Nigeria’s National Assembly moved quickly on Thursday to endorse President Bola Tinubu’s controversial emergency rule in Rivers State, despite mounting opposition, raising new concerns about the erosion of democratic principles in the country.

However, in what is now emerging as a major scandal, an exclusive report by Peoples Gazette has alleged that lawmakers were financially induced to support the emergency rule declaration.

According to the report, eleven lawmakers—comprising seven senators and four House of Representatives members—confirmed separately to The Gazette that they were offered up to $25,000 each to endorse Tinubu’s invocation of Section 305 of the Nigerian Constitution.

This provision, which grants the president power to declare emergency rule, was used to dismantle democratic institutions in Rivers State, including the ouster of elected Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, and all state legislators. In their place, Tinubu installed a retired naval chief, Vice Admiral Ibok-ete Ibas, as sole administrator, effectively imposing a military-style rule over the state.

Legislature Under Fire for Alleged Executive Puppetry

The revelation of bribe payments has sparked outrage among Nigerians, many of whom already viewed the National Assembly’s decision as a rubberstamp endorsement of executive overreach. The bribery allegations have reinforced the growing belief that the legislative arm of government has ceased to function as an independent institution and is instead operating as a puppet of the presidency.

At a State House briefing on March 19, Attorney General Lateef Fagbemi defended Tinubu’s emergency rule, blaming Governor Fubara for the crisis and claiming that the intervention was necessary to maintain stability. He urged critics to petition the National Assembly if they were dissatisfied, fully aware that the legislature had already been co-opted into rubberstamping the president’s actions.

On March 20, both chambers of the National Assembly convened to consider Tinubu’s letter seeking their approval. Despite massive public outcry and legal experts condemning the move as unconstitutional, the House of Representatives and the Senate overwhelmingly voted in favor of the emergency rule.

In the House, 240 lawmakers approved the motion through a voice vote, with Speaker Tajudeen Abbas presiding. Though some amendments were made—including the creation of a committee of eminent Nigerians to mediate the crisis—the decision to uphold the emergency rule remained intact.

Similarly, in the Senate, 109 senators also gave their nod to the controversial decision, invoking their constitutional powers to approve the president’s declaration. A joint committee of both legislative houses was set up to oversee the administration of Rivers State during the emergency period, but it is believed that this is merely a smokescreen to legitimize Tinubu’s undemocratic move.

A Further Dent to Nigeria’s Democracy

The approval of the state of emergency has been described as one of the most blatant abuses of executive power in Nigeria’s democratic history. Legal experts and political analysts have declared the move unconstitutional, arguing that Section 305 does not permit the president to arbitrarily dissolve elected state governments and replace them with appointees.

The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), opposition parties, and civil society groups have all condemned the legislature for what they describe as an outright betrayal of democracy.

“The 1999 Constitution does not grant the President the power to remove an elected governor, deputy governor, or members of a state’s legislature under the guise of a state of emergency,” NBA said in a statement. “Rather, the Constitution provides clear procedures for the removal of a governor and deputy governor as per Section 188. Similarly, the removal of members of the House of Assembly and dissolution of parliament is governed by constitutional provisions and electoral laws, none of which appear to have been adhered to in the present circumstances.”

The approval, allegedly secured through bribes, is seen as yet another indication that Nigeria’s legislative arm exists merely to serve the interests of the executive, rather than act as an independent check on presidential power.

A senior lawyer, Femi Falana (SAN), speaking on the matter, warned that if this precedent is allowed to stand, no opposition-led state will be safe from similar takeovers in the future.

“Today it is Rivers; tomorrow, it could be any other state where the president’s party does not hold sway,” he said.

Growing Public Outrage and Fubara’s Legal Action

The decision to place Rivers State under a military-style administration is already facing legal challenges, with Governor Fubara’s lawyers filing a suit at the Supreme Court to overturn the emergency rule declaration. Political figures including Atiku Abubakar, Peter Obi, and Rotimi Amaechi have also called for the immediate reversal of the unconstitutional suspension of democratic institutions in Rivers State.

Beyond the courts, however, public anger is brewing, with some activists and opposition groups threatening mass protests against what they call a dangerous slide into dictatorship. The bribery allegations have only fueled resentment, with many Nigerians demanding a full investigation into the role of money in influencing lawmakers’ decisions.

The events in Rivers State have set off alarm bells about the future of federal-state relations, the independence of the legislature, and the survival of constitutional governance.

North Carolina has introduced legislation to invest up to 10% of its public funds into a Bitcoin strategic reserve. This initiative is reflected in two key bills: House Bill 92 (HB 92), introduced on February 10, 2025, and Senate Bill 327 (SB327), introduced on March 18, 2025. Both bills aim to position North Carolina as a leader in cryptocurrency adoption by allocating a portion of state funds to Bitcoin. HB 92, known as the “North Carolina Digital Assets Investments Act,” was introduced by House Speaker Destin Hall, with co-sponsors Representatives Mark Brody and Steve Ross.

It authorizes the State Treasurer to invest up to 10% of public funds—including the General Fund, Highway Fund, and various special funds—into Bitcoin exchange-traded products (ETPs). The bill specifies that eligible digital assets must have a market capitalization of at least $750 billion over the past 12 months, a threshold currently met only by Bitcoin. SB327, dubbed the “Bitcoin Reserve and Investment Act,” was proposed by Republican Senators Todd Johnson, Brad Overcash, and Timothy Moffitt.

It similarly allows the State Treasurer to allocate up to 10% of public funds, including the state’s $9.5 billion general fund, to Bitcoin. This bill emphasizes a “financial innovation strategy” and includes provisions for secure storage (multi-signature cold storage), monthly audits for transparency, and restrictions on selling Bitcoin except in severe financial crises under strict conditions. It also explores Bitcoin mining as a way to build the reserve cost-effectively. These proposals align with a broader trend, as North Carolina joins over 20 U.S. states exploring similar Bitcoin reserve legislation.

Supporters argue it diversifies state assets, hedges against inflation, and fosters technological innovation. However, Bitcoin’s volatility and regulatory uncertainties remain points of debate among lawmakers. Both bills are under consideration in the North Carolina House and Senate, respectively, with their outcomes still pending. North Carolina’s proposed legislation to invest up to 10% of its public funds into a Bitcoin strategic reserve, as outlined in House Bill 92 (HB 92) and Senate Bill 327 (SB327), could have wide-ranging impacts across economic, financial, technological, and social spheres.

Investing a portion of the state’s $9.5 billion general fund (up to $950 million) and potentially up to $13.7 billion including retirement systems could diversify North Carolina’s assets. Bitcoin’s historical average annual growth rate exceeds 50% over the past decade, suggesting potential for significant returns compared to traditional investments like bonds or equities. This could bolster state revenues if Bitcoin’s value continues to rise. However, Bitcoin’s volatility—evident in its price swings from $79,107 to $83,745 recently—poses a risk of substantial losses.

Proponents argue that Bitcoin, with its fixed supply of 21 million coins, could serve as a hedge against inflation and dollar depreciation. With the U.S. dollar facing periodic devaluation, this move might protect North Carolina’s purchasing power over time. Critics counter that Bitcoin’s price volatility undermines its reliability as a stable store of value, unlike gold or other traditional hedges. If successful, the reserve could generate positive yields, reducing reliance on tax increases or budget cuts.

By integrating Bitcoin into public finance, North Carolina could position itself as a pioneer among U.S. states, attracting blockchain-related businesses, talent, and investment. SB327’s provision for Bitcoin mining could further boost local tech infrastructure and jobs, leveraging the state’s energy resources. This aligns with a national trend, as over 20 states explore similar initiatives, but it could give North Carolina a competitive edge if implemented effectively.

Secure storage (e.g., multi-signature cold storage) and monthly audits mandated by SB327 would require investment in cybersecurity and blockchain expertise. This could spur technological advancements and skill development within the state, though it also demands significant upfront costs and expertise that some experts warn governments may lack. The move could enhance Bitcoin’s legitimacy, signaling institutional confidence and potentially encouraging broader public adoption.

However, skepticism from groups like the State Employees Association of North Carolina highlights concerns over risking pension funds on a volatile asset, which could erode trust if losses occur. Transparent audits and strict oversight might mitigate these fears, but the lack of widespread understanding of cryptocurrency could fuel public unease or opposition. Success could inspire other states to follow, accelerating a domino effect of state-level Bitcoin reserves. This might pressure federal policymakers to clarify crypto regulations, reshaping the U.S. financial landscape.

The absence of a robust federal framework for cryptocurrencies could complicate North Carolina’s initiative. Legal challenges or shifts in national policy (e.g., under President Trump’s proposed national Bitcoin reserve) might disrupt the state’s plans. Bitcoin’s price, currently around $81,530, has seen dramatic fluctuations. A 10% allocation could expose North Carolina to significant financial risk, especially if a market downturn coincides with a state fiscal crisis. Managing a Bitcoin reserve requires expertise in digital asset custody, which some experts argue governments are ill-equipped to handle.

A $950 million investment (or more if retirement funds are included) could boost Bitcoin demand, potentially driving prices higher and reinforcing its status as an institutional asset. This might amplify market rallies if other states follow suit. North Carolina’s move could enhance its reputation as a forward-thinking state, aligning with global trends where nations like El Salvador have adopted Bitcoin as legal tender, though on a smaller scale.

North Carolina’s Bitcoin reserve could yield significant economic benefits, establish the state as a tech leader, and influence national crypto policy—provided risks are managed effectively. However, volatility, regulatory gaps, and public skepticism pose substantial hurdles. The outcome of HB 92 and SB327, still under legislative review, will hinge on balancing innovation with financial prudence.