In a democracy, lawmakers are meant to be the guardians of the rule of law the architects of public trust and accountability. But when those entrusted with making laws become the very lawbreakers they are supposed to check, the consequences are multi than mentional.
Cross River State’s House of Assembly has recently crossed a troubling line, blurring the boundary between lawful authority and overreach.
At the heart of this controversy is the Assembly’s attempt to summon a citizen Ejim Johnny Agogo over Facebook posts an alarming misuse of power that violates established legal principles and fundamental rights. The Nigerian Constitution and statutory laws clearly restrict legislative bodies from wielding such unchecked authority.
While lawmakers have the power to summon witnesses relevant to legislative inquiries under Section 90 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), this power is limited to matters within the legislative competence and must not infringe on fundamental rights, including freedom of expression.
The Constitution’s Section 39 guarantees the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas without interference. This constitutional protection means that no individual can be lawfully summoned by the Assembly merely because a post on Facebook is critical or deemed offensive.
Instead, if a lawmaker or public official feels genuinely aggrieved by a social media comment, the proper legal course is to pursue a civil defamation suit in court, as provided by the Defamation Act and common law principles not to exploit the Assembly’s powers to harass or intimidate.
By ignoring these boundaries, the Cross River Assembly has crossed from lawful oversight into the realm of lawlessness. Their actions not only threaten freedom of expression but also undermine citizens’ trust in democratic governance. When the Assembly tries to weaponize its summoning powers to silence dissent or punish critics, it betrays the very principles it is meant to uphold.
These missteps are compounded by other questionable behaviors including rushed decision-making without due process and an apparent culture of impunity within the chamber. The Assembly is supposed to be a check on executive power, a protector of the public interest, and a beacon of accountability. Yet, instead, it risks becoming a tool for suppressing opposition and protecting narrow interests.
Cross River citizens deserve lawmakers who respect the rule of law who understand the limits of their powers and uphold democratic freedoms, including freedom of speech. The Assembly must recognize that lawmaking is a sacred duty, not a license for lawlessness.
The question is clear: will the Cross River Assembly reclaim its honor by respecting legal limits and democratic norms, or will it cement its reputation as lawbreakers cloaked in legislative robes?
The answer will shape the future of governance in the state. And for the sake of democracy, the Assembly must be reminded — if offended by speech, the courtroom is the place to seek redress, not the chamber of intimidation
