By: Biodun Durojaiye
In the grand tapestry of Nigeria’s democratic journey, the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu on March 18, 2025, stands as a stark reminder of the delicate balance between constitutional governance and the preservation of national stability.
While the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and other critics have raised valid concerns about the constitutionality of suspending elected officials, the gravity of the situation in Rivers State demands a deeper, more nuanced analysis. The declaration, though extraordinary, was not only justified but necessary to avert a catastrophic collapse of governance and public order.
The NBA’s argument hinges on Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution, which outlines the conditions for declaring a state of emergency. While the association is correct in asserting that such measures must not infringe on democratic governance, it overlooks the fact that Rivers State had descended into a state of near-anarchy. The Supreme Court’s damning verdict on February 28, 2025, which described Governor Sim Fubara’s administration as despotic and declared that “there is no government in Rivers State,” was a clarion call for intervention. The court’s findings revealed a governor who had systematically dismantled the state’s legislative arm, rendering it dysfunctional and undermining the very foundation of democratic governance.
The vandalization of oil pipelines, a critical lifeline for Nigeria’s economy, further exacerbated the crisis. These acts of sabotage were not mere criminal activities; they were symptomatic of a deeper malaise—a breakdown of law and order orchestrated by those entrusted with the state’s governance.
The president, as the commander-in-chief, had a constitutional duty to act decisively to protect national assets and ensure the security of lives and property. To have done otherwise would have been an abdication of responsibility.
Critics argue that the suspension of Governor Fubara, his deputy, and members of the State House of Assembly was unconstitutional. However, this argument fails to consider the unique circumstances of Rivers State. The governor’s actions had effectively paralyzed the state’s governance structures, creating a vacuum that threatened to plunge the state into further chaos.
Read Also: Rivers: State of emergency ‘ll broker peace – Akpabio
The suspension, though unprecedented, was a necessary measure to restore order and create a conducive environment for the resolution of the crisis. It was not an act of executive overreach but a calculated response to an extraordinary situation.
The NBA’s assertion that the political crisis in Rivers State did not meet the constitutional threshold for a state of emergency is, at best, myopic. The Supreme Court’s findings, coupled with the vandalization of pipelines and the complete breakdown of governance, clearly met the conditions outlined in Section 305(3) of the Constitution. The situation in Rivers State was not merely a political disagreement; it was a full-blown crisis that threatened the very existence of the state as a functional entity within the Nigerian federation.
Moreover, the argument that the president’s actions were hasty ignores the fact that multiple attempts had been made to resolve the crisis through dialogue and mediation. President Tinubu, as a statesman, had intervened on several occasions, but his efforts were met with intransigence and a blatant disregard for the rule of law.
The governor’s refusal to rebuild the House of Assembly, his alleged collusion with militants, and his failure to dissuade pipeline vandals were clear indications that he was either unwilling or unable to govern effectively. In such a scenario, the president had no choice but to act.
The suspension of elected officials, though a drastic measure, was not without precedent. In 2006, President Olusegun Obasanjo declared a state of emergency in Ekiti State following a similar breakdown of governance. While the circumstances were different, the underlying principle remains the same: when the machinery of government grinds to a halt, extraordinary measures are required to restore normalcy.
The suspension of Governor Fubara and his administration was not an attack on democracy but a defense of it. It was a necessary step to prevent the complete collapse of governance in Rivers State and to create a pathway for the restoration of democratic institutions.
The NBA’s call for the National Assembly to reject the declaration of a state of emergency is misguided. The National Assembly, as the custodian of the Constitution, has a duty to assess the situation on its merits and act in the best interest of the nation.
The president’s decision was not made in isolation; it was based on the findings of the Supreme Court and the recommendations of the Attorney General of the Federation. To reject the declaration would be to condone the lawlessness and impunity that have brought Rivers State to its knees.
In conclusion, the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State was a necessary and justified intervention. It was not an assault on democracy but a defense of it. The suspension of Governor Fubara and his administration, though unprecedented, was a necessary measure to restore order and create a pathway for the resolution of the crisis.
The NBA and other critics must recognize that the preservation of democracy sometimes requires extraordinary measures. The situation in Rivers State was not a mere political disagreement; it was a full-blown crisis that threatened the very fabric of the state. President Tinubu’s actions, though bold, were in the best interest of the nation.
The rule of law must be upheld, but so too must the stability and security of the nation. In this case, the two are not mutually exclusive.
