Condemnation Trails Tinubu’s Declaration of State of Emergency in Rivers State
This post has already been read 2250 times!
The political atmosphere in Nigeria has been electrified following President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State. The decision, which led to the suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, and the State House of Assembly, has ignited a firestorm of criticism from political parties, civil society organizations, and prominent individuals.
While the president justified the move as a necessary response to escalating violence and political instability, critics argue that it undermines Nigeria’s democratic principles and constitutional framework.
A Polarizing Decision
President Tinubu announced the state of emergency during a nationwide broadcast, citing security concerns, including attacks on oil installations and political unrest.
However, the decision to suspend elected officials and appoint a sole administrator has been described by many as an overreach of executive power.
The Conference of Nigeria Political Parties (CNPP) strongly condemned the action, labeling it unconstitutional and a dangerous precedent. James Ezema, the CNPP’s Deputy National Publicity Secretary, stated, “The Constitution is unequivocal in its provisions regarding the removal of a duly elected governor. Section 188 outlines the impeachment process, which is the sole legal mechanism for removing a governor.
“Nowhere in the Constitution is the President granted the authority to suspend a governor or their deputy.”
The CNPP further argued that the move violates Section 1 (2) of the Constitution, which forbids any individual or group from assuming control of any part of Nigeria outside constitutional provisions.
Voices of Dissent
The Coalition of United Political Parties (CUPP) also criticized the declaration, describing it as a “democratic coup” against the people of Rivers State.
CUPP leaders, including High Chief Peter Ameh and Ikenga Imo Ugochinyere, accused the federal government of using the state of emergency as a pretext for political manipulation.
They pointed out that former President Goodluck Jonathan, during his tenure, declared states of emergency in Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa without suspending elected officials, thereby respecting democratic norms.
Peter Obi, the Labour Party’s presidential candidate in the 2023 elections, joined the chorus of condemnation, calling the declaration “reckless and unconstitutional.” He warned that such actions could erode public trust in democratic institutions and set a dangerous precedent for future administrations.
Civil Society and Legal Perspectives
Human rights organizations and legal experts have also weighed in, emphasizing the constitutional implications of the president’s actions. Inibehe Effiong, a human rights lawyer, argued that the suspension of elected officials violates Section 305 of the Constitution, which does not grant the president the authority to remove governors. Another lawyer, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, described the move as “undemocratic and unwarranted,” urging the president to rescind the decision.
The Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) and the Trade Union Congress (TUC) issued a joint statement condemning the declaration as an “assault on democracy.” They called for the immediate reversal of the state of emergency, arguing that it undermines the autonomy of subnational governments and sets a dangerous precedent for executive overreach.
Support Amidst Criticism
Despite the widespread condemnation, some groups have expressed support for the president’s decision. The Arewa Yoruba Youth (AAYY) described the declaration as a necessary step to restore order and stability in Rivers State. They argued that the escalating violence and political crises warranted decisive action to protect lives and property.
A Nation at a Crossroads
The declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State has exposed deep divisions within Nigeria’s political and civil society.
While supporters view it as a necessary measure to address security challenges, critics see it as an unconstitutional overreach that threatens the country’s democratic foundations. As the nation grapples with the implications of this controversial decision, the need for dialogue and adherence to constitutional principles has never been more urgent.
