Can the President of Nigeria Intervene in the Internal Politics of a Constituent State of the Federation? - Dr Wole Kunuji

Questions have been raised as to whether the intervention of the Nigerian President in certain matters connected with the internal politics of Rivers State in the last quarter of 2023 was constitutional? The principal argument of those who reject and decry the said intervention is that Nigeria being a federal country with supposed independence and autonomy of the federating States, the President has no constitutional authority whatsoever to intervene in or interfere with the internal politics of any of the said federating States. In essence, the protagonists of this argument harp on the federal character of the Nigerian State as the main plank of their argument for the exclusion of any presidential intervention in the political debacle in Rivers State. It seems to me that those who argue this way are either unfamiliar with or deliberately ignorant of Nigeria’s recent political history and the nature of her federal democratic system. 

A Brief Overview of the Facts 

The Rivers State crisis was provoked by a major altercation between the sitting Governor and a former Governor of the state. It quickly snowballed into a major conflagration involving other political actors in the State, including members of the State legislature. The latter had in fact broken into two factions and one of these factions had allegedly initiated impeachment proceedings against the Governor. In the ensuing melee, there were reports that the Governor moved in trucks and tractors to demolish certain facilities housing the State legislature. Ostensibly, this action was meant to renovate or reconstruct parts of the House of Assembly complex. However, many perceived this as a maneuver by the Governor to forestall any move by the legislature to remove him from office. Meanwhile, tension was building up and it was only a matter of time before the conflagration set off by both sides of the political divide would engulf the entire State.

 
The crisis was even more complicated by the fact that the political factions in the State consisted of indigenes from different ethnic groups in the State. As is often the case with Nigerian politics, some kinsmen of the Governor attempted to frame the crisis in ethnic and tribal terms, arguing that the Governor was being persecuted because he was from a particular ethnic group in the State. Some people threatened that should the Governor be removed from office; it would be regarded as a declaration of war on his ethnic group. This fact alone added a dangerous dimension to the entire imbroglio. It could have provoked an inter-ethnic crisis. It looked like the political actors in Rivers State were indeed prepared to plunge the State into irreversible chaos in their desperate bid to settle political scores and score political points. Left unattended, the crisis in the State could have provoked a chain of ugly events, the end of which no one could have foretold. 

It was against the background set out above that President Tinubu invited the major actors in the crisis for discussions and facilitated a political settlement of the crisis. Naturally, this move has unsettled those who were hoping to make huge political profit from the crisis. However, there are those who genuinely feel that the President should not have intervened in a matter that was supposedly internal to Rivers State, Nigeria being a federation. It is to the latter set of people that this article is addressed. 
Can the President intervene to settle matters connected with the internal politics of a constituent state of the federation? 

Analyses

Section 14(2)(b) of the 1999 constitution of Nigeria declares that “the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of Government.” This section of the constitution makes the security and welfare of the people a cardinal responsibility of Government at all levels. With respect to the entire country, the President of the federation is inherently saddled with the responsibility of ensuring the security and welfare of all Nigerians wherever they are and whoever they may be. The President’s responsibility in this regard is especially invoked where security breaches in a particular State or region are, in the opinion of a reasonable person, capable of spilling over to neighbouring States or regions, in a manner that could potentially induce widespread or nationwide unrest. Although this is not expressly spelt out in the constitution, this interpretation is necessary to give effect to section 14(2)(b) of the constitution as it pertains to the federation. In essence, while the responsibility of the President in this regard may not be explicit, it is inherent. A lax handling of the situation by the President may set off a chain of events that could ultimately terminate the country’s democracy. We have seen this before. One of the remote causes of the military putsch that brought Nigeria’s first republic to an abrupt end was the crisis in the old western region of Nigeria. As a result of the war of attrition between Chief Obafemi Awolowo, the erstwhile Premier of the region, and Chief Ladoke Akintola, the then sitting Premier, the Action Group party which was in control of the region had broken into two factions. One faction supported Awolowo, while the other was in support of Akintola. Matters came to a head when loyalists of Awolowo hatched a plan to remove Akintola from office and name a successor forthwith. The plan, which seemed foolproof, faced very stiff opposition from the Akintola camp on the floor of the Western region House of Assembly. Violence erupted and quickly spread, throwing the region into pandemonium. Policemen were brought in to quell the crisis and this led to the sealing of the House of Assembly and the eventual declaration by the federal government of a state of emergency in the western region. A sole administrator, Chief M.A Majekodunmi was appointed to manage the affairs of the region. This crisis snowballed into a chain of events that contributed significantly to the military takeover of 1966. 

The western region crisis had all the hallmarks of danger. Factions emerged along tribal lines- Akintola was from Ogbomosho while Awolowo was an Ijebu man. The protagonists of the crisis were willing and ready to use every tool at their disposal to forment trouble. Indeed, in the months following the crisis, there were political assassinations and arson was widespread. The matter was already beyond the region’s Premier, for he was an interested party in the crisis. Had the Prime Minister or President taken genuine steps to initiate and foster dialogue among the warring factions, instead of leaving the crisis to fester, perhaps the military takeover would not have occurred. Both of them- the President and the Prime Minister- failed to seize the moment. They failed to exhibit statesmanship- a critical factor in public governance. The measure belatedly taken by the federal government- the imposition of a state of emergency- only served to heighten tension in an already restive region. 

Although the point is very well established that in a federal system such as ours, a reasonable level of independence and autonomy is ascribed to the constituent states of the federation in respect of matters internal to them. However, such ascription of autonomy relates only to matters entirely internal to the States. In such matters, the states are at once autonomous and independent of external actors. It must be noted, nevertheless, that the autonomy of the constituent states in a federal system is not absolute and unamenable to public exigencies. Thus, even when a particular matter is ordinarily within the purview of a state, it may nevertheless warrant the intervention of the President or the federal government, particularly where it has the potential to induce a crisis of such scale and gravity as may imperil the peace of the federation or truncate its democracy. Such is the case, for instance, where a local situation, if not properly managed, may spill over to neighbouring communities or trigger inter-tribal fracas. It is also the case where the State Governor is, himself, a major actor in the crisis, with the result that his judgment may be impaired or he may be unable to preside, in good faith, over a peace-building process in respect of the crisis. In such cases, the President, as the father of the nation and the symbol of the country’s majesty, is under a duty to act, and very swiftly too. As the leader of the federal government his jurisdiction technically extends to the entire country, even though within limits. To watch helplessly while a local crisis, originating within a constituent state, degenerates to the point of imperiling the federation’s peace or sabotaging its fledgling democracy, is to shirk the awesome responsibilities placed upon his shoulders when he took the presidential oath of office and swore to protect the wellbeing of the federal republic. 

Thus, where it is glaring that a crisis capable of endangering the peace of the federation has occurred or is occurring in a constituent state of the federation, the power of the president to intervene is not excluded. The nature of such intervention is, however, another matter. The character of the intervention must align with the spirit of the constitution. Section 14(1) of the 1999 constitution of Nigeria declares that “the federal republic of Nigeria shall be a State based on the principles of democracy and social justice.” The necessary implication of this provision is that government must be conducted in accordance with democratic principles that prioritize consultation, persuasion, consent, and consensus building. The President cannot use force. Neither can he blackmail or browbeat the actors into submission. He must employ diplomacy, and conduct his intervention in a way that fosters, rather than undermines, reconciliation. 

President Tinubu’s intervention in the Rivers crisis was in order. It was conducted with the aim of reconciliation, not subjugation. Its nature and character were not out of place in a democratic society. It was indeed a refreshing departure from the unconstitutional suspension of Governors from office which an earlier administration employed to quell similar crisis in various parts of the federation during the early years of the fourth republic. 

Thus, to answer the question posed at the beginning of this article, one thing is clear: the autonomy or independence of a constituent state of the federation notwithstanding, whenever there is serious crisis within such a state, of such scale and gravity as is capable of truncating the nation’s democracy or imperiling the peace of the federation, the President’s power to intervene is not constitutionally excluded, provided his intervention is conducted with the singular aim of facilitating reconciliation and fostering peace in the affected state.