Written by Maazi Tochukwu Ezeoke —
On March 20, 2025, Nigeria’s National Assembly made a decision that sent shockwaves through the nation’s democratic fabric. By approving President Bola Tinubu’s proclamation of a state of emergency in Rivers State through a voice vote, lawmakers bypassed a clear constitutional mandate, exposing a dangerous flaw in the country’s legislative process. This move, which suspended Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, and the entire state legislature for six months, not only undermined transparency but also set a perilous precedent for the erosion of democratic principles. The use of voice voting in such a critical matter is not just a procedural misstep—it is a direct assault on the rule of law and the trust Nigerians place in their elected representatives.
The Nigerian Constitution, under Section 305(6b), is unequivocal: a state of emergency requires the support of a two-thirds majority of all members of each chamber of the National Assembly—73 of 109 senators and 240 of 360 representatives. This threshold ensures that such a drastic measure, which disrupts the governance of a state, reflects a broad consensus and is subject to rigorous scrutiny. A voice vote, where lawmakers simply shout “aye” or “nay” and the presiding officer subjectively declares the outcome, cannot accurately determine this supermajority. It obscures individual accountability, muddies the waters of legitimacy, and leaves citizens in the dark about whether the constitutional requirement was truly met. In the case of Rivers State, Nigerians were denied the clarity of a recorded vote, leaving many to question the legality and intent behind the decision.
The dangers of this approach were immediately apparent. The political crisis in Rivers, fueled by a bitter feud between Governor Fubara and his predecessor, Nyesom Wike, had already heightened tensions in the oil-rich state. President Tinubu’s emergency declaration, citing pipeline vandalism and governance failures, was contentious enough. But the National Assembly’s decision to rubber-stamp it with a voice vote—without public debate in the Senate, which met behind closed doors for 80 minutes—amplified public distrust. This also fuels the accusation of bribe-taking.
Nigerians, including prominent voices like Peter Obi, Atiku Abubakar, Nasir El-Rufai, and Atedo Peterside, decried the move as a betrayal of due process. Obi, the Labour Party’s 2023 presidential candidate and the leader of the Obidient movement, warned that this “dangerous precedent” could extend beyond emergencies to threaten citizens’ fundamental rights. Peterside, a respected banker, insisted that a two-thirds majority demands individual, identifiable votes—not a chorus of shouts.
The fallout in Rivers State underscored these concerns. The imposition of a retired vice admiral as sole administrator, answerable only to the federal government, effectively silenced the state’s elected leadership. This top-down control, legitimized by an opaque legislative process, fueled accusations of “state capture” from the opposition People’s Democratic Party (PDP). Residents, already grappling with economic hardship and security threats like pipeline bombings, now face governance by decree rather than representation. The lack of transparency in the vote left them unable to hold their lawmakers accountable, deepening a sense of disenfranchisement at a time when Nigeria’s democracy is already under strain.
This is not an isolated incident but a symptom of a broader malaise. Voice voting, while expedient for routine matters, has no place in decisions of such magnitude. It allows lawmakers to hide behind collective noise, avoiding the scrutiny that a roll-call or electronic vote would demand. In a country with a history of democratic interruptions—military coups, electoral violence, and institutional overreach—this shortcut risks normalizing arbitrary power. If the National Assembly can sidestep constitutional safeguards today, what prevents it from doing so tomorrow on issues like electoral laws, budgetary allocations, or even constitutional amendments? The Rivers State emergency could be a harbinger of a future where democratic checks are reduced to mere formalities.
Nigerians deserve better. Democracy thrives on transparency, accountability, and adherence to the rule of law—not on the whims of a shouting match. The National Assembly must abandon this reckless practice and commit to recorded votes for decisions requiring a supermajority. The Rivers State debacle should serve as a wake-up call: voice voting is not just a procedural flaw; it is a dagger at the heart of Nigeria’s democratic experiment. If lawmakers sworn to uphold the Constitution can so casually flout it, the question looms large—what anchors our governance if not the law? Without urgent reform, the echoes of “aye” and “nay” may drown out the voice of the people altogether.
Maazi Tochukwu Ezeoke is a IT Project Management Consultant, Media Practioner and the CEO of Njenje Media Group.
