuben Abati’s Call for the Impeachment of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

Reuben Abati, erstwhile Senior Adviser on Media and Publicity to ex-President Goodluck Jonathan and now a vociferous commentator on national affairs, has once again thrust himself into the limelight with his audacious call for the impeachment of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. Such insolence, one might argue, is the hallmark of a man whose political aspirations are as translucent as they are indecorous.

Abati, in his characteristic rodomontade, has accused President Tinubu of committing an impeachable offence by invoking Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution to declare a State of Emergency in Rivers State on 18 March 2025. He contends, with a lack of constitutional understanding, that the President’s actions are tantamount to a violation of the 1999 constitution as amended. Yet, one must ask: is this not the same Abati who, in defence of ex-President Jonathan, cited similar constitutional provisions to justify a State of Emergency in Borno, Adamawa, and Yobe States? The irony is as palpable as it is galling.

This was a low-classed bully who made Oje Okpe and many Nigerian women yowl over his dictatorial outbursts a while ago. Previously he had abused a colleague on television for not calling him Dr Abati Reuben of the University of Cambridge on set. A man who abused the hell out of the entire Igbo race on Arise just because of singular unsubstantiated evidence recently. A man who suffers unimaginable pain from loathing on other human beings. Even his colleague Rufai Oseni has been openly asking Sim Fubara to draw blood from the chest of Nyesom Wike’s political godfatherism. People who cannot make reasonable arguments consistently. Sometimes they are there, sometimes they are enmeshed in selective rationality.

The crux of Abati’s argument lies in his selective interpretation of Section 305, which he claims is limited to circumstances of war or imminent war. This, however, is a gross misrepresentation. Section 305 explicitly provides the President with authority to act in cases of war, imminent danger, breakdown of public order, or governance failure. The recent sabotage of national oil pipelines, a critical artery of Nigeria’s economy, constitutes an imminent danger that necessitates decisive action.

Governor Siminalayi Fubara’s lethargy in addressing these acts of sabotage further underscores the urgency of the President’s intervention. It appeared that he was dependent on militancy to retain authority in a democracy. He should not have walked out of his agreement with Nyesom Wike without 60 per cent of the House of Assembly members. As he pushed them out for 14 months, now he has been suspended as well. Let him taste his meal.

By suspending the Governor, his deputy, and the Rivers State House of Assembly, President Tinubu has acted within the ambit of constitutional authority to safeguard national assets and restore order. Critics, including the Nigerian Bar Association, may argue that the suspension of elected officials exceeds the President’s powers. Yet, they conveniently overlook Section 14(2)(b), which underscores that the security and welfare of the people are the primary purposes of government. The pipeline sabotage posed a significant threat to public safety and welfare, thereby justifying emergency intervention.

Moreover, Section 33 guarantees the right to life—a right jeopardized by the environmental and human toll of such attacks. In this vein, Section 45 permits the limitation of certain fundamental rights during emergencies to ensure public safety and order. To bolster this further, Section 162(2) highlights the pivotal importance of oil revenues to Nigeria’s economic stability, thereby justifying stringent measures to protect these assets.

Furthermore, President Tinubu’s actions were not unilateral. In accordance with constitutional requirements, he sought the concurrence of the National Assembly as mandated under Section 305(2), transmitting a formal letter to seek legislative approval. The Attorney General of the Federation was also consulted and affirmed the necessity of the declaration to address the security challenges in Rivers State.

It is worth noting that Abati’s tirade is but a symptom of a broader malaise afflicting Nigeria’s political landscape—a landscape populated by individuals whose agendas seldom transcend their gastrointestinal predilections. Figures such as Richard Akinola II, Dele Momodu, Tolu Ogulensi, Omoyele Sowore, and others of their ilk, who once championed the ascension of Muhammadu Buhari to power, now find themselves bereft of political capital and moral authority.

Richard Akinola II, for instance, recently lamented his disillusionment with ex-President Buhari, accusing him of deception. Yet, such lamentations ring hollow when juxtaposed against the collective complicity of these individuals in enabling a regime they now decry.

As for Abati, one can only surmise that his latest outburst is a desperate bid for relevance or perhaps a veiled attempt to curry favour with the powers that be. Whatever his motivations, his arguments are as flawed as they are inflammatory.

There are other numerous constitutional justifications for emergency measures in the 1999 constitution as amended. Section 14(2)(b) proposes that at the heart of governance lies the sacred duty to ensure the security and welfare of the people—a principle explicitly enshrined in Section 14(2)(b) of the Constitution. This provision asserts that the security and welfare of citizens are not mere afterthoughts but the primary objectives of government itself. In the context of pipeline sabotage and bombings, which directly threaten public safety, economic stability, and environmental well-being, the invocation of emergency measures like the Declaration of a State of Emergency becomes not just justifiable but imperative. The government's failure to act decisively in such circumstances would be a gross abdication of its constitutional mandate to protect its citizens.

Sim Fubara and his Deputy Governor, who should have threaded with caution earlier, violated Sections 128 and 129 of the 1999 Constitution, which grant the legislature oversight powers to investigate executive actions and summon officials. Without a functioning legislature, there was no mechanism to check the executive, enabling potential abuse of power.

Additionally, Fubara breached Section 91, which mandates a State House of Assembly with elected representatives. His unilateral decisions left 27 constituencies unrepresented, undermining democratic governance. He further violated Section 100 by denying the legislature its right to present and pass bills, and Section 120, which requires all state expenditures to be authorized by law. Consequently, his actions rendered many expenditures potentially illegal. This is why the Supreme Court ruled against his illegitimate government that did not consider the significance of the legislature.

To conclude, the declaration of a State of Emergency in Rivers State is not only constitutionally sound but also imperative for the preservation of national security and economic stability. Those who seek to undermine this prerogative, whether out of ignorance or malice, do so at the peril of the nation’s well-being.