Deepening Democracy with Jibrin Ibrahim, jibrinibrahim@dailytrust.com
On Tuesday, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu declared a state of emergency in Rivers State, to address the ongoing political crisis in the state. The crisis, as I understand it, is the fight to finish between Governor Siminalayi Fubara and former governor and current Minister of the FCT, Nyesom Wike. President Tinubu took a clear position on the matter blaming Governor Fubara for the crisis: “it is public knowledge that the governor of Rivers State for unjustifiable reasons, demolished the House of Assembly of the state as far back as 13th December 2023 and has, up until now, 14 months after, not rebuilt the same,” said the president.
He then blamed the governor for recent disturbing incidents of vandalisation of pipelines by some militants without the governor taking any action to curtail them as if it is the governor, and not him, who controls the security agencies. The president did not even name Wike as a party in the crisis and therefore openly displayed his positioning as an anti-Fubara interventionist. There lies the problem.
The president then invoked the provision of Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution to declare a state of emergency in Rivers State with effect from the 18th of March, 2025. He then suspended the Governor of the state, Mr Fubara, his deputy, Mrs Ngozi Odu and all elected members of the House of Assembly of the state for an initial period of six months: nominating Vice Admiral Ibokette Ibas (Rtd) as Administrator to take charge of the affairs of the state.
Nigerians, however, have not forgotten that President Tinubu has been on public record criticising President Jonathan for taking similar action in the past saying: “It is now abundantly clear that President Jonathan has finally bared his fangs confirming what was widely speculated. 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.”
The issue for most Nigerians was why President Tinubu reacted that way to the declaration of state of emergency in Borno, Yobe in May 2013 when the elected officials were not even suspended and do worse when he becomes president. This set the tone for the national response to the declaration of the state of emergency.
Within a few hours, the president of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) responded, querying the president. They contended that Section 305 of the Constitution indeed vests the president with the power to declare a state of emergency but the section stipulates strict conditions and procedural safeguards that must be followed to ensure that such extraordinary measures do not infringe on democratic governance and fundamental human rights.
Their concern was that the purported suspension by the president of the governor of Rivers State, the deputy governor, and the members of the State House of Assembly for six months was not grounded in our grundnorm. The 1999 Constitution does not grant the president the power to remove elected officials under the guise of a state of emergency. 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 circumstance.
They argued that for a state of emergency to be declared, Section 305(3) of the Constitution outlines specific conditions, including:
1. War or external aggression against Nigeria
2. Imminent danger of invasion or war 3. A breakdown of public order and safety to such an extent that ordinary legal measures are insufficient
4. A clear danger to Nigeria’s existence 5. Occurrence of any disaster or natural calamity affecting a state or a part of it
6. Such other public danger that constitutes a threat to the federation
The NBA questions whether the political crisis in Rivers State has reached the level of a complete breakdown of law and order warranting the removal of the governor and his administration. Political disagreements, legislative conflicts, or executive-legislative tensions do not constitute a justification for emergency rule. Such conflicts should be resolved through legal and constitutional mechanisms, including the judiciary, rather than executive fiat.
The next issue is that subsection (2) of Section 305 provides that:
“A Proclamation issued by the President under this section shall cease to have effect—
(a) if it is not approved by a resolution of the National Assembly within two days when the National Assembly is in session; or
(b) if the National Assembly is not in session, within 10 days after it reconvenes.”
The requirement, therefore, is that there shall be a division in voting on the matter – the requirement for Senate being 72 votes and for the House, 240 votes. Yesterday, however, both houses used voice votes to claim they have approved the proclamation but a voice vote does not tell you how many voted for or against. This evacuates the validity of the vote and created additional political crisis because it became clear that neither the Senate nor the House could produce the required majority.
My good friend, Barrister Jiti Ogunye, had argued that given the political nature of the conflict, suspension of the state executive and legislature could play the role of “deux ex machina” or miraculous solution to the protracted conflict. The fact that the votes in the National Assembly were not counted removes the miraculous from the purported solution.
I am therefore obliged to agree with my other barrister friend, Femi Falana, that the decision of President Tinubu to suspend Governor Fubara, his deputy, Mrs Odu, and all elected members of the Rivers State House of Assembly for six months is illegal as it cannot be justified under any of the provisions of the 320 sections of the constitution.
In accordance with the relevant provisions of the Nigerian Constitution, the office of an elected governor can only become vacant upon death, ill health, resignation, or impeachment. Even where the office of the governor becomes vacant for any reason whatsoever, the deputy governor shall be sworn in as the governor.
I respect the argument made by my good friend, Dakuku Peterside, that the political crisis in Rivers State has been exacerbated by the terrible decisions taken earlier by the Supreme Court. He argued that justice is the bedrock of any democratic society, providing stability, fairness, and order. However, when a Supreme Court ruling not only deepens an existing crisis but also fuels political strife, it calls into question the judiciary’s integrity and role in governance. For him, therefore, the recent Supreme Court judgement concerning Rivers State has ignited a political firestorm, raising fundamental questions for governance, democracy and the rule of law.
He points out that a meta-analysis of 134 expert legal commentaries in the media on the ruling reveals an overwhelming consensus—130 commentators argue that the verdict did more harm than good, failing to uphold legal standards and instead entrenching political instability. Those 130 commentators believe that the apex court did not dwell on the law but rather on extraneous issues. Only four legal experts expressed a differing opinion, highlighting the nearuniversal disapproval of the judgment within the legal community.
Peterside adds that Justice Mojeed Owoade (rtd)-led 11-man Independent Judicial Accountability Panel also delivered a scathing critique of the judgment. The panel noted that the Supreme Court failed to resolve the crucial issue of the alleged defection of 27 lawmakers, leaving a gap in legal interpretation. This is because the court commented on the defection issue without actually addressing it. This failure is significant given that a similar case in 2012 saw the Supreme Court uphold the removal of lawmakers who defected without due process.
One of the most contentious aspects of the judgment was its handling of local government elections. The Supreme Court verdict in annulling the elections did not follow any precedence known to law. To make matters more complicated, the Supreme Court nullified the elections without providing a timeline for fresh polls, leaving the fate of governance in limbo. LGA chairmen have been elected and sworn in yet the Supreme Court without hearing the chairmen or their political parties annulled the election.
The situation in Rivers State was promoted by these sets of actions into a national political crisis in which state power projected through a minister, the judiciary, the President of Nigeria and finally the National Assembly have been amassed to smash a tiny governor called Fubara without due regard to the good people of Rivers State. My last word is that I do not have the intellectual capacity to discern who can bring back justice that would favour the Rivers people.
@Daily Trust
