The association rejected the emergency rule, which suspended Siminalayi Fubara, Rivers state governor, his deputy, and all elected state assembly members, and appointed a sole administrator to rule the state for six months.

In a statement on Wednesday co-signed by Martins Tayo, NDA-USA president, and Benson Obinna, the association said 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, restore the governor and his deputy to office, and reinstate the state house of assembly. The group 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 cities in the United States to force its demands, emphasising the association’s commitment to defending democracy and the rule of law in Nigeria.

“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 reads.  

“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 demilitarize democracy instead of encouraging it.

“This practice would have written Mr President’s name with gold, set an enviable departure from the norms and entrenched a culture which will prioritize the values of the rule of law and good governance.

“We agree that it is imperative to overcome the degenerating slide in Rivers state by overcoming the exceptional situation, considering too that it had become clearly protracted, and defying all forms of resolutions. We however believe that state policies that are based on legal certainty, transparency, clear communication, and early reaction – as well as a willingness to listen to criticism and to adapt would have been a better option for all parties including the federal government.

“It is obvious that this government failed in its obligation as a State to act, and this questions the competence to act, and act swiftly and consistently. Denial or reluctance to act swiftly is interpreted as underaction and has brought this high cost to democracy and civil governance in the country. The speed of the reaction determines the outcome.

“We demand that the decision of the president must be reversed with immediate effect. The governor and his deputy should be restored to office with immediate effect. The State House of Assembly should be restored with immediate effect.

“The Sole Administrator should be immediately mandated to return to his home and hand over the reign of power to the democratically elected administration. We shall be compelled to take further actions in compliance with our demands.”