Imagine waking up to hear that your governor, deputy governor, and state lawmakers have all been suspended—without warning, without a court ruling, and without due process. That’s what happened recently in Rivers State, where a presidential directive removed elected officials and replaced the state government with an appointee. The move has shaken public confidence and raised urgent questions: Can democracy survive if votes can be so easily disregarded? If so, who is really in charge—the people or the presidency?
The Nigerian Constitution allows the President to declare a state of emergency during grave national threats such as war or natural disasters. Even then, it does not grant the President the authority to remove elected officials. If a governor must be removed, Section 188 of the Constitution outlines a specific process—impeachment—which begins in the state House of Assembly. That process must not be replaced with a unilateral broadcast from the presidency.
That is precisely what makes the President’s action in Rivers State so troubling. The sudden suspension of a sitting governor and legislators, without impeachment or a court ruling, appears not only irregular but possibly unconstitutional. More concerning is that this precedent, once set, could be repeated in other states—and, indeed, already is. Each time it is tolerated, the foundation of Nigeria’s federal democracy weakens.
The idea that executive overreach can now be justified as “a child of necessity” has begun to embolden leaders and political actors at various levels. Dr. Shola Agboola, Ondo State SDP leader, publicly praised the President’s action as a wise move—likening it to the wisdom of King Solomon. He described the six-month suspension of Rivers State officials as a strategy to “calm political nerves” and “give Governor Fubara a soft landing.” This kind of praise reveals a growing tolerance for unconstitutional shortcuts disguised as political wisdom.
Ironically, President Tinubu once stood firmly against this kind of executive overreach. In 2013, when President Goodluck Jonathan declared a state of emergency in three northern states plagued by Boko Haram, he did not suspend elected officials. Yet Tinubu, then in opposition, accused him of trying to intimidate governors and warned that such interference would undermine democracy. That context makes his current actions not only contradictory but deeply disappointing.
Even at the height of the insurgency, Jonathan’s administration respected democratic structures. Attorney-General Mohammed Adoke clarified that the Constitution did not permit the removal of governors during emergencies. That restraint upheld the people’s mandate and preserved constitutional order—even in crisis. It is a standard worth preserving, not discarding.
In fact, this precedent has already sparked disturbing ripple effects. In states facing governance or political gridlock, citizens are now openly calling on the President to suspend opposition governments—not through legal oversight or constitutional means, but by executive order. This alarming shift is a direct consequence of what happened in Rivers, where unconstitutional suspension was framed as crisis management. What was once unthinkable is now being normalized—and that should concern every Nigerian who values democracy.
Now, to justify this clear overreach, the federal government claims that the President merely “saved” Governor Fubara from impeachment by suspending him. This argument is not only misleading—it shifts attention away from the real issue: the violation of due process. In no democracy does a President “assist” an elected governor by bypassing constitutional mechanisms for removal. Rather than offering protection, this move undermines the people’s mandate and weakens the foundation of democratic governance.
Some have even floated the idea that a governor might invite the President to suspend them in the name of peace or political compromise. But this is both unconstitutional and out of step with democratic norms. Nigeria operates a federal system, and governors are not subordinates of the President—they are independently elected by the people and can only be removed through due process. The Constitution provides no room for voluntary suspension, nor does it give the President the authority to accept such a request.
Academic research supports these warnings. A major study in the European Journal of Political Economy confirms that countries with vague or unchecked emergency powers tend to abuse them—not to solve crises, but to suppress opposition. The Brennan Center for Justice has similarly warned that emergency powers must be temporary, legal, and subject to checks and balances. Otherwise, they become tools to silence critics and evade accountability.
If a governor breaks the law, there’s a process: investigate, charge, and impeach. That’s how democracy enforces accountability without sacrificing legality. Bypassing due process tells Nigerians that raw power—not the rule of law—decides leadership. And once that becomes acceptable, democracy begins to erode.
This is no longer just about Rivers. The erosion of democratic accountability has begun to fester across the system. And once that trust is broken, rebuilding it becomes nearly impossible. What we normalize today may come back to haunt all political actors tomorrow.
The National Assembly, which endorsed the Rivers State emergency, must now consider the long-term damage of its decision. Today they empower one branch to silence another; tomorrow, it may be used against them. The Constitution protects all Nigerians—not just those temporarily in control. Defending it is the only safeguard against tyranny.
True leadership is not about control. It is about restraint, lawfulness, and respect for institutions. This moment calls not for more political gymnastics, but for a return to constitutional fidelity. Because once democracy is lost—piece by piece—it rarely returns whole.
Abidemi is the Managing Editor @ Newspot Nigeria
