The Nigerian presidency has defended the recent declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State, despite mounting criticism from prominent figures, including former President Goodluck Jonathan and Nobel Laureate Wole Soyinka.
The emergency rule, which resulted in the suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy Ngozi Odu, and members of the state House of Assembly, has sparked nationwide debate over its constitutional validity and implications for democracy.
A Controversial Decision
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu announced the emergency rule on March 18, citing a breakdown of governance in Rivers State.
The crisis, fueled by a prolonged power struggle between Governor Fubara and state lawmakers, had escalated into violent confrontations and attacks on oil facilities—key national assets that contribute significantly to Nigeria’s economy.
Relying on Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), Tinubu justified the declaration as a necessary intervention to restore order.
To manage affairs in the state, the president appointed a retired Chief of Naval Staff, Ibok-Ette Ibas, as the sole administrator.
Within 48 hours, the National Assembly gave its approval, despite opposition from some lawmakers who questioned the proportionality of the measure.
Jonathan and Soyinka Condemn the Move
While the federal government maintains that its actions were necessary, prominent voices have pushed back against the emergency rule, calling it a dangerous precedent for Nigeria’s democracy.
Speaking at the Haske Satumari Foundation Colloquium in Abuja on Saturday, former President Goodluck Jonathan expressed disappointment over the suspension of elected officials in Rivers State. He warned that such actions could tarnish Nigeria’s international reputation and discourage foreign investment.
“These actions by key actors in the executive and legislative arms of government paint the country in a negative light,” Jonathan said. He further accused all three arms of government—the executive, legislature, and judiciary—of abusing their powers and failing to uphold democratic principles.
“A clear abuse of offices, clear abuse of power, clear abuse of privileges, cutting across the three arms of government — from the executive through the parliament and to the judiciary,” he stated.
Jonathan, who hails from the Niger Delta region, emphasized that he normally refrains from commenting on national issues to avoid political tensions. However, given the widespread concerns raised by Nigerians, he felt compelled to speak out.
Comparisons have been drawn to Jonathan’s own presidency, during which he declared a state of emergency in three North-East states—Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa—at the height of the Boko Haram insurgency in 2013. Unlike the current situation in Rivers, however, democratic institutions in those states were left intact.
Similarly, Nobel Laureate Wole Soyinka condemned the federal government’s handling of the crisis. In an interview with The Africa Report, Soyinka argued that the decision contradicts the principles of federalism. He pointed out that Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution grants excessive power to the presidency, making it easier for the federal government to overreach in state affairs.
“This declaration of a state of emergency, in the manner in which it was carried out, betrays the spirit of federalism,” Soyinka asserted. He called for a national dialogue on restructuring Nigeria’s governance framework to prevent similar occurrences in the future.
Legal and Civil Society Opposition
Beyond Jonathan and Soyinka, the emergency rule has faced opposition from various stakeholders, including governors from the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC), Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs), and civil society organizations.
Legal experts argue that while Section 305 allows the president to declare a state of emergency, the suspension of elected officials raises constitutional concerns. The NBA has called for a judicial review of the decision, questioning whether the president has the authority to unilaterally remove elected leaders without due process.
“The Nigerian Constitution does not explicitly grant the president the power to suspend a sitting governor and lawmakers, even under emergency rule,” said NBA President Yakubu Maikyau. “This action sets a worrisome precedent that could be exploited in the future.”
Civil society groups have also voiced concerns that the move could undermine Nigeria’s democratic gains and embolden future leaders to suppress opposition in states controlled by rival parties.
Some have called on the judiciary to intervene and clarify the constitutional limits of presidential power in such matters.
The Presidency’s Response
Despite the widespread backlash, the presidency remains firm in its stance. Presidential spokesperson Ajuri Ngelale defended the emergency declaration, arguing that the situation in Rivers had deteriorated beyond political disputes.
“The crisis in Rivers State is not merely a political standoff; it is a threat to national security,” Ngelale said in a press briefing.
“The federal government cannot stand by while key economic infrastructure is targeted and lawlessness prevails.”
He further dismissed claims that the action was politically motivated, insisting that it was taken in the best interest of the state’s residents and the nation as a whole.
What Next for Rivers State?
As the political and legal battles unfold, the future of Rivers State remains uncertain. With Governor Fubara and his deputy effectively sidelined, the appointment of a sole administrator marks an unprecedented governance shift in the state.
Whether this intervention will bring stability or deepen political discord remains to be seen.
Legal challenges are expected in the coming weeks, with opposition groups likely to seek redress in the courts. Additionally, protests by civil society organizations and political groups could increase pressure on the federal government to reconsider its stance.
For now, Rivers State finds itself at the center of a constitutional and political storm that could shape Nigeria’s democratic landscape in the years to come.
As calls for dialogue and judicial review intensify, the country watches closely to see whether the rule of law will prevail over executive power.
