By The Guardian Editorial Board, Monday March 31, 2025
The declaration of a state of emergency in the province of Rivers State on March 18, 2025, may be partially justified on constitutional grounds, given that the president has the power to declare upon certain factors’ existence. Still, the state of emergency is nevertheless a setback to democratic governance in Nigeria. This is because an emergency rule is not only an imposition that may or may not stand the test of altruism, but it also allows the use of authoritarian measures that undermine democratic ideals.
The fact that the Governor of Rivers State, Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, Ngozi Odu, and all members of the State House of Assembly can no longer perform their roles as custodians of the state’s democracy and representatives of the Rivers people is clear evidence of the anomaly that the state of emergency has produced.
Also unfortunate is that in the short period of 26 years of democracy in the current republic, emergency rule has been imposed on states for one reason or the other on five occasions. That fact may lend credence to the view that since it is allowed by the constitution, emergency rule is part of democracy and that there is nothing wrong with its imposition. Indeed, having been imposed under former Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo, Goodluck Jonathan, and now President Bola Tinubu, it is logical perhaps for Nigerians to wonder when and where the next emergency is coming. This is sad and is unsupported by the practice of democracy in countries that Nigeria tries to emulate. President Tinubu should, therefore, move quickly to prevail on all stakeholders in Rivers State to ensure prompt resolution of the political impasse in the state and restore its democratic institutions.
Barely two weeks ago, President Tinubu declared a state of emergency in Rivers State and suspended the State Governor and the House of Assembly. He cited political instability and recent incidents of pipeline vandalism in the state as reasons for these actions. The attorney general of the Federation, Mr. Lateef Fagbemi, was to further amplify the reasons for the federal government’s intervention.
Said he: “The events in Rivers State started long ago, and he (President Tinubu) tried to intervene many times,” Fagbemi explained, emphasising that the President’s action was prompted by threats to national security and the economy, particularly the vandalisation of oil pipelines.
Fagbemi cited a 28 February 2025 Supreme Court judgment that found the governor had committed “breaches of the Constitution” and was “acting like a despot.” According to the Attorney General, the Court concluded that “there is no Government” in Rivers State—a determination he described as “very serious and very weighty.”
Fagbemi recalled that the political crisis reportedly began in late 2023 when the governor allegedly “demolished and brought down the House of Assembly” and subsequently operated with only “three or four members” whom he “harboured” and “gave preferential treatment.” Fagbemi noted that 14 months later, there had been “no effort to rebuild the House of Assembly.”
When questioned about the legality of suspending elected officials, Fagbemi was unequivocal: “The action of the President is the effect of a fundamental cause. What was the cause? The governor and members of the House of Assembly.”
The Attorney General acknowledged that the emergency declaration might be seen as a “compromise” that saved the governor from impeachment proceedings that had reportedly begun. “If normalcy returns, Fubara Sim may come in. But for now, it could be a compromise,” he stated.
In place of the displaced democratically elected government of Rivers State, President Tinubu appointed retired Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ekwe Ibas as the sole administrator of the state. Vice Admiral Ibas has since taken the oath of office before Tinubu (rather than the Chief Justice of Nigeria CJN) in a move seen as unprecedented, for making President Tinubu the first Nigerian President to perform the function of the CJN by swearing in a state executive.
Not unexpectedly, the government’s action has attracted widespread criticism for what some people see as a sudden overthrow of Rivers State’s democratically elected government. The Federal Government has also released to the sole administrator the previously withheld local government allocations—funds that the Supreme Court held should not be disbursed to the Fubara government, on account of its unconstitutional conduct.
President Tinubu explained his actions by citing the need to address the prevailing political tensions in Rivers State and the vandalisation of oil pipelines. Critics have also blamed the National Assembly for not putting a check on what they referred to as executive excesses under the principle of separation of powers and for seemingly rubber-stamping the President’s actions, including the deployment of soldiers and security forces to take control of the state’s affairs.
President Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State has also faced significant opposition, both nationally and internationally, with critics questioning its constitutionality and its implications for Nigeria’s federal structure. Former President Obasanjo had alleged that members of the National Assembly were bribed to ratify the state of emergency, an allegation denied by the Assembly’s leadership. Other critics argue that the state of emergency violates democratic tenets and sets a dangerous precedent. If left unresolved, they warn, it could weaken democratic institutions and push Nigeria toward authoritarianism, where executive overreach and lawlessness become normalised.
Section 305(3) of the 1999 Constitution outlines the strict conditions under which a state of emergency can be declared in the Federation or any of its federating units. These conditions include:
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. The occurrence of a disaster or natural calamity affecting a state or part of it.
6. Any other public danger that constitutes a threat to the Federation
One of the arguments of critics is that it is debatable whether or not the political situation in Rivers State meets the stringent criteria outlined in Section 305(3) of the Constitution for declaring a state of emergency.
Critics argue that Nigeria’s existing constitutional provisions provide adequate mechanisms for addressing political disputes in Rivers State—such as impeachment processes—without resorting to an emergency declaration. They insist that these legal avenues should be pursued to resolve conflicts between state executives and legislatures rather than imposing a state of emergency.
To be continued tomorrow
