The Labour Party (LP) presidential candidate for the 2023 election, 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.
In a statement shared on social media, Obi described the actions of the lawmakers as ‘’adding salt into injury”. He argued that the declaration of the State of Emergency and suspension of the governor was in itself illegal but the approval granted by the lawmakers by way of a voice vote further makes the process illegal.
In a series of tweets on his X handle on Thursday, 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 to pass the illegality .
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 as well as the transparency and integrity of the National Assembly .
Decisions of such magnitude must be made with integrity, following the letter and spirit of the law.
It is disheartening that a decision as crucial as approving an emergency proclamation — one that could alter the course of the nation — has been handled with such casual disregard for constitutional standards.
The 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended) clearly requires that such a proclamation must be approved by at least two-thirds 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 keep gambling with the soul of our democracy. -PO”
