By Abba Dukawa
The political crisis in Rivers State began in December 2023 when Governor Siminalayi Fubara ordered the demolition of the state House of Assembly complex, which remains unreconstructed to this day. This act has effectively paralyzed the legislative arm, disrupting the state’s system of checks and balances.
The Supreme Court underscored the severity of this situation on February 28, 2025, highlighting the absence of a functional government in Rivers State. The court noted that the executive’s role in collapsing the legislative arm had created a governance void.
Additionally, recent reports indicate that militants have been vandalizing pipelines and issuing threats without any intervention from the state government, raising concerns about the state’s security and economic stability. Given Rivers State’s crucial role in Nigeria’s economy, this situation necessitates urgent and cautious federal intervention. However, despite efforts from various stakeholders, including President Bola Tinubu himself, the crisis has persisted.
Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State has sparked intense debate regarding its necessity and potential political motivations. He is now the third president to invoke Section 305 of the Constitution, following former Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo and Goodluck Jonathan. In his nationwide address, Tinubu justified the decision by citing rising political tensions and acts of pipeline vandalism.
However, he also acknowledged the potential for unpredictable consequences, including the emergence of radical ideologies and extremist tendencies. Critics argue that Tinubu’s decision was unnecessary and politically motivated, particularly given his close ties to the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike, who is accused of being the mastermind behind the crisis.
Some believe the move is a calculated effort to remove Governor Fubara, who is perceived as hostile to the Tinubu/Wike 2027 political project. The true motivations behind Tinubu’s decision remain unclear, but its implications for Rivers State and the nation are profound.
The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has strongly opposed the President’s decision, pointing to Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution, which governs the procedure for declaring a state of emergency. While this section grants the President emergency powers, it does not authorize the removal or suspension of elected officials. The NBA emphasized that the only constitutional method for removing a governor or deputy governor is through impeachment, as outlined in Section 188 of the Constitution.
Furthermore, the removal of lawmakers must adhere to electoral laws and constitutional provisions. The NBA insisted that a state of emergency does not equate to the automatic dissolution of an elected government and warned that any attempt to do so constitutes an overreach of executive power.
Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has strongly condemned Tinubu’s declaration, calling it an “assault on democracy.” He accused Tinubu’s administration of either enabling the crisis in Rivers State or failing to prevent it. Atiku argued that rather than punishing the people of Rivers State with emergency rule, Tinubu should take responsibility for any compromise of federal infrastructure in the state.
He further alleged that Tinubu’s inaction in curbing Wike’s influence has exacerbated the crisis. According to Atiku, the destruction of national infrastructure in Rivers State is a direct result of the President’s failure to act. He labeled the declaration of emergency rule as “political manipulation and outright bad faith” and insisted that Rivers people should not be punished for the political gamesmanship between the governor and Tinubu’s allies.
For a state of emergency to be declared, Section 305(3) of the Constitution outlines specific conditions, including war or external aggression against Nigeria, imminent danger of invasion or war, a breakdown of public order and safety to such an extent that ordinary legal measures are insufficient, a clear danger to Nigeria’s existence, or the occurrence of a disaster or natural calamity affecting the state.
Since the emergency was declared, many political analysts have questioned whether the crisis in Rivers truly meets these constitutional thresholds. Political disagreements, legislative conflicts, and executive-legislative tensions do not, by themselves, justify emergency rule. Such conflicts should have been resolved through legal and constitutional mechanisms, including the judiciary, rather than through executive fiat.
A state of emergency is an extraordinary measure that must be invoked strictly within constitutional limits. The removal of elected officials under the pretext of emergency rule is unconstitutional and unacceptable. While some argue that Tinubu’s move was necessary to restore stability, others believe it was an overreach that could have severe economic and security consequences for both Rivers State and Nigeria at large.
Was the declaration of emergency necessary, or was it politically motivated? Tinubu is fully aware that declaring a state of emergency in a democratic system is not the solution to the self-inflicted crisis in Rivers State. Instead, what Tinubu needed most was to call Wike—his own Minister of the FCT—to order. Many believe that Wike is the key instigator of the crisis, yet he remains untouched while the governor and lawmakers bear the brunt of federal action.
The decision to suspend elected officials and appoint a military administrator raises concerns about the militarization of a democratic government. Some see this move as an attempt to exert federal control over Rivers rather than allowing democratic processes to unfold. The six-month emergency rule, with provisions for extension, could lead to prolonged federal oversight, potentially undermining state autonomy.
Several pressing concerns need to be addressed, including the potential abuse of power, as the suspension of elected officials and appointment of a military administrator could be seen as an attempt to consolidate federal power.
There is also the impact on democratic institutions, as emergency rule might weaken democratic institutions in Rivers State and set a dangerous precedent for future federal interventions.
The federal government must ensure that the emergency rule is transparent, accountable, and subject to regular review. Balancing the need for stability with respect for democratic institutions is crucial. The federal government must tread carefully to avoid exacerbating tensions and must work toward a peaceful resolution.
If Tinubu truly sought fairness, he should have also considered declaring a state of emergency in the FCT, where conflicts persist between the Minister, lawmakers, and local authorities. Instead, his intervention in Rivers State appears one-sided, with blame placed solely on the governor and lawmakers while Wike’s role is ignored. This selective approach raises concerns about bias and political favoritism. Ultimately, the question remains: Was the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State timely, or was it a grave misstep? Only time will tell.
Abba Dukawa is a public affairs commentator and can be reached at abbahydukawa@gmail.com
