The recent declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is a troubling overreach of executive power that raises significant constitutional, legal, and political concerns. While the crisis in the state is serious, this drastic action is neither justified nor in line with democratic principles.
1. Violation of Constitutional Provisions
The Nigerian Constitution, under Section 305, lays out clear conditions under which a state of emergency can be declared. These include:
- A formal request from the Governor of the affected state. In this case, Governor Siminalayi Fubara and his deputy made no such request.
- A breakdown of public order and safety severe enough to render normal governance impossible. While Rivers State has experienced political instability, it has not reached a level that justifies federal intervention of this magnitude.
By proceeding unilaterally, the President has assumed powers beyond his constitutional limits, disregarding the autonomy of the state government.
2. Overreach of Executive Power
The suspension of an elected Governor, Deputy Governor, and the entire House of Assembly for six months is not only extreme but also unconstitutional. Nowhere in the Nigerian Constitution is the President granted the authority to arbitrarily remove elected officials. Section 305 only allows the federal government to assume some functions—not to impose full control over a state.
By appointing a retired military officer, Vice Admiral Ibokette Ibas, as an administrator, the President has effectively imposed federal rule, sidelining democratic institutions and disenfranchising the people of Rivers State.
3. Disregard for Judicial Authority
The Supreme Court had already ruled on the crisis, recognizing the legitimacy of the 27 defected lawmakers and reaffirming the need for constitutional governance in the state. Rather than ensuring the enforcement of this judicial decision, the President has chosen to bypass the courts and impose emergency rule.
This sets a dangerous precedent—if executive power can override judicial pronouncements, the rule of law is at risk. Such an action erodes public trust in the judiciary and undermines the checks and balances that safeguard democracy.
4. A Political, Not Security-Driven, Intervention
The federal government has cited two main reasons for the state of emergency: the political standoff between the Governor and lawmakers, and reports of pipeline vandalism by militants. However, political disputes, no matter how intense, do not warrant emergency rule. Political disagreements should be resolved through democratic means, not executive fiat.
As for security concerns, law enforcement agencies should be deployed to address criminal activities, not used as a pretext for suspending democratic governance. If the federal government has intelligence on militant activities, it should strengthen security operations rather than impose emergency rule.
5. A Threat to Democratic Governance
This move sets a troubling precedent—if political crises can be used as an excuse for federal takeovers, no state is truly autonomous. Future administrations may exploit this precedent, using emergency powers to settle political scores and undermine opposition-led states.
Nigeria’s democracy is built on federalism, where states retain a level of independence in governance. If this action is allowed to stand, it could weaken the foundation of state sovereignty and embolden future leaders to erode democratic norms.
Conclusion
The declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State is an unnecessary and unconstitutional overreach of executive power. It violates constitutional provisions, disregards judicial authority, and undermines democratic governance. Instead of suspending democracy, the federal government should focus on enforcing court rulings, strengthening security efforts, and fostering dialogue among political actors in Rivers State.
Nigeria’s democracy must be protected from arbitrary executive actions. The crisis in Rivers requires lawful and democratic solutions, not unconstitutional interventions.
