Advertise With Us
For Questions, Enquiries, 
“When monkey dey work, baboon dey chop, na so dem wan make Rivers State be? Shi-kena! As dem talk, power is not permanent, and when big trees fall, na small-small tree go grow.”
President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State has thrust the nation’s democratic framework into uncertain territory, in a dramatic escalation of tensions across Nigeria. What began as a localized power struggle has escalated into a constitutional crisis that may define the trajectory of Nigeria’s democracy for years to come, Chidubem Okeke writes.
Tinubu’s administration has anchored its intervention on Section 305(1) of the 1999 Constitution, which indeed empowers the president to “declare a state of emergency in any part of the federation.” The provision allows for such declarations during breakdowns of public order, threats to national security, natural disasters, or when requested by a state governor.
However, the critical constitutional overreach lies not in the declaration itself, but in the subsequent suspension of democratically elected Governor Siminalayi Fubara and the dissolution of the Rivers State House of Assembly. While the constitution explicitly outlines the conditions for declaring emergencies, it remains conspicuously silent on whether such declarations automatically confer the authority to remove elected officials.
“The constitution does not explicitly authorize the president to suspend democratically elected officials during a state of emergency,” notes constitutional lawyer Dr. Olisa Agbakoba. “This creates a dangerous precedent where federal authority can potentially override state sovereignty at will, fundamentally altering our federal structure.”
Beyond Precedent: The Obasanjo Parallel
The Tinubu administration has pointed to precedent, specifically former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s 2004 declaration of emergency in Plateau State and removal of then-Governor Joshua Dariye. However, constitutional experts argue that precedent alone cannot justify constitutional overreach, especially when that precedent itself remains constitutionally questionable and was never properly adjudicated.
“We cannot use one potential constitutional violation to justify another,” argues Professor Itse Sagay, a prominent constitutional scholar. “The fact that an action occurred before does not automatically render it constitutional. Each case must be measured against the constitution itself, not against prior administrative decisions.”
The Benevolent Dictator Syndrome
Tinubu’s approach reveals the familiar pattern of Nigeria’s “benevolent dictator” syndrome – leaders who circumvent constitutional boundaries under the guise of restoring order. While the Rivers State situation indeed presented significant governance challenges – with a bombed legislative chamber, an unapproved budget for two years, and threatened impeachment proceedings – the question remains whether these circumstances warranted the federal government’s dramatic intervention.
“Every dictator in history has justified authoritarian measures by pointing to chaos that needed to be controlled,” notes political analyst Chidi Odinkalu. “The true test of democratic leadership is finding constitutional solutions to constitutional problems, not creating extra-constitutional remedies that further weaken the system.”
Fubara himself seems to recognize the existential nature of this struggle, telling Muslim leaders during a recent Sallah visit: “If our beliefs bring us some pain, so be it. The most important thing is that we stand on the side of truth and righteousness.”
Further complicating matters is the National Assembly’s approval process. Section 305 requires a resolution supported by a two-thirds majority of both chambers. Yet, the emergency declaration was approved by a mere voice vote without formal recording, raising serious questions about procedural compliance and transparency.
“How can we verify that the constitutional threshold was met when votes weren’t formally recorded?” questions legislative expert Dr. Bukola Saraki. “The constitution demands accountability precisely because emergency powers are so extraordinary. A voice vote fundamentally undermines this critical safeguard.”
With the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) Governors’ Forum and other stakeholders filing legal challenges, Nigeria’s judiciary now faces perhaps its most consequential test in recent memory. The Supreme Court must determine not only the fate of Rivers State but potentially the boundaries of presidential authority in Nigeria’s federal system.
“This case represents a critical juncture for Nigeria’s separation of powers doctrine,” explains Justice Adolphus Karibi-Whyte (Rtd). “The courts must decide whether our constitution permits a president to remove elected officials under emergency powers or whether such actions constitute an unconstitutional usurpation of voters’ democratic will.”
Meanwhile, Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas (Rtd), appointed as sole administrator, faces mounting challenges. Civil society organizations have announced legal action over his spending of state funds without an approved budget, highlighting the governance complications created by this constitutional confusion.
“The administrator derives authority from a presidential declaration whose constitutional validity remains contested,” notes governance expert Pat Utomi. “Every naira spent reinforces a potentially unconstitutional arrangement while creating practical governance problems that will outlast the current crisis.”
As Fubara urges his supporters to remain steadfast – “we will emerge stronger” – Nigeria stands at a democratic crossroads. The Rivers State crisis represents more than a regional power struggle; it tests whether Nigeria’s democracy can withstand the tension between emergency powers and constitutional governance.
“The true danger,” warns former President Goodluck Jonathan, “is that each constitutional shortcut makes the next one easier to justify. Today Rivers State, tomorrow another. Eventually, the exceptions swallow the constitutional rule.”
For a nation still consolidating its democratic institutions after decades of military rule, how this crisis resolves will signal whether Nigeria is progressing toward constitutional maturity or sliding back toward executive supremacy cloaked in democratic language.
As Fubara poignantly noted, drawing from religious tradition: “If God could be patient with Noah to allow even the snail to enter the Ark, then patience remains an essential virtue in our struggle.” Nigeria’s democratic experiment may require similar patience as it navigates these turbulent constitutional waters.
Chidubem Okeke writes from Port Harcourt.
Post a Comment