The recent declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State and its subsequent approval by the Nigerian Senate has unfolded not as a dramatic political showdown, but as a case study in legislative failure. While the constitution is clear that such a grave declaration requires the approval of two-thirds of voting senators, the process was concluded with a simple voice vote—a chorus of “ayes” and “nays” without a physical count. The Senate President, relying on his perception of the voices, declared the motion carried.
This is where democracy faltered, not in the declaration itself, but in the silence that followed. Senate rules provide a crucial check against such ambiguity: any senator can call for a “division,” forcing a physical count of members to establish, beyond doubt, whether the constitutional threshold has been met. Yet, no opposition senator rose to demand this. Whether this was due to a shocking ignorance of their own rules or a complacent dereliction of duty, the outcome is the same: a profound act of political malpractice that undermines the very foundation of accountable governance.
This incident in the Senate is not an isolated one. It is symptomatic of a broader culture of procedural negligence that plagues our legislative institutions, where the opposition often fails to wield the tools designed to hold the majority to account.
- The Oversight That Wasn’t: The Power of the Public Hearing
One of the most potent tools in a legislature’s arsenal is the public hearing. It is a mandated process for significant bills, designed to incorporate expert opinions, stakeholder concerns, and public sentiment into lawmaking. However, we have seen countless instances where controversial bills—from hasty electoral act amendments to sweeping security bills—are rushed through with only perfunctory public hearings.
The misconduct here is twofold. First, the majority party schedules these hearings with inadequate notice, ensuring minimal and often stacked participation. Second, and more critically, the opposition frequently fails to weaponize this failure. They do not loudly and persistently boycott the proceedings to highlight its illegitimacy, nor do they use their media platforms to expose the charade. By participating in a flawed process without significant protest, they lend it a veneer of credibility it does not deserve, effectively collaborating in the sidestepping of democratic safeguards.
- The Veto Override That Never Comes
The constitution provides a clear mechanism for a legislature to assert its will against an executive veto. Passing a bill again by a two-thirds majority can override a presidential refusal. Yet, how often have we seen landmark bills, which the public overwhelmingly supports, die after a presidential veto?
The failure, again, often lies with the opposition. Even when they ostensibly have the numbers, or could rally public support to pressure majority-party members, they rarely mount a serious, coordinated campaign for an override. This inaction suggests either a lack of strategic foresight, a tacit collusion with the executive, or a simple lack of the political will required for such a fight. The result is an emboldened executive that learns it can veto legislation with impunity and a legislature that cedes its law-making power without a whimper.
- The Abdication of Investigative Power
The power to summon ministers and agency heads for questioning is a cornerstone of legislative oversight. It is how the people’s representatives hold the executive branch accountable for its policies and expenditures. However, we have normalised a culture where summoned officials, including ministers, simply refuse to appear before National Assembly committees.
The typical response from the legislature? A few angry soundbites on the floor of the chamber, a threat that is never executed, and then—silence. The opposition, which should be the loudest voice demanding compliance, often lets the matter drop. They fail to marshal public outrage or use procedural tools to escalate the matter, for instance, by moving to suspend budgetary approvals for the offending ministry until it cooperates. This failure to enforce their own authority reduces the legislature to a paper tiger, and its committees to talking shops with no real power.
- The Rubber-Stamp Budget Approval
Perhaps the most egregious example is the annual budget process. The appropriation bill is the single most important piece of legislation each year, dictating the nation’s priorities. Yet, it is common knowledge that the document is often delivered to legislators just hours before debate is meant to commence, making thorough scrutiny impossible.
The competent, diligent response would be for the opposition to cry foul, delay the process, and demand sufficient time for line-by-line analysis. Instead, what we often see is a rushed debate and a quick passage, with opposition members merely making token criticisms in their speeches before falling in line with the majority voice vote. By approving a budget they have not properly scrutinized, they are complicit in the passage of what may be a deeply flawed fiscal plan, failing in their core duty to serve as the public’s watchdog over the treasury.
Conclusion: A Crisis of Competence and Courage
A democracy is only as strong as its opposition. The ruling party, by its nature, is inclined to consolidate power and expedite its agenda. It is the opposition’s sacred duty to ensure this is done within the strict confines of the law and procedure. When they fail to do so—whether out of ignorance, complacency, or a desire for backroom favours—they do not merely lose a political battle; they actively sabotage the democratic system.
The Rivers State emergency approval is a clarion call. It reveals that we do not just have a problem with an overbearing majority; we have a critical deficit of competence and courage in the opposition ranks. Until we elect legislators who understand the rulebook and have the fortitude to use it, our democracy will continue to be governed not by the clear letter of the constitution, but by the dubious sound of a voice vote.
Centre for Nigeria Progress 