There is no denying the fact that the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State is an ill-advised and disproportionate measure that threatens to escalate an already tense situation in the state. It is akin to using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, a classic case of applying a bigger problem to solve a smaller one. The crisis in Rivers, while serious, does not warrant the draconian measure of a state of emergency, which has historically been reserved for situations where a state has become completely ungovernable due to insurgency, war, or natural disaster.

Against the backdrop of the foregoing, it is germane to recall that Rivers State is a crucial economic hub in Nigeria that has been embroiled in a political crisis stemming from the power tussle between Governor Siminalayi Fubara and his predecessor, Nyesom Wike, who now serves as the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory. Thus, the friction between the two political gladiators has spilled over into the state’s legislature, judiciary, and even the security apparatus, leading to a breakdown in governance.

However, while the situation is concerning, it has not degenerated into total lawlessness. The courts are still functioning, the security agencies are still in operation, and economic activities have not ground to a halt. The political instability is largely an elite struggle for control, and while it has trickled down to affect governance, it has not created the kind of anarchic conditions that justify a state of emergency.

Declaring a state of emergency in Rivers would mean suspending democratic institutions, imposing military rule, and giving the federal government sweeping powers over the state. Historically, states of emergency in Nigeria have led to further crises rather than solving them. For instance, the declaration of a state of emergency in Plateau and Ekiti states in the early 2000s did not yield lasting peace but rather deepened political tensions.

The implications of such a declaration are dire. First, it would disenfranchise the people of Rivers by sidelining their elected government. Second, it would set a dangerous precedent where political conflicts are met with authoritarian responses rather than dialogue and democratic solutions. Third, it could have economic repercussions, as investors would see Rivers as an unstable environment, leading to capital flight and further economic downturn.

Without a doubt, the crisis in Rivers is a political problem that requires a political solution. In fact, the crisis in Rivers is fundamentally political, and political problems require political solutions. This is as the issues at play include loyalty struggles, governance style differences, and conflicting interests within the ruling party. These are challenges that should be resolved through dialogue, negotiation, and institutional mechanisms, not military intervention.

Rather than imposing a state of emergency, the federal government should facilitate a roundtable discussion involving all stakeholders, including Governor Fubara, Minister Wike, lawmakers, traditional rulers, and civil society leaders. Mediation efforts should be aimed at ensuring that the democratic institutions in the state function optimally and that governance is not held hostage by personal ambitions.

Additionally, the judiciary must play its role in resolving the legal disputes arising from the crisis. The courts should be allowed to function without political interference so that legal interpretations of the unfolding events can provide clarity and direction.

Irrespective of the fact that Nigeria’s democracy is not new to incidents of declaration of state of emergency, the latest declaration in Rivers, no doubt, highlights the dangerousness of its pronouncement for Nigerian Democracy. 

In fact, the recently declared state of emergency in Rivers, will no doubt further set a precedent that could be exploited in other states facing political crises. This is as Nigerian politics is replete with conflicts between governors and their predecessors, rival factions within parties, and power struggles at different levels of government. Therefore, if the federal government responds to such conflicts with emergency declarations, it could mark the beginning of an era of arbitrary interventions, weakening Nigeria’s democratic structure.

Moreover, the security forces, which are already overstretched with issues of insurgency in the North-East, banditry in the North-West, and separatist agitations in the South-East, should not be dragged into what is essentially a political conflict. Deploying federal forces to Rivers in an emergency scenario would further militarize governance and increase the risk of human rights abuses.

Against the backdrop of the foregoing view, it is not a misnomer to opine that Nigeria’s democracy is still evolving, and that part of that evolution is learning to handle political crises within the framework of democratic institutions. The situation in Rivers, while challenging, is not unmanageable within the bounds of democracy. The federal government must resist the temptation to employ excessive force where political engagement is needed. Declaring a state of emergency in Rivers would be a classic case of using a bigger problem to solve a smaller one, and history has shown that such approaches often create more chaos than they resolve. Instead of exacerbating the crisis, the focus should be on dialogue, institutional reforms, and upholding the rule of law. That is the only sustainable path to peace and stability in Rivers State.