By Muhammad Mamman
Legal practitioner and politician, Kenneth Okonkwo, has faulted the Supreme Court for commenting on the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State, arguing that the apex court ought to have exercised restraint on the matter.
Mr Okonkwo said the issue of emergency rule in Rivers State is inherently political and constitutional, stressing that the Supreme Court should only pronounce on it when properly invited to do so through a live case before it. According to him, any comment outside a substantive suit risks blurring the line between judicial interpretation and political intervention.
He maintained that the doctrine of separation of powers requires the judiciary to avoid making pronouncements on issues that are either speculative or not directly placed before the court for adjudication. In his view, such comments could prejudice future litigation and weaken public confidence in judicial neutrality.
The lawyer further argued that the power to declare a state of emergency is clearly outlined in the Constitution and rests primarily with the executive, subject to legislative oversight by the National Assembly. He noted that judicial review should only arise after all constitutional processes have been triggered and challenged in court.
Mr Okonkwo warned that premature judicial commentary on politically sensitive matters could set a dangerous precedent, encouraging unnecessary legal controversies and political tension.
He therefore called on the judiciary to uphold judicial restraint and allow constitutional mechanisms to run their full course before intervening, insisting that the credibility of the Supreme Court depends on its strict adherence to due process and constitutional boundaries.
