While some Rivers State indigenes were agonizing over the Supreme Court’s decision barring the federal government from releasing the state’s monthly financial allocation—following the imposition of emergency rule by President Tinubu on March 18—the funds have now been released, ensuring that workers’ salaries will be paid at the end of the month. However, not all Nigerians are pleased.

Among the most aggrieved are members of the political class, who view the emergency rule in Rivers State as a suspension of democracy. This move disrupts the established democratic process and the principles of due process that govern public administration.

Following the swearing-in of Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas (rtd) as the sole administrator of Rivers State—replacing Governor Siminalayi Fubara—public administration in the state has effectively been relocated to Aso Rock, the presidential seat of government in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). Governance is now dictated by directives from Abuja rather than by an elected governor who should be accountable to the people of Rivers State.

The National Assembly (NASS), in its endorsement of the emergency proclamation, has also assumed oversight of the Rivers State House of Assembly. This means that the sole administrator operates under directives from Abuja, in contrast to an elected governor who is expected to report to his constituents—the people of Rivers State—who had chosen their political leaders through democratic means. But with state assembly suspended how is the NASS going to have oversight function over it while on suspension?

By democratic principles, elected representatives of the people of Rivers State should only be removed under three conditions:

1. A recall process initiated by the electorate.

2.Impeachment through constitutional means.

3. Non-re-election at the expiration of their tenure.

By bypassing these democratic processes and instead using political crises as justification for suspending democracy, the people of Rivers State have been effectively disenfranchised, stripped of their civic rights for the six-month duration of the emergency rule.

Political and Socioeconomic Consequences

The removal of the governor, deputy governor, and elected state assembly members has inflicted significant damage, not just on the political landscape but also on the socioeconomic stability of Rivers State.

Beyond this direct impact, the decision to impose emergency rule has tarnished Nigeria’s reputation as a democracy. President Tinubu, known for his advocacy of democratic governance, now faces criticism that this action contradicts his democratic credentials.

This decision also threatens to erase the democratic progress Nigeria has made since 1999. The country has maintained an unbroken democratic governance structure for nearly 25 years, marking a significant milestone in its post-independence political development. However, the handling of Rivers State’s political crisis risks undermining these gains.

Elder statesmen and political leaders—both within and beyond Rivers State—have raised concerns about the dangerous precedent being set. Since the 1966 and 1967 military coups, Nigeria has experienced intermittent periods of military and civilian rule. However, since the return to democracy in 1999, governance has been based on the rule of law and due process.

With Nigeria set to mark 25 years of uninterrupted democracy on May 29, the imposition of emergency rule in Rivers State, coupled with the opaque manner in which the National Assembly ratified it, has diminished the country’s democratic standing.

The Justification and Its Pitfalls

President Tinubu has justified the move by citing the need to prevent potential violence and safeguard vital oil and gas installations in Rivers State and the Niger Delta. However, as the saying goes, “The road to disaster is paved with good intentions.”

Ironically, following the installation of a retired military officer as Rivers State’s sole administrator, reports emerged that the Boki gas facility was set ablaze by militants last Sunday. This incident raises questions about whether the emergency rule has actually enhanced security or exacerbated tensions.

Despite the President’s defense of his actions, opposition leaders argue that the move was hasty and extreme. Attorney General and Minister of Justice Lateef Fagbemi has attempted to justify the decision by referencing Section 305(1) of the 1999 Constitution, which grants the president authority to declare a state of emergency. However, this constitutional provision does not explicitly authorize the suspension of elected officials, as has been done in Rivers State.

Fagbemi’s legal interpretation, which seemingly guided the President’s decision, is now being challenged as a potential Achilles’ heel for the administration. Critics argue that while concerns about security threats are valid, suspending a democratically elected government is a disproportionate and legally questionable response.

Furthermore, the Attorney General’s statement that similar measures could be applied to other states facing political crises has raised alarm. This stance risks encouraging political actors to deliberately incite crises in their states, knowing that it could justify federal intervention and the suspension of democratic governance.

Would this policy not lead to a proliferation of political violence across Nigeria, driven by opposition figures who see it as a means to destabilize elected governments? If a breakdown of law and order becomes a pretext for suspending democracy, then the nation’s democratic future is at stake.

The imposition of emergency rule in Rivers State has set off a chain of political, legal, and economic consequences that could have long-term ramifications for Nigeria’s democracy. If left unaddressed, this decision may not only damage the country’s democratic reputation but also embolden political actors to exploit crisis situations for their own advantage.

To restore confidence in the democratic process, President Tinubu may need to reconsider the duration and scope of the emergency rule, ensuring that Rivers State’s governance is returned to its elected representatives as soon as possible to douse the rising tension even as the emergency remains in effect as former president Goodluck Jonathan did in three northern states. Failure to do so could make this episode a defining crisis of his administration, overshadowing his broader governance agenda.

If causing mayhem in a state can be legitimately cited as justification for a state of emergency proclamation by President Tinubu in Rivers State, and if this becomes the valid condition and gold standard for suspending democratically elected state government officials, as Attorney General Fagbemi alluded to in his press briefing, would it not become a preferred strategy for politicians to destabilize their opponents by fomenting or triggering violence to create an opportunity for the suspension of democracy in a state?

The parable of the jealous mother of a dead baby in the holy bible (1 Kings 3:16-28) who switched her lifeless child for a living one and accepted the arbiter’s solution to divide the baby, knowing that the child was not hers, is instructive. The point here is that electoral losers, particularly in gubernatorial contests, may be incentivized to incite trouble that triggers violence, leading to a declaration of a state of emergency and effectively denying the rightful winner the benefits of their victory.

If violence becomes a precondition for declaring a state of emergency, politicians may find it easier and cheaper to hire thugs to cause unrest and threaten national assets rather than pursuing legal battles, which involve hiring expensive legal teams, often composed of Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SAN), to defend or challenge mandates in court.

Even the legal recourse of challenging election outcomes in court has become a major flaw in Nigeria’s democracy, as the phrase “you can go to court” has become a mocking refrain used by some politicians who rely on pliable judicial officers to secure favorable rulings.

It may be recalled that the uncontrollable violence in the Western Region during the First Republic—infamously known as Wetie, when supporters of Ladoke Akintola and Obafemi Awolowo engaged in violent clashes—was the justification for the state of emergency declared by then-Prime Minister Abubakar Tafawa Balewa. It is because of this troubling historical precedent that the current declaration of emergency in Rivers State is causing unease, not just among politicians in the state but nationwide.

Given this context, there is an urgent need to address concerns and provide legally and constitutionally sound justifications for the seemingly extreme action. There must also be transparency in explaining how and why the legislative branch so swiftly ratified the executive’s decision, as the process has been shrouded in speculation and accusations of financial inducements—allegations that have been denied.

In the United States, from where Nigeria adopted the presidential system, government shutdowns due to budget disagreements often drag on until the last minute, with intense negotiations before lawmakers approve a resolution. Unfortunately, such extensive deliberation and scrutiny were absent when Nigerian lawmakers were expected to exercise their oversight function by ratifying the president’s decision within two (2) days if in session or ten (10) days if on recess. Critics have alleged that senators and House members betrayed their constituents for pecuniary benefits. If true, this is how democracies die—a point highlighted by Harvard professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt in their book How Democracies Die, which chronicles how seemingly minor democratic violations, when accumulated, can erode democracy itself.

In the U.S. Senate, figures like Joe Manchin of West Virginia have been known for filibustering. In the 1950s, Oregon Senator Wayne Morse used the filibuster to educate the public on critical national issues. Why did we not witness similar democratic engagement in this case—where lawmakers could have used the opportunity to enlighten Nigerians on Section 305, Subsection 1 of the 1999 Constitution, which empowers the president to declare a state of emergency? Furthermore, why did this provision seemingly allow for the suspension of elected executive and legislative officials while sparing the judiciary?

When Senator Seriake Dickson of Bayelsa State and House of Representatives member Obi Aguocha from Ikwuano/Umuahia, Abia State, demanded more transparency from both legislative chambers, they were overruled. Instead of validating the president’s decision in an open and convincing manner, the opaque process used to ratify the action has reinforced public suspicion that the emergency rule in Rivers State was a calculated move to destabilize the state and make it vulnerable for takeover by the ruling party at the center, which is in opposition in the state. Whether this is true or false, the ruling party missed an opportunity to correct public perception by ensuring transparency in the validation process.

Without a doubt, this negative perception has become an unnecessary burden for the ruling party and may turn into a political liability in the 2027 elections. To remedy the situation a number of steps need to be taken to ensure that the angst do not translate into resentment towards the ruling party such that she may be imperiled during elections in a zone that it needs to win to guarrantee re-election. Even President Tinubu’s allies, notably Nobel Laureate Prof. Wole Soyinka, have raised concerns.

Former President Goodluck Jonathan has also expressed his disapproval of the emergency rule. Likewise, governors from the South-South zone and the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) as well as various civil society organizations that have issued statements condemning the decision.

As this controversy unfolds, it is not just Nigerians who are watching but also the international community, with foreign envoys reporting back to their respective governments.

In a previous article published on the day the emergency rule was to be ratified, I proposed a way for the government to navigate this contentious issue. While some of my recommendations such as the setting up of emminent persons group comprising of members of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government were adopted, my suggestion to limit the emergency rule to one month was not implemented. But it is not too late to review the proclamation since it is barely two (2)weeks in implementation.

One good thing about the proclamation is that it has enabled the federal government to continue funding Rivers state government without breaching the Supreme Court judgement barring the FGN from releasing the monthly financial allocation from the federation account to Rivers state.

But the appointment of a retired military officer as sole administrator in place of elected representatives in Rivers State is as disappointing to Nigerians as the controversial conduct of the 2023 general elections, where the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) failed to process and announce results using the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) and the INEC Results Viewing Portal (IReV), thereby failing the integrity test. Additionally, the announcement of presidential election results at odd hours further tainted the credibility of the process.

In the past 22 months, the Tinubu administration has worked to move past these controversies by implementing significant socioeconomic reforms. Though initially painful, as they worsened the cost-of-living crisis and plunged many Nigerians into hardship, these reforms—including the Nigeria Education Loan Fund (NELFUND) to democratize university education, improvements in energy security through the operationalization of Dangote Refinery, and the proposed establishment of CreditCorp to expand consumer credit—have begun to yield positive economic signs.

For example, the price of petrol has dropped from ₦1,300 per liter to ₦880, and the naira, which had depreciated to ₦1,900 per dollar, is now trading between ₦1,500 and ₦1,600. Surveys by major media organizations also indicate a gradual decline in food prices.

Although the prices of goods have not dropped to the level where a critical mass of Nigerians will be eased of the hardship currently crushing them, sooner than later, with consistency in lossening the tight grip on money by the Central Bank of Nigeria, (CBN), the cost of living crisis will ebb to the relief of government and citizens alike. 

However, as the saying goes, one bad apple spoils the bunch. Would President Tinubu allow the mistake of declaring a state of emergency in Rivers State to be the blight that overshadows his administration’s accomplishments—especially considering his reputation as a staunch advocate of democracy?

The late American comedian Richard Pryor once said:

“I believe in the spirit of living. It’s just good to be alive. If you’re alive, then you always have the potential to change things.”

President Tinubu is both politically and physically alive, meaning he has the power to change course if it becomes clear that his earlier decision was flawed.

He has demonstrated this ability before—such as when he increased the direct cash transfer funds for the poor after complaints that the initial amount was insufficient. There have been several other instances where he reversed decisions, a trait that, in leadership, is often seen as a strength rather than a weakness.

If he amends his stance by reducing the suspension period to, at most, three (3) months, he may find a more acceptable balance between maintaining security and upholding democratic principles.

One is optimistic that this crisis would soon pass away as president Tinubu is known not to shy away from doing the right thing.

Most importantly the omnibus nature of article 305 in the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic Nigeria, FGN which empowers the president to proclaim a state of emergency in Nigeria is too unwieldy to lend itself to being defined as an effective tool for good governance in an ideal democratic setting. Hence prime minister Tafawa Balewa and president Olusegun Obasanjo, during their tenure read, interpreted and implemented it differently from the manner that president Goodluck Jonathan did during his watch.

It is because it is nebulous that President Tinubu has currently been advised to emulate the former heads of state Balewa and Obasanjo in his recent proclamation of a state of emergency in Rivers state than the latter, President Jonathan’s approach which aligns more with democratic norms.

Thus, owing to its bogus nature section 305 of the constitution of the FGN has by ommission or commission become a lightening rod and possibly a hammer for nailing the coffin of democracy in Nigeria.

Put succinctly, the ability and flexibilty to make article 305 of the 1999 constitution of the FGN  too amenable to multiple interpretations is responsible for the constitutional crisis that has enveloped the political atmosphere in Nigeria. As such, to avoid a similar complexity of multiple interpretations which is the drawback in relying on the judiciary to resolve issues, it is the gordian knot that has to be untied by our law makers during the next review of the constitution of the FGN by being very specific about the begining and end of that law.

Magnus Onyibe, 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.