Debate about whether President Muhammadu Buhari should seek the approval of the National Assembly before declaring lockdown in some parts of the country to prevent the spread of coronavirus has been described as unrealistic in the prevailing circumstance.
Salihu Lukman, Director General of the Progressive Governors Forum who proved this assertion wrong, said, even the National Assembly at a time when the threat of Covid-19 cannot sit to deliberate on such request.
Considering criticism of the declaration by the President in his speech of Sunday, March 29 by legal experts and activists, he said, the exigency of action by government does not permit the debate bordering on what is legally permissible under the 1999 Nigerian Constitution as amended.
Lukman in a statement on Wednesday in Abuja said he was primed to comment on the issues because of legal controversies it has generated among primarily two senior advocates,
Mr. Ebun-olu Adegborua and Femi Falana who argued that the President is required to “invoke his powers under the Constitution to declare state of emergency, which must be approved by the National Assembly.” and the position of the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mr. Abubakar Malami SAN who clarified that the Presidential Order is part of a national quarantine measure on the advice of Federal Ministry of Health and National Centre for Disease Control (NCDC) as provided under the Quarantine Act 1990 CAP 384 LFN.
Adegboruwa had insisted that the “Quarantine Act has no provision for restriction of the movement of any citizen” arguing that the “act is meant for the isolation, care and treatment of victims of infectious diseases simpliciter, for the purpose of isolating them away from interacting with other members of the public, generally and that it should not be twisted to restrain the uninfected.”
Questioning the objective of this debate, the Director General asked ” Is it to strengthen the capacity of our democracy to respond to emergency situations, especially when human life is at great risk on accounts of the outbreak of diseases? Or is it to simply show some legal muscles based on which the actions of the government are delegitimised?
“How else could government isolate, care and treat victims of Covid-19 in these cities given the scientific evidence that you could be carrier without showing any sign of symptoms? In other word, everybody could be a carrier.
Lukman said those calling for the debate about the legality or otherwise of the lockdown as announced by the President or the declaration of state of emergency through the approval of the National Assembly are cheaply doing so to attract public attention,
Stressing his point, he said “one is tempted to ask what will be their response (Messrs. Adegboruwa and Falana) if the President were to request the National Assembly to reconvene for the purpose of considering any proposal for declaration of state of emergency in this era whereby scientifically it is not advisable for any session of the National Assembly to hold?
“If the operative norm requires isolation and social distancing for the country to be able to contain the spread of Covid-19 virus, anybody, including Messrs. Adegboruwa and Falana, will be dishonest to canvass for any sitting of the National Assembly to enforce the issue of social distancing and isolation to contain the spread of Covid-19.
“Could it be that social distancing and isolation could be achieved without lockdown? From all the arguments, it doesn’t appear this is the point of contention.
READ ALSO: Lockdown day 2: FCT residents groan over poor electricity services
One readily conclusion therefore is that the argument against the lockdown as declared by the President is on account of the lack of recognition of the emergency timeline which Covid-19 has imposed on the world.
“Leaders across the world are struggling to respond to this new timeline. Largely because it is a challenge that border on saving human life, citizens are required to work in partnership with governments”.
The APC chieftain argued that working to save Nigerians from the spread of Covid-19 shouldn’t be the responsibility of government alone but the responsibility of everyone, especially those with some claims to knowledge and pro-people consciousness.
“The current debate around legality are needless. All the energy we expend to question the legality of decisions of government to lockdown these three cities with the highest potential to spread Covid-19 virus to every part of the country may only serve to distract the attention of government from the critical issue of ensuring effective response to contain the spread of Covid-19.
” Rather that asking the question whether locking down Abuja, Lagos and Abeokuta is sufficient to contain the spread of Covid-19, we are seeking to undermine the government. Good enough, our state governments are responding in a way that expand the jurisdiction of the lockdown to cover virtually all parts of the country”, he posited.
He recalled that “if in 2010, our activist lawyers, including Mr. Falana, could come up with doctrine of necessity, in the face of the refusal of late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua to transmit a letter informing the National Assembly about his medical trip outside Nigeria based on which the then Vice President, Dr. Goodluck Jonathan could be empowered to act as President, isn’t the same principles of doctrine of necessity more urgently needed now that human life is at risk so much that we could with all certainty argue that any meeting of the National Assembly is even a potential danger?
Counselling critics of President Buhari’s action, Lukman said “no need to play to the gallery. Certainly, both Messrs. Adegborunwa, Falana, Soyinka and all those criticising the current lockdown of Abuja, Lagos and Abeokuta, may have some unselfish reasons to express opposition.
“So long as however such opposition is not substantively disputing the efficacy of the lockdown as a strategic requirement for ensuring enforcement of isolation and social distancing in order to contain the spread of Covid-19 in the country, it simply project behavioural discrepancy, which conflict with the new emergency timeline that Covid-19 imposes on the world.
“This is the time when our primary survival instinct should be about saving human life. Except if we are saying that Covid-19 is not a pandemic as declared by WHO, or we are saying that isolation and social distancing are not what is required to contain Covid-19, the debate about legality of the current lockdown is just a distraction”.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.