State of Emergency in Rivers State: A constitutional and democratic perspective, by Dr. Tukur Madu Yemi
The recent declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has sparked intense debate among legal scholars, political analysts, and concerned citizens. While the imperative of ensuring security and stability cannot be overstated, the suspension of an elected governor, deputy governor, and state legislators raises serious constitutional and democratic concerns.
As an academic in a Nigerian university, though not a legal practitioner, my perspective is anchored in the principles of constitutional governance, the rule of law, and democratic integrity. This analysis is informed by scholarly inquiry and a commitment to fostering democratic discourse rather than offering a legal opinion.
Security Concerns and the Imperatives of Constitutional Democracy
Nigeria continues to grapple with severe security challenges across multiple fronts, including terrorism, banditry, and economic sabotage such as pipeline vandalism. Given Rivers State’s strategic economic significance as an oil-producing region, concerns over stability are valid. The federal government has a constitutional duty to maintain law and order, which may include deploying security forces to support state authorities in addressing security threats. However, such interventions must not come at the expense of democratic governance and constitutional order.
READ ALSO: Rivers State: Why Tinubu’s administration resort to state of emergency?, by Abba Dukawa
The Nigerian Constitution provides clear mechanisms for managing crises at the state level without resorting to the extra-constitutional removal of elected officials. A more appropriate approach would have been to enhance security operations within the state while ensuring that democratic institutions remain functional and accountable.
Deciphering the Political Crisis in Rivers State
The situation in Rivers State is widely understood to be a political contestation rather than a breakdown of law and order caused by insecurity. The tensions between the former governor, Nyesom Wike, and the incumbent, Siminalayi Fubara, have escalated into an intense power struggle, with rival factions vying for political dominance. This conflict, while disruptive, does not constitute an insurrection or a threat to national security that would warrant the invocation of emergency powers.
If every political conflict between a sitting governor and their predecessor were to necessitate a state of emergency, then multiple states across Nigeria would be under federal control. It is, therefore, misleading to frame the Rivers State crisis as a fundamental security emergency necessitating the suspension of a duly elected government.
The Legal and Constitutional Framework Governing a State of Emergency
The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) delineates the legal framework for the declaration of a state of emergency. Section 305 outlines the conditions under which such a declaration may be justified. Specifically, Section 305(3) states that the President may declare a state of emergency if:
1. There is a verifiable breakdown of public order and public safety necessitating extraordinary measures to restore normalcy.
2. There exists a clear and imminent danger of such a breakdown.
3. A natural disaster or other calamity has occurred, significantly affecting the community or a substantial part of the country.
However, the Constitution does not confer on the President the authority to unilaterally remove an elected governor, deputy governor, or state legislators. Instead, Sections 188 and 189 provide clear procedures for the removal of a governor or deputy governor through impeachment by the State House of Assembly. Similarly, lawmakers can only be removed through constitutional means such as resignation, recall, or judicial intervention.
By unilaterally dissolving the Rivers State government, the federal government has acted outside the bounds of constitutional authority, thereby setting a dangerous precedent for Nigeria’s democratic governance.
A Dangerous Precedent for Democratic Governance
The removal of Governor Siminalayi Fubara and state legislators under the guise of emergency powers raises an important question: If insecurity and political crises justify the dissolution of a state government, should the same logic apply at the national level? Nigeria has faced persistent security threats, including insurgency in the North-East, banditry in the North-West, and secessionist agitation in the South-East. Should the President be subjected to removal whenever the nation experiences a security crisis?
Democracy necessitates that leaders at all levels—whether governors or the President—be held accountable through constitutional mechanisms such as elections, impeachment, or judicial review. Allowing the executive to arbitrarily remove elected officials not only undermines democratic principles but also establishes a dangerous precedent that could be exploited by future administrations to suppress political opposition.
A More Constitutional Approach to Resolving the Rivers State Crisis
Rather than resorting to the declaration of a state of emergency, the federal government should have considered the following constitutional and democratic measures:
1. Encouraging political actors in Rivers State to resolve their differences internally or through legal channels.
2. Facilitating dialogue and reconciliation among the conflicting factions.
3. Strengthening security agencies to prevent political violence while maintaining the independence of state governance structures.
4. Upholding the authority of the Rivers State House of Assembly to address any leadership disputes within the state.
By adopting these measures, the federal government could have upheld order while preserving democratic governance and constitutional integrity.
Conclusion
The decision to dissolve an elected government in Rivers State is both unconstitutional and unnecessary, given that the underlying crisis is a political struggle rather than a genuine security emergency. Nigerians are well aware that this is a contest for political control between a former governor and his successor, not an uprising or insurgency necessitating extreme measures. While the federal government has the responsibility to maintain peace, it must do so within the confines of constitutional legality.
As an academic, I strongly advocate for the preservation of constitutional governance and democratic principles at all levels of government. While I do not practice law, my argument is grounded in the fundamental tenets of democracy, governance, and constitutionalism. If this precedent is allowed to stand, it could be leveraged against any opposition-led government, further weakening Nigeria’s democratic institutions.
It is, therefore, imperative that democratic institutions, legal experts, and civil society organisations challenge this decision in defence of the rule of law. A nation governed by law must uphold its constitutional processes or risk sliding into autocracy.
Dr. Tukur Madu Yemi
Federal University of Kashere, Gombe
Follow the Neptune Prime channel on WhatsApp:
Do you have breaking news, interview request, opinion, suggestion, or want your event covered? Email us at neptuneprime2233@gmail.com
