In a move that has left Nigerians bewildered and democracy hanging on a thread, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State raises more questions than answers, not just about legality, but about intent and the future of democratic governance in Nigeria. Though Section 305 of the Nigerian Constitution provides the president with powers to declare a state of emergency, the conditions under which this can be done are clearly spelt out, requiring both necessity and legality. Unfortunately, in this instance, both seem to be sorely lacking.
The political crisis in Rivers State, undoubtedly tense and chaotic, does not appear to rise to the constitutional limit that justifies such an extreme intervention. It is debatable whether the unrest posed a real danger to the sovereignty or stability of Nigeria, or whether it was simply a localized political conflict that could have been resolved through dialogue and legal means. The president’s decision to bypass more measured approaches in favor of this drastic action sends a troubling message: that the federal government is willing to bend, and even break constitutional norms to serve political interests.
But perhaps the more alarming development was not just the declaration itself, but what followed. The suspension of an elected governor and the state House of Assembly is not only a blatant assault on the democratic rights of Rivers State citizens, but also a complete deviation from constitutional procedure. Nowhere in the 1999 Constitution does it confer on the president or any federal authority, the power to unilaterally remove or suspend duly elected state officials. In doing so, Tinubu’s government has not just taken over a state, overstepped into the dangerous territory of executive rascality, where laws are interpreted based on convenience, not constitutionality.
Moreover, the manner in which the National Assembly affirmed the state of emergency has thrown Nigeria’s legislative integrity into disrepute. Section 305(6) of the Constitution mandates that such a declaration must be supported by a two-thirds majority of both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Yet, in this case, the Senate President, in an act that can only be described as legislative impunity, resorted to a voice vote to ratify the president’s request, ignoring the constitutional requirement for a full vote count. This not only undermines the sanctity of the National Assembly but sets a dangerous precedent where the highest citadel of Nigeria’s democracy becomes a rubber-stamp for executive whims.
What this situation reveals is not just a breakdown of constitutional order, but a deliberate erosion of democratic institutions. With the judiciary already weakened and having historically failed to check executive overreach, such as during former President Obasanjo’s controversial declarations of emergency in Plateau and Ekiti States, the stage is now set for autocracy laced in the veil of constitutionalism.
The danger here is existential. If a sitting president can declare a state of emergency based on vague political unrest, and then proceed to suspend democratically elected officials, what stops future leaders from using this same tactic to neutralize political opponents or consolidate power? The fire has been lit, and unless checked, it threatens to consume not just Rivers State, but the entire federation.
This move by Tinubu is not merely an administrative decision; it is a political statement that undermines federalism and the very fabric of Nigeria’s democracy. It signals to governors and state assemblies across the country that their tenures are only as secure as the president’s tolerance for their independence. It signals to Nigerians that their votes can be nullified not by the people or courts, but by a pen stroke in Aso Rock.
To avert this looming disaster, immediate steps must be taken. The judiciary, however battered, must rise to the occasion. Civil society, the media, and international observers must voice solid opposition to this unconstitutional takeover. Most importantly, the National Assembly must rediscover its spine and hold the executive accountable.
Nigeria’s democracy is still young and fragile. Actions like this don’t strengthen it; they sabotage it. If left unchecked, Tinubu’s Rivers declaration may well go down in history as the point where democracy in Nigeria lost its way. But there is still time to set things right, if the people, and those in power, are willing to demand better.
Amarachukwu Ugwu writes from Port Harcourt, Nigeria; she can be reached via Amarachukwuugwu518@gmail.com
