Pitfalls in Tinubu’s Emergency Rule in Rivers

Davidson Iriekpen examines the potential drawbacks of President Bola Tinubu’s decision to declare a state of emergency in Rivers State

President Bola Tinubu on Tuesday declared a state of emergency in Rivers State, suspending Governor Siminalayi Fubara; his deputy, Prof. Ngozi Odu, and members of the Rivers State House of Assembly. He has also appointed and sworn in a former Chief of Naval Staff, Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas (rtd) as the Sole Administrator of the state.

The president hinged his decision on Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution, saying he could not continue to watch the political situation in the state escalate without taking any measures.

Buttressing his point, the president, in a live broadcast, stated that he had received security reports in the last two days of “disturbing incidents of vandalism of pipelines by some militants without the governor taking any action to curtail them.”

 The unfolding insecurity, he warned, if left unchecked, can precipitate anarchy and a collapse of law and order.

 Section 305 of the Nigerian constitution interprets a state of emergency as a situation of “national danger, disaster or terrorist attacks in which a government suspends normal constitutional procedures to regain control.”

A state of emergency allows the president to immediately make any desired regulations to secure public order and safety.

The president has the constitutional power to declare a state of emergency in any part of Nigeria. However, this proclamation must be published in the official government gazette and ratified by the National Assembly, requiring approval from two-thirds of its members. This was not the case.

Tinubu has now joined the ranks of presidents in the country who took such actions while in office. Others who have done so since the return to democratic rule in 1999 are former presidents Olusegun Obasanjo and Goodluck Jonathan.

 Obasanjo imposed a state of emergency on Plateau State on May 18, 2004, suspending Governor Joshua Dariye, his deputy, and members of the state assembly.

He also imposed a state of emergency on Ekiti State on October 18, 2006, after state lawmakers removed the then-governor, Ayo Fayose.

On his part, former President Jonathan declared a state of emergency in Borno, Adamawa, and Yobe States on May 14, 2013, in response to the rampant bombings and escalating violence by Boko Haram.

While Obasanjo suspended the two governors during the emergency period, Jonathan, however, didn’t suspend any governor in his proclamation of a state of emergency.

Ironically, Tinubu was one of the critics who condemned Jonathan’s action in 2013, saying it was a dangerous assault on democracy and a ploy to rig the 2015 election.

“It is now abundantly clear that President Jonathan has finally bared his fangs confirming what was widely speculated,” he said at the time.

“By declaring a state of emergency in Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa, he has intimidated and emasculated the governors of these states. We are witnessing a dangerous trend in the art of governance and a deliberate ploy to subvert constitutional democracy.”

He went on further to suggest that the body language of the former president and his administration was a “disguised intention to muzzle the elected governments of these states for what is clearly a display of unpardonable mediocrity and diabolic partisanship geared towards 2015.

“Borno and Yobe states have been literally under armies of occupation with the attendant excruciating hardship experienced daily by the indigenes and residents of these areas. This government now wants to use the excuse of the security challenges faced by the governors to remove them from the states considered hostile to the 2015 PDP/Jonathan project,” Tinubu continued.

In his assertions, any security measures put in place that “alienate the people, in particular their elected representatives, should be considered as fundamentally defective by every right-thinking person in the country.”

Incidentally, all that he accused the President Jonathan-led government of doing is what is playing out today.

Beyond the constitutional breaches President Tinubu is being accused of, in a move that has raised eyebrows and fuelled speculations, he squarely laid the blame at the feet of Governor Fubara, while studiously exonerating his Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, and his co-travellers from any complicity in the crisis.

Many feel that this glaring disparity in the allocation of culpability has lent credence to the perception that Wike was, in fact, acting in concert with the presidency, designed to wrestle control of Rivers State from the opposition and seamlessly integrate it into the All Progressives Congress (APC) fold, thereby further consolidating the party’s stranglehold on power and incrementally annihilating the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

After all, troubles in the state began in 2023 when the FCT minister allegedly sought to maintain his grip on state politics, while Fubara attempted to assert his authority.

Fubara’s supporters, who accused Tinubu of taking sides with Wike to fight the governor, argued that on many occasions, the president had the opportunity to call the minister to order but remained silent.

The Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi, also exonerated Wike, insisting that Tinubu saved Fubara from impeachment.

But Fubara’s political enemy and former governor of the state, Rotimi Amaechi, stated that Tinubu’s declaration of an emergency rule in the state was a “brazen attempt at power grab in the state.”

Amaechi, also a former Minister of Transportation, said the crisis was being “orchestrated” to serve the interests of certain individuals seeking to impose themselves on the state.

Also, the state’s information commissioner, Warisenibo Johnson, in a statement, questioned why the president suspended Fubara from office but did not suspend Wike as FCT minister despite what he said was the governor’s efforts to implement the Supreme Court’s ruling and maintain peace in the state.

Many lawyers, civil society organisations, and members of the opposition accused the president of acting beyond his powers by suspending elected officials in states.

For instance, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has condemned the suspension, describing it as unconstitutional and an assault on democracy.

In a statement on Tuesday, NBA President, Mr Afam Osigwe said the move violates Section 305 of the Nigerian constitution, which outlines strict conditions for emergency rule.

Osigwe, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), said Section 305 grants the president the power to declare a state of emergency but with procedural safeguards to prevent abuses.

“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. Such actions amount to an unconstitutional usurpation of power and a fundamental breach of Nigeria’s federal structure,” he said.

Osigwe also questioned whether the political crisis in Rivers met the constitutional threshold for emergency rule, noting that political disagreements and legislative conflicts should be resolved through legal means, not executive intervention.

The NBA vowed to challenge the president’s decision, warning that it undermines Nigeria’s democracy and sets a troubling precedent for future political conflicts.