According to constitutional law, even in an emergency situation, an elected governor should remain in office while the federal government provides additional security and administrative support. By suspending Governor Fubara and appointing a retired military officer, Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas, as the Administrator, Tinubu has entered a constitutional gray area.
What Happens to Wike?
By Abdulrahman Aliagan, Abuja
In an unprecedented move, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has declared a state of emergency in Rivers State, citing prolonged political crisis and a collapse of governance. The declaration, announced in a nationwide broadcast on Tuesday, led to the suspension of Governor Sim Fubara, his deputy, and the entire State House of Assembly for six months.
While the President justified the action as a necessary step to restore peace and stability, critics, including former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, leadership of the opposition, legal experts have denounced it as an assault on democracy and a dangerous precedent that could destabilize Nigeria’s constitutional order.
Tinubu, in his address, lamented the deteriorating political atmosphere in Rivers State, pointing to the destruction of the House of Assembly complex and the inability of the government to function effectively. He stressed that multiple interventions had failed, and as President, he could no longer stand idly by while governance in the state crumbled.
However, constitutional analysts question whether the President followed due process in his declaration. Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria outlines the conditions under which a state of emergency can be declared. The President must receive approval from the National Assembly and must be responding to an existential threat such as war, natural disaster, or a complete breakdown of law and order.
While Rivers State has witnessed political turmoil, legal experts argue that Tinubu’s move does not fit the strict constitutional requirements for a state of emergency. The crisis in Rivers has largely been political rather than a total security collapse akin to an insurgency or foreign invasion. The explosions reported hours before the declaration, though concerning, do not seem to justify such extreme measures.
A state of emergency does not automatically mean the removal of an elected governor. According to constitutional law, even in an emergency situation, an elected governor should remain in office while the federal government provides additional security and administrative support. By suspending Governor Fubara and appointing a retired military officer, Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas, as the Administrator, Tinubu has entered a constitutional gray area.
The implications of this move could be far-reaching. If allowed to stand, it sets a precedent where the federal government could suspend any elected governor in the name of an emergency. This raises fears of political manipulation, especially in opposition-led states.
Atiku Abubakar’s response reflects these concerns. He accused Tinubu of exploiting the crisis to suppress political opposition rather than genuinely addressing governance issues. He also linked the move to a broader pattern of political interference in Rivers, which has been at the center of intense power struggles since Fubara assumed duty.
Supporters of the President argue that the situation in Rivers had become untenable and that the federal government had no choice but to act. They claim that the prolonged political impasse was depriving the people of effective governance and that strong intervention was necessary to prevent further breakdown.
However, opponents argue that the suspension of elected officials is an affront to democracy and could lead to further instability. Historically, Nigeria has witnessed the misuse of emergency powers for political ends. Under past military regimes, emergency declarations were used to stifle opposition and consolidate power. Even under civilian rule, emergency rule in states such as Plateau (2004) and Ekiti (2006) were controversial.
With Rivers State now under a federally appointed administrator, the next few weeks will be crucial. The National Assembly is expected to deliberate on Tinubu’s proclamation, and legal challenges are likely. The courts could play a decisive role in determining whether the President overstepped his constitutional authority.
Furthermore, opposition parties and civil society organizations may challenge the decision in court, citing violations of democratic principles. If the judiciary upholds the suspension, it could embolden the executive branch to wield emergency powers more frequently, threatening Nigeria’s fragile democracy.
The situation in Rivers State presents a critical test for Nigeria’s democratic institutions. While governance failures in the state are undeniable, the manner in which the crisis is being addressed raises fundamental questions about the balance of power between federal and state authorities.
If the rule of law is not strictly followed, this could mark a dangerous slide toward authoritarianism. On the other hand, if constitutional processes are respected, this could serve as a lesson in democratic resilience.
Nigeria now stands at a crossroads. Will the Rivers crisis be resolved within the framework of law and democracy, or will it set a precedent for executive overreach? The coming weeks will determine the answer.
What Happens to FCT Minister, Wike?
The declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State and the suspension of Governor Sim Fubara, his deputy, and the state legislature have sparked widespread debate on justice, fairness, and constitutional integrity. Many Nigerians are asking: If President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s decision was truly based on the collapse of governance and political turmoil in the state, why has Barrister Nyesom Wike, the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) and a key figure in the crisis, not faced any consequences?
It is no secret that the political crisis in Rivers State stems from a deep-rooted power struggle between Governor Sim Fubara and his predecessor, Nyesom Wike. Wike, who served as Rivers State governor from 2015 to 2023, was instrumental in Fubara’s emergence as governor. However, their relationship quickly soured as Fubara sought to assert his independence.
The battle for control has seen lawmakers loyal to Wike attempt to impeach Fubara, a move that led to the demolition of the state House of Assembly complex and further escalated tensions. There have been allegations that Wike has been using his influence within the federal government to undermine the current governor, keeping Rivers in a state of perpetual crisis.
If President Tinubu’s decision to suspend Fubara was based on a genuine desire to restore order, then justice demands that Wike also be held accountable for his role in the crisis. His actions have contributed significantly to the political instability in Rivers, and if punishment is being meted out, it should not be one-sided.
Justice and fair play require that all parties responsible for the crisis face consequences, not just one faction. By only suspending Governor Fubara while allowing Wike, a key player in the unrest, to remain in office as FCT Minister, the federal government risks being seen as partisan.
A fair approach would have been to set up an independent investigation into the crisis and suspend all actors involved, including Wike, pending the outcome of such an inquiry. Anything short of this suggests political bias and selective justice.
If President Tinubu truly wants to be seen as a neutral leader committed to justice, he should take the following steps:
Just as Fubara was removed from office due to his role in the crisis, Wike should also be asked to step aside while investigations take place. His continued stay in office undermines the credibility of the intervention.
An independent committee should investigate the root causes of the crisis and recommend actions against all individuals, regardless of their political affiliations.
The principle of justice demands that no one be above the law. If Rivers State is in crisis, all those involved—whether in the state government or the federal government—must be held to the same standard.
The current intervention in Rivers State, as it stands, appears to be one-sided and politically motivated. If President Tinubu is serious about restoring governance and peace, he must act with fairness. The failure to hold Wike accountable while suspending Fubara sends a dangerous message that political allies of the federal government can act with impunity while opponents face punishment.
Justice is only meaningful when it is applied equally. If democracy is to survive in Nigeria, then selective justice must be avoided, and fairness must prevail in all political interventions.
