A wave of criticism has trailed President Bola Tinubu’s decision to present the 2025 Appropriation Bill of Rivers State to the National Assembly, with several Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SAN) describing the move as unconstitutional and a violation of Nigeria’s federal structure.
On Thursday, President Tinubu formally requested Senate approval for the N1.48 trillion budget proposal for Rivers State, which has been under emergency rule since March.
The request, read during plenary by Senate President Godswill Akpabio, detailed key allocations, including N324 billion for infrastructure, N166 billion for health—with N5 billion earmarked for free medication—N75.6 billion for education, and N31.4 billion for agriculture. The budget also aims to create 6,000 jobs across the state.
Justifying the submission, President Tinubu cited Regulation 4, Subsection 2(f) of the Emergency Rule 2025 provisions, which mandates federal legislative oversight of state finances during emergency rule.
Legal experts have raised constitutional concerns over the development.
Human rights lawyer Femi Falana (SAN) said, ‘Unconstitutional by virtue of Section 81 of the Constitution. The President is only empowered to present the budget of the Federal Government’.
In his reaction, constitutional lawyer Mike Ozekhome (SAN) went further, calling the entire emergency rule framework and the appointment of a Sole Administrator in Rivers State a constitutional aberration.
‘President Tinubu is not the President of Rivers State. The state can only have a governor, not a president’, Ozekhome said. ‘I have scoured the Constitution and found no provision that permits the President to suspend elected officials or appoint a Sole Administrator in any state. It is a constitutional anomaly’.
Ozekhome further questioned the grounds for the emergency declaration, arguing that the crisis in Rivers did not meet the constitutional threshold of war, external aggression, or civil unrest.
‘It was a political disagreement between the governor and the House of Assembly—a matter the Supreme Court had already ruled on. The process should have been allowed to run its course’, he insisted.
Also weighing in, Professor Sam Erugo (SAN), described the President’s action as a ‘clear breach of Nigeria’s federal structure’.
‘There is no provision under the 1999 Constitution that empowers the President to present a state budget to the National Assembly under any guise. This only affirms that the appointment of a Sole Administrator in Rivers was a constitutional misstep’, Erugo said.
He warned that continued bypassing of constitutional norms could deepen Nigeria’s democratic crisis.
‘It appears there is no end to these illegalities until constitutional democracy is restored in Rivers State’, he cautioned.
However, not all legal experts share this view. A professor and SAN, who asked not to be named, argued that President Tinubu’s action was constitutionally justified given the prevailing circumstances in Rivers State.
‘The President may present the state’s budget to the National Assembly because both the Governor and House of Assembly have been suspended under the emergency rule’, the legal expert explained. ‘The Constitution allows the President to take extraordinary measures to address crises in such situations
