The Nigerians in Diaspora Association (NDA-USA) has condemned President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State, describing it as a “war against Nigerians and the international community.”
The association rejected the emergency rule, which suspended the Rivers State governor, his deputy, and all elected State Assembly members, and appointed a sole administrator to rule the state for six months.
According to a statement jointly signed by its President, Comrade Martins Tayo and Dr Benson Obinna, the move is a blatant disregard for democratic principles and the rule of law.
The group further said the declaration of a state of emergency is not a better alternative, given its potential for abuse of power and negation of democratic principles.
Instead, it argued that the president should have utilised existing legislation and ordinary powers of government to address the situation in Rivers State.
The association expressed concerns that the federal government, led by the All Progressives Congress (APC), is using the emergency rule as a pretext to enhance its power, expand its agenda, and shift the balance of power away from the legislative and judicial branches of government in Rivers State.
Furthermore, the association warned that the emergency rule could lead to a deterioration in the protection of democracy, citing examples of countries that have turned emergency rule into an avenue for long-lasting dictatorship.
The group, therefore, demanded that the president reverse his decision immediately, reinstate the governor and his deputy and reinstate the State House of Assembly. They also called for the sole administrator to hand over power to the democratically elected administration.
The Nigerians in Diaspora Association vowed to take further actions, including protests across major foreign cities in the US, to force their demands, emphasising their commitment to defending democracy and the rule of law in Nigeria.
The statement reads in part: “Let it be noted categorically that, the declaration of the state of emergency is not a better alternative given its potential for the abuse of power, and its negation of the principles of democracy,” the statement said.
“The better choice would have been the exclusive use of ordinary legislation and even at worst the doctrine of necessity. If the actions of Mr. President were in this regard, it would have been more indicative of concern.
“This is because, ultimately, while there are no ‘perfect’ responses to the crisis, there would have been evidence of good practice and the institutionalization of precedence which completely seeks to demilitarise democracy instead of encouraging it.”
and then