Politics
Backlash: Tinubu in trouble over emergency rule
– Unlikely to extend it, as he fears judicial outcome
President Bola Tinubu may be rethinking his decision to impose a state of emergency in Rivers State, as opposition against the move continues to grow into what is already looking like another era of pro-democracy struggle, amid concerns that the country’s democracy is facing existential threats.
Business Hallmark gathered that while the president had planned to extend the emergency rule at its expiration in six months time to enable them consolidate, that may no longer be the case on account of mounting pressure, possible judicial review.
“The emergency rule is very likely going to be lifted even before the six months period,” said a source close to the president, who craved anonymity. “There is this realization that having it in place is going to lead to an unending political drama. So, yes, like the Minister suggested, it would be lifted as soon as possible.”
The declaration of a state of emergency in the oil-rich state had stemmed from a bitter political rivalry between Siminalayi Fubara, the now suspended governor of the state, and Nyesom Wike, his predecessor and current minister of the Federal Capital Territory. The rivalry got to a head when the Supreme Court resolved a lot of the issues, including the status of the 27 members of the state Assembly loyal to Wike, in favour of the minister’s camp, which then prompted renewed impeachment moves by the Assembly.
The impeachment threat was followed by threats by militant groups to sabotage oil production, and when two pipelines were eventually blown, Tinubu stepped in to declare a state of emergency, citing break down of law and order.
But not many were convinced, and have continued to insist that there was no basis for the emergency rule, even as cynics have wondered whether the blowing up of pipelines was not orchestrated to be used as an excuse to remove the governor.
“I find the argument about whether the president has the power to suspend a governor very offensive. It is an argument that should never be put forward,” said Inibehe Effiong, a human rights lawyer during an appearance on Channels TV.
“If you are going to use pipeline vandalization as an excuse to declare state of emergency, why is the governor of Bayelsa state still in office? Because just few days after, a pipeline was blown in Bayelsa. Since Tinubu became president, Nigeria has lost billions due to vandalization of oil installations and theft of oil in the Niger Delta. So why has the president not declared state of emergency to remove the governors?
“And by the way, does a governor control the pipelines? Is the governor the appointer of the Inspector General of Police? Is he the appointer of the Chief of Naval Staff? Is it the governor that awarded pipeline protection contract to Tompolo and others?”
Effiong noted ultimately that, “This is an excuse that the president has manufactured in his head. Let us be more serious, even if you are saying that because there is insecurity in the state, people are fleeing their homes in their thousands in Ondo State. The president has not declared a state of emergency there. There is communal crisis in Osun State, the president hasn’t even come out to say anything. In the North, people are being killed. So, if it is that when there is insecurity you must remove the chief executive, Tinubu himself should no longer be president.”
The president’s action has continued to attract criticisms, not just from the opposition camp, but also from the likes of Nobel Laureate, Prof. Wole Soyinka, a known supporter of the president.
Speaking to an international news outlet last week, Soyinka said declaration of state of emergency in the state was against the spirit of federalism. According to him, “If it is constitutionally right, then I think it is about time we sat down and amended the constitution to make sure that it operates as a genuine federal entity.”
The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), the country’s professional body of lawyers, also denounced President Tinubu’s actions as “unconstitutional, unlawful, and a dangerous affront to Nigeria’s democracy.”
Govt soft pedals
Amid the growing condemnations, during an appearance on Arise TV last week, the Minister of Information and National Orientation, Mohammed Idris, hinted that President Tinubu will end the state of emergency as soon as stability is restored. He had maintained that Tinubu remained committed to reinstating democratic governance in the state.
“As soon as he assesses that sanity has returned to Rivers State, he will ensure the restoration of all democratic structures in that state,” he had said, emphasizing the urgency of the situation. “The president will not wait a minute longer than necessary.”
The minister had also dismissed speculations about hidden motives behind the emergency declaration, arguing that the decision was made purely in the interest of restoring order.
“The president has no intention whatsoever to take over the governance of Rivers State. He has no intention to be or to appoint a governor for Rivers State,” he had said.
According to him, the breakdown of governance in Rivers necessitated the president’s intervention, which he described as “a very responsible but very painful” decision made in line with constitutional provisions,” noting that, “The way democracy is designed in this country is that the three arms of government must work together, and one will be checking the other. So, we cannot have just the executive functioning and say we have a functional democracy. We didn’t have that, and therefore, the president had to act.”
Untenable justification
Idris’ justification for the emergency rule, however, has been severely repudiated by many, including elder statesmen, notable political figures and lawyers, who insist it’s an abuse of power. And not even the decision of the National Assembly to endorse it via a voice vote – another violation of the constitutional requirement for 2/3 majority – has served to give it a perception of legality.
Indeed, the emergency in Rivers – a People’s Democratic Party (PDP) state – declared on Tuesday, March 18, which came with the easing out of Governor Siminalayi Fubara, the deputy governor, Prof. Ngozi Odu, as well as the state House of Assembly, and the appointment of Retired Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas as sole administrator, has been described as the single biggest threat to democracy in Nigeria since the dawn of the Fourth Republic in 1999.
The emergency rule “is an impeachable offence,” argued Rotimi Amaechi, a lawyer and former governor of Rivers, who served as minister of transportation under Tinubu’s predecessor, Muhammadu Buhari.
Tinubu had relied on Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution to justify the emergency rule. But Amaechi, like many, including the NBA and its president, Afam Osigwe, SAN; Femi Falana, SAN, a human rights lawyer; Ebun-Olu Adegnoruwa, SAN, a human rights lawyer; Mike Ozekhome, SAN, a constitutional lawyer, among others, argued that no part of the constitution empowers a president to remove an elected governor.
“The president reserves the right to declare a state of emergency in areas of the country that have security challenges. Section 305 gives him that power, but that section did not include the removal of a governor,” he said in an interview. “If the framers of the constitution wanted to remove governor through state of emergency, they would have included it.
“The same framers of the constitution went to a separate section, section 188 and outlined the requirements for the removal of a governor. Those requirements included impeachment, death of a governor or the resignation of a governor. The constitution did not say that the president can wake up one day and decide to remove a governor. If that should be the case, it means that the opposition will not have governors because one day the president can just wake up and remove all the opposition governors and put people who are loyal to him.
“The first person to do it was President Obasanjo and he was thoroughly criticized. They tried to challenge him in court but, unfortunately, the process did not go through to the end. The second person was President Goodluck Jonathan, but he knew the law. His Attorney-General, Mohammed Adoke did the right thing. So, Jonathan did not remove any governor. He left the Democratic institutions as they were.”
Indeed, when Jonathan declared state of emergency in Borno, Adamawa and Yobe at the height of Boko Haram insurgency without removing the governors, Tinubu, then an opposition leader, sharply criticized Jonathan’s use of emergency powers, describing it as a “barely disguised attempt to muzzle the elected governments of these states, reflecting unpardonable mediocrity and diabolic partisanship aimed at the 2015 elections.”
What the law says
Section 305 of the 1999 constitution as amended provides that, “(1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the President may by instrument published in the Official -Gazette} of the Government of the Federation issue a Proclamation of a state of emergency in the Federation or any part thereof.
(2) The President shall immediately after the publication, transmit copies of the Official -Gazette of the Government of the Federation containing the proclamation including the details of the emergency to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, each of whom shall forthwith convene or arrange for a meeting of the House of which he is President or Speaker, as the case may be, to consider the situation and decide whether or not to pass a resolution approving the Proclamation.
(3) The President shall have power to issue a Proclamation of a state of emergency only when: –
(a) the Federation is at war;
(b) the Federation is in imminent danger of invasion or involvement in a state of war;
(c) there is actual breakdown of public order and public safety in the Federation or any part thereof to such extent as to require extraordinary measures to restore peace and security;
(d) there is a clear and present danger of an actual breakdown of public order and public safety in the Federation or any part thereof requiring extraordinary measures to avert such danger;
(e) there is an occurrence of any disaster or natural calamity, affecting the community or a section of the community in the Federation;
(f) there is any other public danger which clearly constitutes a threat to the existence of the Federation; or
(g) the President receives a request to do so in accordance with the provisions of subsection (4) of this section.
(4) The Governor of a State may, with the sanction of a resolution supported by two-thirds majority of the House of Assembly, request the President to issue a Proclamation of a state of emergency in the State when there is in existence within the State any of the situations specified in subsection (3) (c), (d) and (e) of this section and such situation does not extend beyond the boundaries of the State.
(5) The President shall not issue a Proclamation of a state of emergency in any case to which the provisions of subsection (4) of this section apply unless the Governor of the State fails within a reasonable time to make a request to the President to issue such Proclamation.
(6) A Proclamation issued by the President under this section shall cease to have effect –
(a) if it is revoked by the President by instrument published in the Official Gazette of the Government of the Federation;
(b) if it affects the Federation or any part thereof and within two days when the National Assembly is in session, or within ten days when the National Assembly is not in session, after its publication, there is no resolution supported by two-thirds majority of all the members of each House of the National Assembly approving the Proclamation;
(c) after a period of six months has elapsed since it has been in force:
Provided that the National Assembly may, before the expiration of the period of six months aforesaid, extend the period for the Proclamation of the state of emergency to remain in force from time to time for a further period of six months by resolution passed in like manner; or
(d) at any time after the approval referred to in paragraph (b) or the extension referred to in paragraph (c) of this subsection, when each House of the National Assembly revokes the Proclamation by a simple majority of all the members of each House.”
Plot to force Fubara Out
Perhaps having realised that it would be difficult to sustain the emergency rule in Rivers, Business Hallmark gathered that there’s a plan to force Fubara to resign from office.
At the weekend for example, an apparently sponsored social media campaign was launched to demand the governor’s resignation under the hashtag #Fubarashouldresign.
The campaign came on the heels of claims by the embattled former Head of Service of Rivers, George Nwaeke, that Governor Fubara of misappropriating state funds during his less than two-year administration.
Speaking over the weekend, Nwaeke described the alleged financial mismanagement as “mind-boggling” and assured that he would provide evidence to security operatives when required.
“I cannot disclose all my evidence to the media as some are sensitive. I will present the details to the proper authorities when necessary,” he said. “The level of public funds and assets misappropriated in the last two years is unprecedented, especially considering that the state received the highest allocations during this period.”
During a press conference on Friday in Abuja, Nwaeke further alleged that Governor Fubara directed his Chief of Staff, Edison Ehie, to burn down the Rivers State House of Assembly.
“I was at the Government House when a bag of money was handed over to Edison for that operation, though I do not know the amount inside,” he claimed.
In response, Governor Fubara dismissed Nwaeke’s allegations, stating that the former Head of Service had been “compromised” and was being “coerced” to lie against him.
In a related development, Nwaeke’s wife, Florence, told journalists on Friday evening that she had lost contact with her husband after he made public statements regarding the political crisis in Rivers State. She alleged that he had been kidnapped and that his interview was conducted under duress.
However, in a short video response, Nwaeke refuted his wife’s claims, stating that he was safe and had not been abducted. He insisted that his initial statements against Fubara were made of his own free will.
Democracy under threat
Many have argued that the state of emergency in Rivers have yet demonstrated that the country’s democracy has either collapsed or is collapsing.
Speaking on Monday last week on the occasion of the 60th birthday anniversary of Emeka Ihedioha, former governor of Imo State, the likes of Olusegun Obasanjo, Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi, who had previously criticized the move as abuse of power, took turns to decry the state of the country’s democracy.
While Obasanjo argued that democracy in Africa was not just failing, but actually dying, attributing the decline to a lack of alignment with African values and realities, Obi concluded that democracy was already collapsing in Nigeria, as successive governments knocked down preceding efforts.
But for Osita Chidoka, former minister of Aviation, there’s no democracy in Nigeria in the first place. According to him, the question of whether democracy is dying doesn’t arise because Nigeria doesn’t qualify as a democracy.
“We need to redefine what we mean by democracy. A democracy where elections don’t matter; the people don’t participate in the selection of their leaders cannot be called a democracy, or a representative democracy,” he said.
“Representative democracy takes into consideration, or takes for granted, that the ‘people’ were elected by the people. There were many elections in Africa last year and nobody went to court about them. For example in Ghana, South Africa, and Senegal people had elections and nobody went to court because the outcomes reflected the will of the people.
Chidoka, who spoke on Channels TV continued, “So, at the root of democracy is free and fair election. Nigeria may not qualify to be a representative democracy as it is today. So, if you ask whether democracy is failing in countries where democracy is being practiced properly like South Africa, the question becomes whether the outcomes are commensurate with the expectations of the people that democracy should support economic growth. That’s when we can have a conversation.
“But in Nigeria, my view is that we first have to practice democracy. We have to first have clean elections. The idea of clean elections is at the heart of democracy. So, when we say that we have made the choices but the choices did not pan out well, we can then begin to think wether the presidential system is not working well, or if our national assembly type is not working well for us.”
Last week, a coalition of civil society organizations petitioned the United Nations Human Rights Committee, urging urgent intervention in what they describe as the unconstitutional usurpation of democracy in Rivers State.
In a strongly worded letter dated March 26, 2025, the Concerned Civil Society Organizations (CCSO) accused President Bola Tinubu and the National Assembly of orchestrating an unlawful takeover of the state government, violating Nigeria’s Constitution and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
The petition, signed by Egondu Esinwoke (Convener) and Courage Nsirimovu (Coordinator) alongside 24 other civil society groups, outlined a series of alleged constitutional breaches, beginning with the political influence of former governor and current Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike.
According to the petitioners, Wike manipulated state lawmakers to act against the elected Governor, Sir Siminalayi Fubara, in a bid to maintain control over the state’s political structure. The petition detailed how 27 members of the Rivers State House of Assembly defected from the PDP to the ruling APC at Wike’s behest, a move that constitutionally warrants their removal.
However, they said, in an unprecedented Supreme Court ruling, the defected lawmakers were reinstated despite clear legal precedents, allegedly due to Wike’s influence over the judiciary. The court also ruled that the state’s federal allocations be withheld until an appropriation bill is passed by the contested legislature, further crippling the government.
The most damning allegation in the petition is that President Tinubu unilaterally declared a state of emergency in Rivers State on March 18, 2025, suspending the elected governor, deputy governor, and the legislative arm—an action the petitioners say, is an outright coup against democracy.
The petition argued that Section 305 of the Nigerian Constitution, which outlines conditions for a state of emergency, does not authorize the removal of elected officials. It also claims that the National Assembly’s approval of Tinubu’s action was done via a controversial voice vote, raising concerns about legislative compromise and legality.
Elder statesmen rally
Meanwhile, amid the Rivers imbroglio, the Patriots, a Pan Nigerian organization made up of eminent Nigerians, has made a renewed call for ”a new people’s democratic Nigerian Constitution” in its bid to have a document that reflect the will, wishes and existence of Nigerians from every part of the country.
The group, being led by two-term former Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, Chief Emeka Anyaoku, is billed to hold deliberations with the leadership of the National Assembly on a proposed conceptualization and operationalization of a new constitution for Nigeria.
Chief Anyaoku, also a former minister of Foreign Affairs of Nigeria and current leader of The Patriots, is expected to lead the organization to meet with the leadership of the National Assembly in April.
The Patriots added that the scheduled meeting with both the Senate and the House of Representatives comes as a follow-up to an August 9, 2024 meeting, which the organization held with President Bola Tinubu at the Presidential Villa, Abuja.
The Patriots comprises eminent Nigerians including General Ike Nwachukwu, a former Senator, two term minister of foreign affairs of Nigeria and former governor of old Imo State; Alhaji Tanko Yakasai, a first and Second Republic politician; Chief Olusegun Osoba, a former governor of Ogun state; General Alani Akinrinade, a former Chief of Defence Staff; Prof. Anya O. Anya, a renowned academic; Dr. Kalu Idika Kalu, a former minister of finance; Dr Oby Ezekwesili, a former minister of Education and one time vice-president of the World Bank.
The membership also includes Izoma Philip Asiodu, a retired Super permanent Secretary; Prof Pat Utomi, a distinguished Professor of political Economy; Mr. Solomon Asemota (SAN); Mr. Olisa Agbakoba (SAN), founder of Civil Liberties Organization,(CLO); Obong Victor Attah, a former governor of Akwa Ibom state and Co-chairman of the Board of Trustees of PANDEF; Prof. Anthony Kila and Mr. Labaran Maku, an eminent journalist and former minister of Information.
The group has remained persistent in its call on President Bola Tinubu to convene a Constituent Assembly, stressing that the move will enable every ethnic nationality that constitutes the country to negotiate its existence and how it should be governed.
They restated these calls when members converged on Thursday for the 20th memorial anniversary of the Organization’s founding chairman, Chief FRA Williams at the FRA Williams Chambers in Lagos.
Addressing journalists on the occasion, General Secretary, The Patriots, Mr Olawale Okunniyi, said the group’s mission to the National Assembly is to demand the lawmakers to amend Section 8 and 9 of the 1999 Constitution to include a Referendum/Plebiscite clause, whereby the people can demand a change of the Constitution at any time.
“The current Constitution is warped, fashioned after corruption and supports corruption. The foundation, which is the Constitution, is faulty. Only two percent of Nigerians are benefiting from the Constitution and we need to correct this anomaly. We need a Constitution of the people that works for the poorest of the poor,” Okunniyi said.
