In an era where democracy is supposed to reign supreme giving democracy dividends to beleaguered Nigerians, the nation has once again found itself at crossroads, a sober moment of reckoning where constitutional order is being tested in the most brazen of ways. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, sworn to uphold the Constitution, has taken a most unprecedented and unlawful step: the suspension of a democratically elected Governor, Deputy Governor and an entire State House of Assembly under the thin guise of emergency rule. What emergency? Nigerians and Rivers people did not see or feel any such emergency. 

Let me be very firm most  categorically and unequivocally that no constitutional provision,statute or any known convention grants the President the imperial and dictatorial authority to single-handedly dissolve the structures of an elected state government.That may probably have been in the locust days of military juntas; but Nigeria is today not under the firm grip of a military dictatorship. The last time I checked, she is supposed to governed under a constitutional democracy that operates a presidential and republican form of government. The emergency provisions under Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution exist to restore order only in times of grave national crisis; certainly not to topple duly elected state officials. Lois X1V of France as an absolute dictator could not have done better and would therefore green with envy from his cold grave,having on 13th April, 1655, stood in front of parliament and imperiously exuded," L'Etat C'est Moi" ("I am the State" ).A state of emergency does not and cannot translate to a civilian coup d’état, executed by executive fiat through a national broadcast which torpedoed elected structures and whimsically imposed a sole Administrator who would now illegally receive Rivers State allocations from the Federation account under section 162 of the Constitution contrary to the very judgement of the Supreme Court which President Bola Ahmed Tinubu pretended to be executing.We have seen this script play out before during the infamous 2004 Plateau State emergency, where former President Obasanjo suspended Governor Dariye in what was widely condemned as a travesty of constitutional governance. Then, as now, the excuse was “exceptional circumstances"; but the reality was nothing short of executive lawlessness and overreach masked as national interest.I had criticized it in the same way I also criticized those of former Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo and Goodluck Ebele Jonathan 

And now, as Rivers State stands at the centre of this unfolding simulated constitutional debacle, one must ask: Is this the signal of a dangerous precedent for and kite-flying to Nigeria, of a looming maximum dictatorship in the offing in a one-party State? Will other “erring” Governors who refuse to align with the central government be next in line? Are we witnessing the return of a

dangerous era of impunity where emergency rule becomes the bludgeon of political control rather than a tool for stability?

Let me be very clear about this for historical purposes: President Tinubu clearly lacks the power,authority and vires to suspend democratic structures, especially the removal of Governor Sim Fubara and the Rivers State House of Assembly members. His act constitutes nothing but a gross constitutional aberration and a most illegal, unlawful, wrongful and unconscionable step that has the potential of imploding Nigeria at large and Rivers State in particular.The Constitution must stand hallowed, unassaulted,or democracy will fall and perish. Although time shall tell,but time is certainly not on our side. 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR A STATE OF EMERGENCY

The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, at page 379, defines “Declaration” as an official or formal statement, especially about the plans of a Government or an organization; the act of making such a statement.

Declaration or proclamation of a state of emergency therefore means proclaiming or making known a situation of emergency. What does “emergency” itself mean?

Emergency Doctrine is variously referred to as “emergency”, “imminent peril” or “sudden peril” Doctrine [Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, Page 523)

A “state of emergency” is defined in Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (P.1620) as

“when a government gives itself special powers in order to try to control an unusually difficult or dangerous situation, especially when this involves limiting people’s freedom”

“Emergency powers” are such powers as are conferred on a Government during such an unusual situation to hold the state together.

The Constitution  in Section 305, of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as altered (the organic law and grund norm of the land) embraces three adjuncts of a declaration of a state of emergency:  (1)  Reasons for proclaiming it;  (2)  How it is proclaimed;  (3)  How it can be halted both before and after its proclamation. It also envisages two types of State of Emergency: (i) By Mr. President under Section 305 (3) (a) and (b), when the Federation is at War; or the Federation is in imminent danger of invasion or involvement in a state of war. (ii) The scenario where it is the Governor of a State who personally calls for the state of emergency under situations envisaged in Section 305 (3) (c), (d) and (e). This occurs where the threat does not extend beyond the boundaries of the State.

Section 305 of the 199 Constitution, as altered, provides:

1) “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the President may by instrument published in the Official Gazette of the Government of the Federation issue a Proclamation of a state of emergency in the Federation or any part thereof.

2) The President shall immediately after the publication, transmit copies of the Official Gazette of the Government of the Federation containing the proclamation including the details of the emergency to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, each of whom shall forthwith convene or arrange for a meeting of the House of which he is President or Speaker, as the case may be, to consider the situation and decide whether or not to pass a resolution approving the Proclamation.”

None of the factors envisaged in Section 305 of the Constitution has occurred at all to warrant the steps taken by the president. In present scenario the bi-camera National Assembly had not even first met,discussed and approved the president's emergency proposals before he acted. He did it in advance ( in futuro) in expectation of rubber-stamping by a pliable and malleable NASS.I hereby call on the NASS to show class for once by roundlly rejecting the President’s unconstitutional act of first declaring a state of emergency before its approval and also for acting altra vires by accompanying it with the suspension of elected democratic structures. This will place them on the right path of history.Otherwise,they should be prepared to be damnified by history. 

I must emphasize that the declaration of a state of emergency does not translate into a dissolution of governance structures within the affected state. Under a state of emergency, the Governor, as the chief executive of the state, remains in office,whilst the institutions of government at the state level continue to function,unless expressly provided otherwise by law.There is no such law in Rivers State or at the national level. 

The framers of the 1999 Constitution were deliberate in ensuring that the power to declare a state of emergency is not an avenue for executive overreach or imperious excursion into the realm of narcissm or ego trip. While the President may take extraordinary measures to maintain peace and order, those measures must align with the provisions of the Constitution. There is no provision howsoever, express or implied, that allowed President Tinubu to remove a sitting Governor and state House of Assembly legislators under the thin guise of emergency powers. There is no war in Nigeria. There is no threat of external aggression or invasion either across the country or in Rivers State. All that we have seen have been tussle for power between the Governor and the House of Assembly and the courts had already waded in with the Governor declaring he would comply with the Supreme Court's judgement.A mere blow up of oil pipes in two communities by unidentified persons certainly does not constitute a war or external invasion situation.

THE PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION of POWERS AND FEDERALISM 

Nigeria operates a federal system of government, which means that power is divided and shared between the federal, state and Local Government Areas.governments. This structure is designed to prevent excessive concentration of power in any one level of government,for as Lord Acton once explained, "power tends to corrups and absolute power corrupts absolutely". The President’s authority over the states is limited, just as a Governor cannot interfere with presidential functions at the federal level.

Furthermore, the principle of separation of powers, a cornerstone of constitutional democracy as ablly propounded in 1748 by a great French philosopher, Baron de Montesquieu,ensures that no single branch of government has unchecked authority. The removal of a Governor is a matter strictly within the purview of the State House of Assembly, as stipulated under Section 188 of the Constitution. The process is quite detailed, lengthy and rigorous; and requires a legislative super majority to accomplish. It is not a power and prerogative the President can usurp and exercise as did President Tinubu, regardless of the circumstances.

CAN THE PRESIDENT SUSPEND OR REMOVE A SITTING GOVERNOR, DEPUTY GOVERNOR, OR HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY EVEN UNDER A STATE OF EMERGENCY?

Nigeria stands at a critical juncture in its democratic evolution. Recent developments in Rivers State, where President Bola Ahmed Tinubu purportedly suspended Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his Deputy, and the entire House of Assembly, call for a meticulous constitutional examination and analysis. At the heart of this matter lies an age-old question: Can the President, under the guise of emergency rule, lawfully suspend or remove a democratically elected Governor, Deputy Governor, or Legislature?

The answer, based on constitutional provisions, legal precedents and the very principles of federalism which we operate, is an unequivocal NO. The 1999 Nigerian Constitution (as amended) does not, under any circumstance, empower the President to remove, suspend, or torpedo duly elected state officials even under Section 305, which governs the declaration of a state of emergency.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS OF EMERGENCY POWERS 

In no place does Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution grant the President the power to suspend a Governor, Deputy Governor, or the State House of Assembly. This reality is backed by constitutional jurisprudence and was reaffirmed in Attorney-General of Abia State v. Attorney-General of the Federation (2002) 6 NWLR (Pt. 763) 265, where the Supreme Court clarified that the Constitution is supreme and that no authority including the President can act outside its provisions.

Yet, this is not the first time that Nigeria has witnessed an outright abuse of emergency powers. Former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s 2004 suspension of Plateau State’s Governor Joshua Dariye and the House of Assembly remains a painful reminder of how emergency provisions have been misused to subvert democratic structures.

That unconstitutional precedent, which many Nigerians condemned then as  executive overreach reminiscent of military juntas, appears to have resurfaced in Rivers State where President Tinubu’s action has eerily followed that same better-forgotten pattern, with the Judiciary left untouched as a token concession to constitutionalism. But can democracy survive when two out of the three arms of government are arbitrarily dissolved? I believe not.

FEDERALISM, SEPARATION OF POWERS, AND THE ROLE OF STATE GOVERNMENTS 

Nigeria operates a federal system, meaning that power is distributed between the central and state governments, as explicitly outlined in Sections 4, 5, and 11 of the 1999 Constitution. Under this system, a Governor is not an apron string of or mere extension of the Presidency. He is an independently elected authority answerable to no one but only the people of his state who elected him.

The Constitution does not permit a President to unilaterally whimsically and arbitrarily remove a Governor—not by fiat; not by emergency decree; and certainly not by mere executive pronouncement. The doctrine of separation of powers, a fundamental pillar of democracy, dictates that such removals must be carried out strictly in accordance with constitutional provisions.

This principle was reinforced in Attorney-General of Ogun State & Ors v. Attorney-General of the Federation & Ors (1982) 3 NCLR 583, where the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Government cannot unilaterally impose duties or restrictions on state officials. This means that even if a state of emergency is lawfully declared, the Governor remains in office unless impeached through due process.

The Constitution provides only one legal pathway for the removal of a state Governor, and that is through impeachment, as stipulated in Section 188 of the Constitution. The process is legislative, not executive, requiring a State House of Assembly to initiate and conduct impeachment proceedings as dictated by the Constitution. In any event, the Rivers State House of Assembly ( whether rightly or wrongly) had already commenced one against the Governor. Why truncate the constitutional process through an unconstitutional executive fiat? Why? Why?? Why???

THE PUBLIC ORDER ACT AND THE LIMITS OF FEDERAL CONTROL 

Some have sought,in most illogical and unscholarly manner, to justify the President’s emergency intervention in Rivers State under the masquerade and facade of maintaining public safety. They cite the Public Order Act, which grants state Governors powers over public assemblies, meetings, and processions. However, even this statute does not authorize the suspension of an entire government structure.

The irony, of course, is that while Governors are designated as the Chief Security Officers of their states, they lack actual control over security forces. Section 215 of the Constitution subordinates a State Commissioner of Police to the Inspector General of Police and the President, meaning that even if Rivers State were experiencing insecurity, it was ultimately to the same traducing Federal Governmen it would have turned to.

The absurdity of this power imbalance,even though Rivers State had not gotten there, was noted in Attorney-General of Abia State v. Attorney-General of the Federation (2002) 6 NWLR (Pt. 763) 264, where the Court observed that the Federal Government cannot pass the blame for state security failures to a Governor who lacks the constitutional means to deploy security personnel.

THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY: A CONSTITUTIONAL FIREWALL?

Even if the National Assembly, sought to legislate on emergency rule, section 11(4) of the 1999 Constitution explicitly prohibits it from removing a Governor or Deputy Governor. This means that not only does the President lack the power, but even the National Assembly itself is equally barred from such unconstitutional act.

Prof. Ben Nwabueze, one of Nigeria’s foremost constitutional scholars, had long warned that allowing a President to wield unchecked emergency powers would erode democracy and lead to an authoritarian system where Governors served as vassals at the pleasure of the President rather than the electorate.

In line with this reasoning, Chief F.R.A. Williams had condemned the Plateau State emergency declaration as “a contradiction of all known principles of true federation operating in a democratic society.” Are we not now witnessing history repeat itself in Rivers State?

THE PRINCIPLE OF EXPRESSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS

One of the most fundamental principles of statutory interpretation is expressio unius est exclusio alterius, meaning that the explicit mention of one thing implies the exclusion of all others. Sections 4 and 5 of the 1999 Constitution donate specific executive and legislative powers; but nowhere do they mention any inherent powers allowing the President to remove Governors undemocratically.

This principle was applied in Attorney-General of Bendel State v. Aideyan (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 118) 187, where the Supreme Court held that powers not expressly granted by the Constitution cannot be assumed. Thus, any claim that the President possesses inherent emergency powers to remove a supposedly erring Governor is legally baseless.The President can not dorn the garb of a Primary School headmaster who has absolute control over and supervises his pupils

 HOW A GOVERNOR MAY BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE 

If Not the President, then who can remove a Governor under emergency rule? The answer remains the State House of Assembly as the only body constitutionally empowered to initiate impeachment proceedings against an erring Governor.

Under Section 188, impeachment is a rigorous and multi-step process, requiring:

a.. A written notice signed by at least one-third of Assembly members;

b. A two-thirds majority vote to proceed further;

c. The formation of an investigative panel by the state Chief Judge;

d. A full blown hearing granting the Governor a right to defence either by himself or through a counsel of his choice;

e. A final two-thirds majority vote for removal after thorough hearing, recommendations, etc.

If a Governor remains in office, it is because the State House of Assembly has not found legal grounds for removal. The President’s personal opinions, political considerations, or security concerns do not change this constitutional scenario. 

ANY HISTORICAL PRECEDENT FOR RIVERS STATE?

The declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State and the subsequent suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his Deputy, and the State House of Assembly by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu brings Nigeria into another moment of constitutional crisis and democratic reckoning. While this may appear to be a novel occurrence, history reminds us that this is not the first time a Nigerian President had wielded emergency powers in a manner that undermined the very very essence of democracy.

Emergency rule in Nigeria has precedents, but each instance had always been marred by legal controversy, constitutional breaches and political opportunism. The most striking parallel to Tinubu’s action in Rivers State can be drawn from the 2004 Plateau State emergency declared by former President Olusegun Obasanjo. In that case, Obasanjo had suspended the Governor and the State House of Assembly, replacing them with a Sole Administrator, Major-General Chris Alli (Rtd.). That action was roundly criticized as an overreach of executive power, much like what is unfolding today in Rivers State. I was one of the critics. 

However, even further back in Nigeria’s history, the Western Region crisis of 1962 under the First Republic presents another instructive example. Under the 1960 Independence Constitution, the then Governor-General, Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, acting on the advice of Prime Minister Tafawa Balewa, had declared a state of emergency in the Western Region due to political turmoil. Balewa had removed the Premier, the Governor, all Ministers, and members of the Regional Assembly, installing Dr. Moses Majekodunmi as Sole Administrator.

The striking difference, however, is that this took place under a Westminster parliamentary system, where Parliament held sovereignty. In contrast, Nigeria’s current presidential system operates under constitutional supremacy, not parliamentary supremacy. The framers of the 1999 Constitution deliberately excluded any provision that would allow such sweeping executive powers, particularly those that could enable a President to remove a sitting Governor or dissolve a State House of Assembly under emergency rule.

WHY TINUBU ’S EMERGENCY RULE IN RIVERS STATE IS UNPRECEDENTED 

Even within the history of emergency rule declarations, Tinubu’s action in Rivers State is particularly alarming. While previous Presidents who declared emergency rule (Balewa in 1962 and Obasanjo in 2004) did so under questionable legal interpretations, they at least had some statutory backing, however flimsy.

Tinubu, on the other hand, has no legal foundation whatsoever to suspend an elected Governor, Deputy Governor, or the State House of Assembly. There is no enabling law, no precedent under the 1999 Constitution, and no Supreme Court ruling that grants the President such sweeping powers.

The 1999 Constitution, as amended, is as clear as a whistle that section 305 which grants the President powers to declare a state of emergency does not provide for the removal or suspension of an elected Governor.

Section 11(4) explicitly denies even the National Assembly the power to remove a Governor under emergency rule; meaning it certainly cannot authorize the President to do so.

The principle of federalism, which underpins Nigeria’s governance structure, dictates that Governors derive their mandate directly from the people and not from the President.

WHAT COULD HAPPEN IF THIS PRECEDENT IS ALLOWED TO STAND?

One of the most dangerous aspects of President Tinubu’s action is the precedent it sets for the future of democracy in Nigeria. If a President can wake up one morning and, under the guise of an emergency, remove a Governor and dissolve the State Legislature, what prevents the same President or future Presidents from doing the same in other states?

In fact, if the logic of this unconstitutional action is stretched further, it raises an even more disturbing possibility:

What if a President wakes up tomorrow and declares an emergency in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT)? The Constitution recognizes the FCT as a state.

Could the President then suspend the Senate and the House of Representatives that supervise the FCT and appoint himself as Sole Administrator of the FCT and Federal Republic of Nigeria?

These hypothetical scenarios, once dismissed as absurd,l in my earlier research have now become real threats when constitutional violations are left unchallenged and unchecked.

PRESIDENT TINUBU ’S ATTEMPT TO RELY ON NONEXISTENT EMERGENCY LAWS 

To compound the legal crisis, Tinubu’s government seeks to justify its actions by invoking emergency regulations that do not exist in Nigeria’s current legal framework. The 1961 Emergency Powers Act, which was made pursuant to Section 65(1) of the 1960 Constitution, is no longer in force. That law had allowed the Governor-General to make sweeping regulations, including appointing an Administrator, restricting fundamental rights, and even suspending state governments.

However, this law ceased to have effect long ago. When Nigeria transitioned from the Westminster system to the presidential system in 1979, the framers of the Constitution deliberately omitted any provision that could allow such broad emergency powers.

The Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990,provide a clear confirmation: the 1961 Emergency Powers Act is described as “omitted; spent”. This means that it has since been consigned to the vehicle of historical oblivion  and cannot be resurrected to justify Tinubu’s current unconstitutional acts.

A CLOSING CAVEAT: THE PERILOUS PRECEDENT OF TINUBU’S EMERGENCY RULE IN RIVERS STATE

Not a few Nigerians have argued quite plausibly, too, that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s recent declaration of emergency rule in Rivers State and the suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his Deputy, and the State House of Assembly was not purely a matter of law and order, but an act driven by political expediency and personal indignation.

The President finds himself presiding over a nation teetering on the brink economic hardship, rising insecurity, public angst,and deep-seated political fractures. Yet, rather than confront these crises headlong with statesmanship, his administration appears to be flexing emergency powers in a manner that raises more questions than it answers. If Rivers State warranted emergency rule, why then have states like Zamfara and Niger where armed bandits and insurgents have reduced governance to an afterthought not received the same treatment?

Even the most ardent defenders of Tinubu’s emergency Decree ( for a Decree it is in reality) must pause and ask: Is Rivers State the greatest threat to national stability, or is it merely the most convenient political battleground? If emergency rule in Rivers was truly about law and order, why was a hand-picked Administrator imposed while duly elected officials were unceremoniously suspended from office? Is this about democratic governance, or is it about power and control?

If Nigeria remains a constitutional democracy, then the same Constitution must apply to all, irrespective of political affiliation or convenience. If Tinubu’s draconian action in Rivers State is allowed to stand, it sets a dangerous precedent where emergency powers become a tool for political suppression and repression rather than a last resort for genuine intractable crises.

So, the question remains: Is this the Nigeria we want or deserve? Or shall we, in our studied silence, watch democracy dismantled piecemeal with onevemergency declaration at a time? History will surely judge us all.

Solana (SOL) continues its upward trajectory, trading above $130 and posting a 6% gain in the past 24 hours.

This rally coincides with the upcoming launch of the first Solana futures exchange-traded funds (ETFs) by Volatility Shares LLC, marking a pivotal moment for institutional adoption of the high-performance blockchain.

Volatility Shares is set to introduce two Solana futures ETFs on March 20: the Volatility Shares Solana ETF (SOLZ) and the Volatility Shares 2X Solana ETF (SOLT).

These ETFs represent the first Solana-based ETFs in the United States, offering investors new opportunities to gain exposure to the rapidly growing blockchain network.

The launch follows the recent debut of Solana futures contracts on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) Group, signaling increasing institutional interest in cryptocurrencies beyond Bitcoin and Ethereum. Analysts believe these developments could significantly enhance market liquidity, price discovery, and institutional adoption for Solana.

Institutional Adoption and Brand Challenges 

Solana has been at the center of two major developments this week. On one hand, the launch of Solana futures ETFs underscores the network’s growing institutional presence. On the other, Anatoly Yakovenko, CEO of Solana Labs, addressed backlash over a controversial advertisement criticized for its political undertones. Yakovenko reaffirmed the project’s commitment to open-source development and decentralization.

• According to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the SOLZ ETF will feature a 0.95% management fee until June 30, 2026, after which it will increase to 1.15%.
• Meanwhile, the SOLT ETF, which offers 2x leveraged exposure to Solana, will carry a 1.85% management fee. These ETFs allow traditional investors to access Solana futures contracts without directly holding the cryptocurrency, mirroring the structure of Bitcoin and Ethereum futures ETFs.

The timing of this development is notable, as the SEC undergoes a leadership transition amid heightened political interest in cryptocurrency regulation. Following Donald Trump’s reelection as U.S. President, ETF firms and asset managers have flooded the SEC with applications, reflecting optimism about the new administration’s stance on crypto-based financial products.

What you should know 

The launch of Solana futures on the CME Group on March 17 set the stage for ETF approval. While the first day of SOL futures trading recorded approximately $12.1 million in volume—significantly lower than Bitcoin’s $102 million and Ethereum’s $30 million debut volumes—analysts remain optimistic. They believe the introduction of SOL futures contracts will boost institutional demand and foster a more stable price discovery mechanism for Solana.

• Founder of Solana-based swap platform Titan, Chris Chung, emphasized the significance of these developments. “The CME’s recognition of SOL futures indicates that Solana has matured into an asset class that institutional investors can confidently engage with,” Chung stated.

• He added that Solana is evolving beyond its reputation as a network for meme coins, showcasing real-world applications in payments and financial services.

With Bitcoin ETFs attracting billions in institutional investment in 2024, many market participants believe altcoin ETFs could drive a new wave of capital inflows into alternative digital assets.

Since the introduction of spot Bitcoin ETFs in 2024, institutional capital has largely concentrated within Bitcoin, leading to stagnation in altcoin markets. A Solana ETF, however, could shift this trend, creating sustained momentum for SOL while leaving other altcoins without ETF access at a disadvantage.

The launch of futures-based ETFs is often seen as a precursor to spot ETF approval, as demonstrated by Bitcoin and Ethereum. If demand for SOL ETFs grows, asset managers may pursue spot Solana ETFs, offering direct exposure to SOL rather than futures contracts.

[Nairametrics]

Edo State Governor, Monday Okpebholo, has rejected the position of the South-South Governor’s Forum on President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State.

Naija News recalls that Tinubu had on Tuesday, 18 March, declared a state of emergency in Rivers State in a bid to resolve the political crisis between the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike, the State Governor, Siminalayi Fubara, and House of Assembly members. 

The  South-South Governors Forum had rejected President Tinubu’s proclamation, asserting that the current political climate does not justify such an extreme measure.

However, Okpebholo, in a statement on Thursday through his Chief Press Secretary, Fred Itua, dissociated himself from his South-South colleagues’ position, noting that he was not consulted by the other governors in the geopolitical zone before they took the decision.

Okpebholo said he supports actions taken by Tinubu towards bringing lasting solutions and peace to Rivers State and the South-South geopolitical zone.

The statement read, “The position by the Governors of the South-South, opposing the declaration of a State of Emergency in Rivers State by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, did not get the nod of Governor Okpebholo, as he was neither consulted nor informed.

“While Governor Monday Okpebholo acknowledges the right of other Governors in the South-South geopolitical zone to take a position, he, however dissociates himself from any statement that opposes the declaration of a State of Emergency in Rivers State by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

“Bola Ahmed Tinubu, President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces, understands the issues at stake.” 

[NaijaNews]

Workers of Anambra State Airport, also known as Chinua Achebe International Airport, located at Umueri, have called on the Nigeria Labour Congress, NLC, and human rights organisations to intervene over what they described as modern-day slavery policies by the management.

In a reminder letter dated Thursday, March 13, 2025, and addressed to the State Governor, Prof. Chukwuma Soludo, the workers said it was the 3rd time they had written to draw the attention of the Governor on the inhuman conditions they were facing, especially the dangers associated with poor safety and lack of maintenance at the facility, without getting any response or solution from the government.

They informed the Governor that they have forwarded the current letter to the NLC for intervention.

The signatories to the petition, titled: “Letter of Urgent Help”, were not disclosed for fear of victimization.

Apart from casualization which they said had lasted nearly four years of their employment, they also accused the management of other anti-workers policies, including, non-payment of statutory allowances, no training whatsoever, in order to update them of the best ways to operate a modern airport, non-implementation of minimum wage, poor salary structure, no safety measures, among others.

The letter reads in part, “We, the staff of the above-named airport cry for urgent help to the hard-working government of Prof. Chukwuma C. Soludo and every well-meaning Anambrarians.

“We are also sending a copy of this letter to the Nigeria Labour Congress, NLC, and human rights organisations to intervene and help us, since our earlier letters have not received needed attention and action from the state government.

“Three months into the fourth year of the commencement of operations in our Airport there is a serious cause for concern, because the results seen so far are nothing to write home about.

“Staff of the airport have been subjected to the most ridiculous work conditions, leaving staff very frustrated and unable to give their best at work.

“Staff are yet to get their offer letters almost four years after commencement of flight operations in the airport. We are as good as termed floating staff with no root.

“This is the worst form of casualization by any state government in the country as staff do not understand their positions as regards the security of their jobs.

“Staff of the Anambra airport earn Zero statutory allowances. Airport staff nationwide and Internationally are entitled to mandatory Hazard allowance, Shift allowance, Health insurance and housing Allowance. These allowances are compulsory allowances airport staff are entitled to around the world but we get none here.

“Since the commencement of flight operations at the Chinua Achebe Airport Umueri, close to four years ago, no staff has been sent for any trainings, Aside the induction training done before the Airport started operations, staff lack the drive to deliver and are denied the opportunity to learn about new developments in the Aviation sector as well as to interact with other aviation players.

“It is very clear that the staff of the Chinua Achebe Airport, Anambra are the lowest paid Airport workers in Nigeria.

“Our findings show that we are the least at the bottom of the ladder. The morale of staff is at their lowest, staff now resort to cooperate begging to survive, we receive almost twice less than what our nearest neighbour pays her staff.

“Staff salaries are deducted at the slightest provocation to make an already bad situation worse.

“The attention to best industry standards is thrown to the winds. Occasionally fires ignite at different parts of the airport, especially bush fires threatening expensive airport installations.

“A facility fire at the CITA fuel dump at the Airport on the 1st of December 2024 led to the death of the CITA staff stationed there, if emergency response was quick, this disaster may have been averted.

“In conclusion, the staff of the Chinua Achebe Airport, Umueri are in pain. We lack the most basic tools to work with, basic spare parts to carry out maintenance are always not available, making electrical, plumbing and other maintenance very difficult.”

[DailyPost]

Barely 24 hours after a CNG-laden tanker collapsed near Karu Bridge, along the Abuja-Keffi Expressway, another fertiliser-laden truck has collapsed on the same spot.

The incidence occurred at about 3:54pm on Thursday afternoon.

The Head of Public Affairs of the FCT Emergency Management Department, Nkechi Isa, confirmed the accident in a statement, stating that the truck collided with a Hijet and a dump truck, adding that no life was lost.

She cautioned road users to drive with caution as the Federal Road Safety Corps was making efforts to tow away the affected vehicles, to avoid traffic built up.

“Another accident has occurred under Karu bridge along the Abuja Keffi expressway. Thankfully no life was lost to the incident. Our Search and rescue say the accident occurred when a truck laden with fertilizer ran into a Hijet and a dump truck also known as tipper.

“Motorists are advised to drive with caution as the Federal Road Safety Corps is taking steps to tow away the affected vehicles in order to avoid traffic built up,” the statement read.

Meanwhile, several videos showed some persons trying to clear the fertiliser bags from the fallen truck to ease traffic.

[Punch]

PRESIDENT Bola Tinubu has commended the National Assembly for “its decisive and patriotic ratification of the State of Emergency proclamation in Rivers State”, a critical step to restoring stability after a protracted political crisis that paralysed governance in the state and endangered national economic security for over 15 months.

The President specifically commended the leadership of the National Assembly, the President of the Senate, Godswill Akpabio, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Tajudeen Abbas, other principal officers and members “for prioritising the security and welfare of Rivers State people above partisan interests and other considerations.”

A statement by the presidential spokesman, Bayo Onanuga, said the President “further acknowledged the lawmakers’ diligent review of classified security briefings, underscoring the urgent need for intervention to prevent further escalation.”

According to the statement: “The crisis in Rivers State was at a perilous tipping point, threatening the security of vital oil and gas installations and undermining the national economy and the significant progress we have made in the reforms initiated since our administration commenced in May 2023.

“As I detailed in my address to the nation on 18 March, the near-total collapse of governance, threats to federal economic assets, and the risk of widespread violence left no room for hesitation. This emergency measure is a lifeline to safeguard livelihoods, secure critical infrastructure, and restore democratic accountability.”

The President affirmed that the six-month emergency will empower the newly-appointed Sole Administrator to stabilise Rivers State, address systemic breakdowns, and facilitate dialogue among conflicting parties.

President Tinubu also reaffirmed his administration’s commitment to deepening collaboration with the National Assembly to advance peace, economic resilience, and equitable development across Nigeria.

“Today’s decision exemplifies what our nation can achieve when unity of purpose and patriotism guide the action of leaders. We remain steadfast in pursuing a safer, more prosperous Nigeria—one where every citizen’s potential is safeguarded and nurtured,” he said.

He thanked all Nigerians for their understanding and urged all stakeholders to support the restoration of peace in Rivers State.

[Vanguard]

Nigeria has moved up one place to 91st in the latest global passport ranking out of 199 countries.

Although the rating marks a slight improvement for Nigeria’s global image, travel access for citizens remains stiff with the country retaining its visa-free access to only 45 nations — same as last year.

Nigeria was ranked 91st alongside Ethiopia and Myanmar, two countries battling incursions from armed groups, according to the Henley Passport Index for 2025.

The Henley Passport Index is updated monthly based on exclusive data from the International Air Transport Authority (IATA).

In Africa, the Nigerian passport was only ranked above passports from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), South Sudan, Sudan, Eritrea, Libya, and Somalia.

This makes the Nigerian passport the seventh least desirable travel document from Africa. In 2024, it was the sixth.

The rating comes as Yusuf Tuggar, minister of foreign affairs, said the ministry had succeeded in redeeming Nigeria’s image abroad.

Tuggar spoke on Thursday at the ministerial press briefing held in Abuja.

“The next stage is to exalt and glorify Nigeria’s image,” the minister said as he recounted how the ministry negotiated the release of wrongfully imprisoned Nigerians in unnamed countries.

Tuggar did not clarify how the ministry would achieve this goal but noted that the country was committed to applying ethical considerations in implementing its foreign policy while liaising with other nations.

In July 2023, Nigeria was ranked 90th on the global passport list but fell to 97th position below African countries like Burundi, Cameroon, and Liberia, showing a significant shift in the nation’s visa policy.

The passport later made a comeback in 2024 climbing to the 92nd spot.

Meanwhile, Seychelles retained its spot as the most favoured African passport with an improved ranking of 22 — two spots higher than the previous year — with access to an increased 156 countries.

Singapore remained the most powerful passport with access to 193 nations while Afghanistan still held last with access to 25 countries.

[TheCAble]

With President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State on Tuesday, March 18, the Renaissance consortium—a group of local investors that recently acquired Shell’s onshore oil and gas assets in Nigeria for a staggering $2.4 billion—now finds itself in turbulent waters.

In hindsight, Shell, Mobil, TotalEnergies, Agip, and other major oil companies that divested from onshore assets in Nigeria and moved their operations offshore were remarkably foresighted. Like the mythical Nostradamus, they seemed to have foreseen the future and exited just in time to avoid the very risks that Renaissance now faces—risks of escalation into another wave of militancy and insecurity in the Niger Delta if not properly managed.

If chaos takes hold in the Nigerdelta, the Renaissance consortium, which invested heavily in Shell’s assets, along with Seplat Energy, which also recently acquired ExxonMobil’s onshore oil assets for $1.28 billion, will be among the hardest hit. That is underscored by the fact that the broader oil and gas sector now faces heightened uncertainty, as what was once a relatively stable business environment risks returning to a militarized zone that it once used to be before president Musa Yar’adua of blessed memory quelled the fire through innovative policies and programmes for the restive youths during his tenure 2007-2010.

As we know, businesses thrive on stability, and insecurity breeds uncertainty. The fallout from this development could reverse Nigeria’s recent economic gains—causing inflation, which had been trending downward, to spike again. The naira, which had been stabilizing against foreign currencies, may once more come under pressure due to the turmoil in Rivers State.

Other recent entrants into Nigeria’s oil and gas sector, such as Tony Elumelu’s Heirs Energy—which purchased Shell’s OML 17 for approximately $1.1 billion a few years ago—may also find themselves in a precarious situation. Similarly, Aliko Dangote, whose $20 billion, 650,000 barrels-per-day capacity refinery may not be located in the Niger Delta, could still face significant challenges in securing crude oil feedstock if the crisis disrupts production in the oil/gas rich Niger delta region.

This development is particularly concerning given the extensive efforts President Tinubu’s administration has put into restoring security in the Niger Delta. His policies, especially the Nigeria Upstream Perroleum Regulatory Commission, (NUPRC) led by Gbenga Komolafe’s initiative to ramp up production by one (1) million barrels within 24 months which had successfully increased oil production from approximately 1.3 million barrels per day before Tinubu took office to nearly 1.8 million barrels per day in february. The declaration of a state of emergency in the region now threatens to undermine this significant achievement.

The Niger Delta Crisis: A Threat to Economic Stability

It is worth recalling that Nigeria’s previously disappointing oil output was not just due to low investment—exacerbated by the prolonged delay in passing the Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB), which took about two decades to become law—but also due to the activities of sophisticated international oil theft syndicates operating in the Niger Delta.

To the Tinubu administration’s credit, a coordinated effort by Nigeria’s security agencies, led by the Office of the National Security Adviser (NSA) in collaboration with the military and the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPC Ltd), successfully dismantled these criminal networks. This crackdown played a crucial role in ramping up production, enabling Nigeria to meet its OPEC production quota and boost foreign exchange earnings.

The reality is simple: the more crude oil Nigeria produces, the stronger the country’s foreign exchange reserves become, which in turn stabilizes the economy, reduces inflation, and strengthens the naira against foreign currencies.

Given these hard-earned economic gains, the declaration of a state of emergency in the Niger Delta is a major setback. It threatens to undo much of the progress made, which is deeply unfortunate.

A Political Clash Turned Socioeconomic Disaster

What is particularly baffling is how a mere political dispute—essentially a struggle for supremacy between a godfather and his godson—was allowed to escalate into a crisis with such grave socioeconomic consequences for the entire country.

One is worried that despite his well-known political acumen, President Tinubu has permitted what should have been a minor local political squabble—an ego-driven contest between politicians—to snowball into a situation that could destabilize Nigeria’s economic and security landscape.

The challenge of godfatherism is not new to Nigerian politics. Since the return to democracy in 1999, such conflicts have repeatedly surfaced.

For instance, in Oyo State, former Governor Rasheed Ladoja was allegedly impeached in 2006 at the behest of his godfather, Alhaji Lamidi Adedibu, who reportedly orchestrated his removal after Ladoja refused to grant him unfettered access to a significant portion of the state’s security vote. Even after the Court of Appeal reinstated him in 2007, Adedibu ensured Ladoja never won reelection.

Similarly, in Anambra State in 2003, then-Governor Chris Ngige faced a brutal political battle with his godfather, Chief Chris Uba, who allegedly had him kidnapped and forced to sign a resignation letter under duress for refusing to repay the billions of naira Uba claimed to have spent securing his election.

While these incidents are among the most well-known, many other states—including Lagos, Kano, lmo,Bauchi, and Sokoto—have had their fair share of godfatherism and the conflicts it breeds.

However, none of these previous disputes was allowed to spiral into a full-blown crisis of the magnitude currently unfolding in Rivers State.

A Call for Strategic Intervention

At a time when Nigeria is striving to stabilize its economy, strengthen its currency, and attract investment, the last thing the country needs is an escalation of political conflicts that could disrupt oil production and erode economic gains.

Moving forward, it is imperative that this crisis is swiftly de-escalated through strategic intervention, ensuring that political disagreements do not morph into national security and economic threats. The lessons from past conflicts should serve as a guide for resolving the current situation before it causes irreparable damage.

Managing the Rivers State Crisis: A Path to Stability

President Bola Tinubu’s efforts to mediate between the warring factions in Rivers State—Nyesom Wike, the godfather, and Siminalayi Fubara, the godson—have been evident. His most recent attempt came on March 14, when he publicly urged Fubara to adopt a conciliatory approach while hosting Rivers State elders and leaders at Aso Rock. It is likely that he also privately counseled Wike, the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, to de-escalate tensions and avoid plunging the volatile Niger Delta into chaos—a warning that appears to have gone unheeded, given the recent attacks on oil pipelines following Fubara’s looming impeachment.

The failure of both parties to heed the president’s advice ultimately led to the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State. Tinubu justified his intervention by stating that the state—and the Niger Delta as a whole—was on the brink of widespread unrest, particularly with critical oil infrastructure coming under attack. While regrettable, this drastic step may still be remedied through a well-coordinated response from all three branches of government—the executive, legislature, and judiciary—in the broader interest of Rivers State, the Niger Delta, and Nigeria as a whole.

Balancing Crisis Management and Democracy

Given Nigeria’s democratic trajectory, now approaching 25 consecutive years of practice since 1999, strict legal interpretations should not override pragmatic solutions that serve the national interest. Instead of an extended emergency rule, a more balanced approach could involve reducing the suspension of democratic governance in Rivers State from six months to just one month. During this period, all parties should be brought to the negotiating table for a binding resolution, facilitated by representatives from the three arms of government and crisis management experts.

The reality of the situation is that neither the executive nor the legislature benefits from the state of emergency. Both the governor and state lawmakers have been stripped of their mandates, effectively sidelining the democratic institutions in Rivers State. More concerning is that the people of Rivers State have been deprived of their civic rights, effectively rendering them disenfranchised. This situation is further complicated by a Supreme Court ruling halting funding to the state, which, in legal terms, suggests that Rivers State currently lacks a legitimate government.

Without the emergency rule declared by President Tinubu, the Supreme Court’s decision would have resulted in a financial paralysis for Rivers state, with no funds available to pay civil servants, legislators, and public officials. In a state with a population exceeding five million, such a scenario would have been catastrophic. However, with a sole administrator now in place—enabled by the state of emergency—Rivers State will still receive its allocation from the Federation Account at the end of the month, ensuring that salaries and government operations continue uninterrupted.

A Strategic Political Move?

President Tinubu’s declaration of emergency rule, though unexpected, may have been a strategic move aimed at shocking both factions in the conflict into a resolution. A shock therapy of sorts. The abrupt suspension of democratic governance sends a strong message that continued political infighting comes at a high cost. This drastic step could force the feuding parties to prioritize peace and stability over personal rivalries. In light of this, it is imperative for Tinubu to further leverage his political acumen as an adept strategist to swiftly end this power struggle and prevent further destabilization of the Niger Delta, which remains Nigeria’s economic lifeline.

The Military Factor in Emergency Rule

One striking pattern in Nigeria’s political history is the recurring appointment of retired military officers as administrators during periods of emergency rule. Since the first state of emergency was declared under Prime Minister Tafawa Balewa, successive leaders—including Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo, Goodluck Jonathan, and now Tinubu—have continued this trend. The appointment of retired Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas as the emergency administrator in Rivers State follows this precedent.

This raises an important question: Why do Nigerian leaders instinctively turn to ex-military officers in times of political crises? Does this suggest a lack of trust in politicians or accomplished leaders from other sectors? Notably, when military rulers have had to step aside, they have sometimes chosen private sector leaders instead of fellow military officers. For instance, when General Ibrahim Babangida relinquished power in 1993, he appointed Chief Ernest Shonekan—a corporate executive—as head of the Interim National Government.

If military rulers have shown a willingness to transition power to civilian business leaders, why do democratic governments hesitate to appoint competent individuals from outside the military during emergency situations? This long-standing pattern deserves scrutiny, especially in a maturing democracy like Nigeria’s.

Ultimately, one hopes that with wise counsel and decisive leadership, the current crisis in Rivers State will not spiral further, and Nigeria’s economic recovery—marked by declining inflation and a stabilizing naira—will not be derailed. More importantly, Nigeria should strive to ensure that no unelected military officer is ever again called upon to replace a democratically elected leader, either at the state or national level.

Magnus Onyibe is an entrepreneur, public policy analyst, author, democracy advocate, development strategist, alumnus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Massachusetts, USA, and a former commissioner in the Delta State government.