Latest News
OTHERS' VIEWS
![[OPINION] The ides of March - Abdu Rafiu](/media/k2/items/cache/d1dc4f0766025bf780f9593afbedc6bc_L.jpg)
Beware the Ides of March has been an unceasing admonition to politicians since the brutal assassination of Julius Caesar on 15 March, 44BC when events move in a certain troubling trajectory. In the case of Caesar, he was warned by a soothsayer and the wife Calpurnia as is usual with women, was ill at ease. What with their intuition which is superior to any debate. Didn’t Chief Awolowo say to the world that his wife was a jewel of inestimable value who was usually Divinely guided? And didn’t the wife of Pontius Pilate say to her husband that she was troubled in her dream all night and her husband should “have thou nothing to do with the death of that man because He is innocent?” The innocent Man was no other than the Lord Christ. This is because women have an abundance of richer spiritual content in their make-up that enables them to easily tell right from wrong than men. And so exultantly and confidently the wife of Charles de Gaulle one-time President of France, said: “Charles, you govern France, but I rule this house including you!”
Feeling confident, Caesar headed for the Senate meeting ignoring the warnings.
“I could be well moved. If I were you.
If I could pray to move, prayers would move me.
But I am constant as the Northern Star.
Of whose true fixed and resting quality
There is no fellow in the firmament.
The skies are painted with unnumbered sparks;
They are all fire, and everyone doth shine.
But there’s but one in all doth hold his place.”
Julius Caesar was felled, stabbed by his traducers.
The struggle in Rivers State has been long coming. It began as soon as Siminalayi Fubara took up the mantle of office as Governor, but he did not have enough experience to deal with people who are adept in the power game and watch his back. As I said last week, the crisis in the oil-blessed Rivers State is unremitted power struggle for political and economic control. Nyesom Wike is undoubtedly driving at enthronement of godfatherism worship to replicate the Lagos doctrine. Governor Fubara had wondered that since Wike governed Rivers State permitting no interference from any quarters, why should he not be allowed to serve with the same free hands and latitude.
The relationship between Wike and Fubara was chummy in the early stages of the latter’s Administration. It was such that when Wike was appointed Minister of the Federal Capital Territory. Governor Fubara led some members of his cabinet, elders and stakeholders of the state to Abuja on a congratulatory celebration. There was hardly any visit to Port Harcourt by Wike that Fubara did not lead his officials to receive him at the airport. Many of Wike’s commissioners when he was governor were inherited by Fubara. Unknown to Fubara there were undertows charging in the mass of waters that is Rivers State and abutting Government House. A secret plan had reached an advanced stage to impeach him because of his stand-off against interference in his administration from Abuja. This was in October, 2023, when he was barely six months in office.
That was when things began to fall apart. Reports said he had to move fast to avert the harm to his rulership and political career so early. But some occurrence came to his rescue. A wing of the State Assembly building caught fire. The coincidence was too much not to insinuate that it was the handiwork of arsonists known to people in the executive. The Assembly members read into the incident a deliberate effort to stall the impeachment process. They removed the Majority Leader of the House, Edison Ehie. The legislators were determined to still forge ahead with their impeachment resolve to a logical conclusion. However, they were disbanded by security operatives who drove them away when they reconvened to pursue their objective to remove the governor. The Governor himself came out. He addressed them describing the attempt to impeach him a nullity.
The House was broken with four going on the side of Governor Fubara and 27 for FCT Minister Nyesom Wike. The Governor moved the Assembly to Government House ostensibly to rebuild or renovate the building damaged by fire. The governor said later that the building had suffered from integrity deficiency and had largely to be pulled down. The larger faction led by Speaker Martin Amaewhule refused to move the Assembly to Government House. On 11 December, 2023, at a reception held in honour of Tony Okocha, chairman of APC chapter in River State, they announced their defection to APC. They were shown on video standing with Okocha raising hands and brandishing broom the symbol of APC.
Edison Ehie who had become the Speaker on the side of Fubara headed for the state High Court to obtain order recognising the four members as constituting the authentic Rivers State House of Assembly. He made efforts to declare the seat of the 27 group vacant since they had changed party and gone away with the APC. Based on that recognition the 2024 budget was presented to the four-man legislators. They passed it and Governor Fubara signed it into an appropriation law on the same day. Lawyers say that there had been a similar case of thin legislature strength in Plateau State before which they could cite. The budget in Port Harcourt, anyway, covered the renovation of the Assembly building damaged.
On 18 December, President Bola Tinubu waded into the crisis, asking the parties in the rift to sheathe their swords and embrace peace. Fubara was asked to re- absorb the pro- Wike commissioners who had left the administration of their own free will. He was asked to re-present the 2024 budget as well. He re-absorbed the commissioners but he declined to re-present the appropriation bill which those close to him said had been overtaken. This led to renewed stand-off. Nyesom Wike said the only path to peace in the state is in Fubara re-presenting the 2025 budget and tabling his list of commissioners before the expanded legislative house.
As the crisis situation was deteriorating, President Tinubu came in with a big stick! He declared a state of emergency on Tuesday, 18 March, exactly two years Fubara had his electoral victory at the polls. It is not the state of emergency that is so much of a problem as the exercise of that power is discretionary and based on what intelligence reports he has, but the attendant sacking of the governor, his deputy, Professor (Mrs.) Ngozi Odu; their Executive Council; and Members of the State Assembly. Lawyers argue that by so doing the President has exceeded his brief spelt out in the constitution.
It is reassuring that lawyers have been churning out quite some literature on this such that everything, the hastiness of action by the Federal Authority has sounded more like working to the answer. Many analysts say the gaze is on 2027 and Rivers State is crucial in the electoral calculation. What with Nyesom Wike conducting himself with his accustomed lack of refinement and with a certain sense of entitlement to Rivers State beyond a call to serve for which we all must bow our spirit in humility for the Grace. What with the pro-Wike State House of Assembly members not making themselves available for Governor Fubara to present his budget and list of commissioners in line with the ruling of the Supreme Court! To frustrate him, the Assembly adjourned indefinitely without any thought about his finding the resources to run and meet the obligations of the state.
Bola Tinubu and Nyesom Wike are two of a kind sharing the same political philosophy which is that struggle for power is not a child’s play. You fight for it “at all costs, snatch it and run with it.” Both will not let go on their super-rich empires.
Unfortunately, the dominant wish among our people is to line up behind the man with the deep pocket. They drop their principles.
See the spate of defections!!
The Governor said while addressing the people of River State before vacating Government House on Wednesday: “Even in the face of the political impasse, we have remained committed to constitutional order and the rule of law, putting the interest of our people above all else. This was why immediately after Mr. President’s intervention to broker peace, we did not hesitate to implement the agreed terms in good faith, including welcoming back commissioners who had previously resigned on their own volition. Furthermore, we moved swiftly to comply with the Supreme Court’s judgment immediately we received the certified true copy of the judgment to return the state to normalcy…. Unfortunately, at every turn, members of the Rivers State House of Assembly frustrated our efforts, thus making genuine peace and progress difficult.”
The craving for power and influence by man is an age-long intoxication. It was for fear of losing power and influence as well as hold on their fellowmen that the political and priestly establishments in Israel conspired and instigated hate among the people to get rid of the Lord Jesus Christ. And they executed Him Who brought the Holy Word of Salvation. The end to the intoxication is not in sight and will not be until mankind have the knowledge of the consequences of the burden in every wrongdoing which are awaiting them in life hereafter! They are severe; they are relentless. The entire Creation is governed by immutable, living and self-acting Laws.
Governor Fubara and his government should be immediately recalled. State of Emergency may be retained to curb lawlessness such as emerging oil pipeline vandalization which President Tinubu accused Fubara of not censoring. Options to return the state to normalcy can be exhausted in the arbitration of the courts. States are coordinate entities with the Centre; that is why we are a federation.
UNIQUE SEASON OF FASTING
For millions of Christians and Moslems world-wide this is a special season. The mosques are overfilling every evening. And from pulpits on Sundays an outpouring of exhortations for the good life thunders across the globe. It is yet another season of the great yearly fast, ladies and gentlemen. This year’s fasting period is unique. The last time the period for both faiths coincided was 32 years ago. Those who have pre-occupied themselves with this ecclesiastical purification of body and soul say the coincidence is indeed every 33 years. Their prediction borne out of cosmic calculation is that indeed the fasting by adherents of both Christianity and Islam Ramadan and Lent will fall on the same day, 18 February, next year. The Moslems turned their gaze upwards on 28 February with the sighting of the moon and should be away in spirit until the appearance of another crescent, about 30 days altogether. The Christians went on their knees on 05 March to begin their own 40-day retreat from worldliness.
In 1993 when this overlapping occurred, I said given the fact that a substantial majority of Nigerians subscribe to both religions, it may not be quite out of place to assume that, under normal circumstances a wave of purifying flames or currents would sweep through the country at least for the period of the fast. A great many unbelievers, too, might be wondering, shaking their heads in pity, at what sounded to them as transcendental penitentiality that demands abstinence from food, drinks and pleasure was really all about and what has befallen the world!
I do fast. And I enjoy doing so on two grounds. First it affords me the opportunity to give the body a break from its enormous workload. Withdrawal from food for some time is like bringing the city of millions of trillions of cells to a standstill on a sanitation last Saturday of the month. All the wastes that heavy work schedule locked in the closets are brought out and emptied as all energy is diverted to detoxification of the household. Thereafter, the body gets lighter, livelier, more radiant and youthful.
But by far more important is the benevolent effect of true fasting on the inner man. Man himself. True, a revitalised cloak or vessel as a refurbished motor car is to a motorist, is an invaluable asset for spiritual mobility and outreach, it is in the capacity of a fast to loosen spirit from body awhile and connect man to his Maker that its greatest benefit resides.
Man on earth is a union of body and soul, the soul itself a union of the spirit, that is of man, and his non-physical, finer coverings. The unions are held together by a mesh of radiations to which each party makes a contribution. Full consciousness is a state in which each party generates its required share of heat for the union. When the current is low from any side, the uniting mesh weakens and the union loosens. This happens often, as when the body is in a state of shock or illness, during sleep when the body goes to rest or when at the other end, the inner man loses the will to live and loses hold on the body, its cloak.
This is clearly evident when a tired body falls asleep, its contribution to the rays diminishes and the soul is freed through a weakening of the union hold, soars away, in what the brain, memory brain also called cerebellum, is later to remember faintly as a dream, having not fully and consciously participated in the experiences of the soul. It is the same principle that is enunciated by such alternative forms of medicine as acupuncture, acupressure, reflex zone therapy and iridology. Those channels of energy they speak about are nothing other than paths of energy flow.
Fasting may indeed have a spiritually composing effect if it turns man away from earthly trivialities and assists him to seek connection with his Maker. This will depend, however, on the inner state. For once the deprivation of nourishment to the body compels it to weaken; the union with the soul loosens somewhat, and the soul thus freed may easily gain the necessary connection with finer, that is immaterial currents. Gratitude arises to flow to the Throne of Grace. With finer currents come blessings, clarity, guidance, protection etc.
It needs be pointed out, however, that not all fasting brings blessings. There cannot be blessing where fasting does not engender an awakening inwardly. In fact, many who fast in this expectation are inwardly dead and do fast only out of habit or society expectation. For those who cannot fast for whatever reason or do not believe in it, that awakening is by no means unattainable through other agencies. Many souls are known, for example, to open up in the woods, seashore or in music halls. It is important for each person to find the key for unlocking the treasures of his own inner life. Above all, however, there is no better way to the unfolding than what The Grail Message by Abd-ru-shin points out: “He who bears within himself the firm volition for what is good, and strives to give purity to his thoughts has already found the way to the Highest! All else will then be added unto him.” Elsewhere, The Grail Message states: “If you deal exclusively and earnestly with what is good all else follows of its own accord. Thus it is not at all so difficult! But in your volition you constantly reach far beyond this, thus from the outset making the most simple things not only very hard for yourselves but quite often even impossible.”
![[OPINION] Where to Start with Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie - Maya Jaggi](/media/k2/items/cache/793571473694caa2fbd1044041603c20_L.jpg)
The award-winning Nigerian author and Beyoncé-sampled essayist is back with her first novel in a decade, which makes now a great time to get to know her work.
She’s won multiple awards for her novels, had her Ted talk sampled by Beyoncé, and was named one of Time magazine’s 100 Most Influential People of 2015. Now, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie is back with her first novel in 10 years - so if you haven’t read anything by the Nigerian author yet, it’s a good time to catch up.
The entry point
Adichie’s second novel, Half of a Yellow Sun, not only won the Orange Prize for Fiction (now the Women’s Prize for Fiction) in the year I was a judge, but also its Winner of Winners in 2020, and was made into a 2013 film with Chiwetel Ejiofor and Thandiwe Newton. It begins after Nigerian independence in 1960, telling the story of the Biafran war via “The Master,” a maths lecturer in Nsukka (where Adichie grew up), his London-educated lover Olanna, and teenage houseboy Ugwu. The traumas of war are preceded by joyous intellectual jousting, fuelled by Ugwu’s mouthwatering jollof rice and pepper soup. While Adichie once acknowledged to me her debt to Romesh Gunesekera’s Sri Lanka-set novel Reef for this master chef culinary device, her breakthrough novel earns its place as a West African War and Peace.
The credo
Adichie’s essay The Danger of a Single Story, first given as a 2009 Ted talk (and available as an eBook), sets out her stall as a storyteller as succinctly as Orwell’s 1946 essay Why I Write. Joining novelist Chinua Achebe’s call for a “balance of stories,” it echoes Binyavanga Wainaina’s How to Write About Africa, the 2005 satirical bombshell in Granta magazine - reprinted in a posthumous 2022 collection for which his bereft friend Adichie wrote the introduction. “Power is the ability not just to tell the story of another person, but to make it the definitive story,” she writes – a flattening of experience that “robs people” of human complexity and dignity while exaggerating their differences. “Africa is a continent full of catastrophes … But there are other stories … just as important.”
The spectacular debut
The consummate coming-of-age novel Purple Hibiscus, which won the Commonwealth Writers’ Prize for the best first book, explores faith, freedom, sexual awakening and religious hypocrisy through a 15-year-old girl, Kambili, growing up in south-eastern Nigeria after a military coup. Her father, a “Big Man” factory owner, is a patriarch and religious zealot whose wife-beating tyranny devastates the family, even as he garners human rights awards for defying the new regime. Where the Catholic church demands prayer in Latin, not Igbo, and cash-stuffed envelopes get things done, a brother’s act of defiance leads ultimately to prison. Yet Kambili blossoms with a scholarly aunt in Nsukka, a university town where questioning and debate are encouraged not slapped down. To the strains of Fela Kuti, she exults because, for all its potholes, “Nsukka could free something deep inside your belly that would rise… and come out as a freedom song.”
The epic love story
The 600-page, tricontinental novel Americanah, winner of the US National Book Critics Circle award for fiction, is as much sharp observational comedy and critique as romance. Its heroine Ifemelu, a fellow at Princeton, is first seen having her hair braided for the journey home after 13 years away. Fleeing military-ruled Nigeria, she felt the burden and pathologies of race only in the US – as explored in her flâneur’s blog, “Raceteenth, or Various Observations About American Blacks (Those Formerly Known as Negroes) by a Non-American Black”, which ranges from Barack Obama to the vexed politics of black hair. But her homesickness is partly for her first love, Obinze, the “only person with whom she has never felt the need to explain herself”. Having failed in the visa lottery for the Land of the Free, he languished in London before making it as a property developer in his newly democratic homeland. As the novel traces their sundered lives towards reunion, the question is whether their love is beyond rekindling.
The one everyone should read
We Should All Be Feminists speaks to successive generations of women and men in its efforts to reclaim feminism’s high ground from a mighty backlash. Expanded from a 2012 Ted talk – since sampled on Beyoncé’s Flawless – it bristles with outraged anecdotes and observations on how women are still taught to shrink and silence themselves, how gender bias becomes normalised through repetition, and how the cage of masculinity breeds men’s fear of weakness and vulnerability. “We must raise our daughters differently. We must also raise our sons differently,” Adichie writes in a book that could be read alongside her advice for parents, Dear Ijeawele, or A Feminist Manifesto in Fifteen Suggestions. Embracing her great-grandmother, who ran off to marry the man of her choice, as a feminist avant la lettre, Adichie rebuts notions of feminism as “un-African”.
The one that will make you feel less alone
Published the year after her father’s sudden death from kidney failure, Notes on Grief is a doting daughter’s reckoning with her father’s loss. It contains rare confidences from an author who guards her privacy and a bracing confession of the rage and turmoil of mourning. Though the family met on Zoom, Adichie had not seen her father in the flesh for months when he died during lockdown, and her “leaden heart” feels only fury at condolers’ presumptuousness (“he is in a better place”). Flashes of obituary reveal a man, deputy vice-chancellor of the University of Nigeria in the 1980s and a leading professor of statistics, who had returned from doctoral studies at Berkeley shortly before the Biafran war when all his books were burnt by Nigerian soldiers. Years later, he was kidnapped for ransom because of his famous daughter. Yet his humour, “already dry, crisped deliciously as he aged”. Was he “the reason I have never been afraid of the disapproval of men?” Adichie asks. “I think so.”
‘Cancel culture? We should stop it. End of story: Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie on backlash, writer’s block - and her new baby twinsHer first novel in 10 years, Dream Count, charts the interlinked lives and desires of four women during the Covid-19 pandemic. Adichie’s mother, who died in 2021, was an inspiration for its mother-daughter relationships. Central is Chiamaka, a Nigerian travel writer living in the US, considering her body clock and missed opportunities. The character of Chiamaka’s housekeeper, Kadiatou, was inspired by Nafissatou Diallo, the Guinean woman who in 2011 accused the then IMF Chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn of sexual assault in the New York hotel where she worked as a maid - though the case was dismissed because she was said to have lied about her background. “A victim need not be perfect to be deserving of justice,” Adichie notes in the novel’s afterword, arguing for the need for “imaginative retellings”. Fleshing out this character while preserving as sacrosanct her account of the alleged assault, was, for Adichie, “to ‘write’ a wrong in the balance of stories”.
Dream Count is published by 4th Estate.
British Writer and Critic Maya Jaggi wrote for The Guardian, London
![[OPINION] The danger of a single refinery: The Dangote dilemma - Johnson Arekpo](/media/k2/items/cache/f6b12436d0016c02b5db27668a7ee4b3_M.jpg)
When the Dangote Refinery, the largest single-train facility in the world and valued at over $20 billion launched operations in Lagos last year, it was heralded as a turning point for Nigeria, billed to release Nigeria from the shackles of fuel import dependency. However, recent unverified allegations of a ticketing fraud scandal that reportedly forced the refinery to suspend Premium Motor Spirit (PMS) loading have exposed a far more insidious risk and reignited debates about the danger of entrusting Nigeria’s energy security to one single player.
Dangote Refinery’s suspension of Premium Motor Spirit (PMS) loading was triggered by the discovery that trucks were smuggled out with falsified documents. The Dangote refinery has disputed these claims, but the allegations remain and lack independent confirmation. They also spotlight broader concerns about oversight in infrastructure critical to Nigeria. Notably, the refinery has faced criticism for refusing third party audits or independent testing of its processes. Critics argue that this stance undermines accountability and fuels suspicions of opacity.
The suspension of PMS loading amplifies long standing warnings from energy experts that accuse the Dangote group of trying to monopolise Nigeria’s fuel market through questionable pricing tactics and lawsuits. Whether or not the fraud claims are substantiated, this controversy underscores why no private entity, especially one tied to a single individual, should wield power over Nigeria’s energy and lifeline. For a country already struggling with systemic vulnerabilities, the lack of transparent oversight risks exposing Nigeria to more crises should a centralised system fail.
A Nation Held Hostage
Nigeria’s fuel supply chain is already strained and now faces scarcity risks. Industry analysts estimate that a prolonged halt to the refinery’s operations could drain the country’s reserves within weeks, paralysing its commerce and transportation. If four trucks could slip through a supposedly state-of-the-art system, is there a risk of larger and more ambitious manipulations?
There is speculation that the loading system’s infrastructure is outdated. Another assumption is that middle managers in the refinery owe their jobs to patronage rather than competence. These vulnerabilities in a monopolised system in such a critical industry are not just operational risks but threats to Nigeria’s national security.
In 2021, a ransomware attack on Colonial Pipeline’s infrastructure disrupted 45% of the U.S.’ East Coast fuel supply. Now imagine the same event and the chaos that would ensue if Nigeria’s sole major refinery faced a cyberattack or internal sabotage. Without competitors and a healthy supply chain, Nigeria would grind to a halt.
The Monopoly Gambit
For decades, Nigeria paradoxically imported nearly all of its refined petrol due to defunct state refineries and corruption. The Dangote refinery’s promise to end this paradox was and is seductive. The refinery, which has a 650,000 barrel-per-day capacity, was positioned as Nigeria’s knight in shining armour. It pledged to meet Nigeria, Africa’s largest oil producer, entire demand while exporting surplus and helping the country rebuild its foreign exchange purse. The public hoped. Politicians cheered. Dangote became a king.
But, there are cracks in this narrative. Dangote refinery has lobbied aggressively to ban petrol imports and is currently in court with lawsuits against the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority for allowing competitors including the NNPCL import fuel. The lawsuits allege that NMDPRA’s issuance of import licenses violates the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA), which prioritises local refining. But this interpretation of the PIA is self-serving. The law encourages domestic production. It does not mandate a monopoly. This lawsuit is one of several steps to eliminate the competition.
The refinery’s recent price cuts have reduced the costs of PMS by around 30% which while looking consumer-friendly on the surface, is actually a long-term monopolistic strategy aimed at pushing out competitors. The Dangote Refinery is effectively subsidising fuel; a move that is unsustainable for independent importers that are already grappling with foreign exchange shortages.
This strategy is already paying off, as rivals without the cushion of a spare couple of billion dollars are being undercut, with some already coming out with statements talking about their loss of business.
This playbook is eerily familiar. In the 19th century, Standard Oil used similar tactics to monopolise the American energy sector. John D. Rockefeller slashed prices to bankrupt competitors before hiking them as soon as market dominance was secured. This appears to be what is in play in Nigeria, making it a matter of when the Dangote refineries will dominate the market and then control prices.
This is not paranoia. It is a precedent. Dangote Cement controls about 60% of Nigeria’s market and has long been accused of price fixing. Despite the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission investigating the firm for anti-competitive practices, cement prices are still exorbitant and regulators have done nothing.
The Global Context
However, Nigeria is not alone in facing monopoly risks. In Mexico, Carlos Slim’s dominance of the telecoms sector was accused of stifling innovation for decades. In Venezuela, nationalised oil production under the PDVSA has been used as a political tool for successive regimes. Dwindling output and corruption have left the country reliant on imports. This is a cautionary tale of centralised control. While the Dangote refinery is private, Nigeria risks similar pitfalls. There is a lack of transparency, accountability and redundancy.
Fans of Dangote and blind capitalism will argue that the Dangote refinery brings efficiency and investment. Why can’t a successful businessman lead Nigeria’s energy transition? After all, NNPC’s refineries haemorrhaged billions for decades.
But efficiency without competition is a Faustian bargain. The popular adage goes, “Don’t put all your eggs in one basket.” A single refinery, no matter how efficient, cannot guarantee resilience. Diversification; through multiple private refiners and import allowances coupled with robust public infrastructure will be the bedrock of Nigeria’s energy security.
Also, Dangote’s political influence cannot be ignored. He has maintained a proximity to power and has advised every president since 1999. This raises concerns about regulatory capture.
What now?
To avert a crisis, Nigeria must act decisively:
● Halt Anti-Import Lawsuits: The NMDPRA must not bow to legal intimidation and maintain a competitive market. The only way an import ban will be implemented should be through consensus, not coercion.
● Strengthen Antitrust Laws: The FCCPC must investigate instances of predatory pricing and penalise all anti-competitive behaviour in the market; Dangote or otherwise.
● Encourage Competitors: Incentivise modular refineries and foreign investment. The upcoming Port Harcourt refinery to be managed by Italy’s Maire Tecnimont is a good start towards a balanced future.
● Enforce Transparency: Mandate and enforce third-party independent audits of the Dangote refinery operations and pricing models as well as publish guidelines for the public and all market players.
The Dangote Refinery fraud scandal as unfortunate as it is, is a wake-up call. There is a lot of work the Dangote refinery has to do to ensure there are no repeat instances of fraud.
The Dangote refinery is a Nigerian refinery by a Nigerian for Nigerians and its success is important to the future of Nigeria’s energy security. But, Nigeria’s energy security can not hinge on one player’s ambition or the integrity (or lack of) of his database. Monopolies historically breed complacency, corruption and vulnerability. These are not outcomes Nigeria and her 220 million residents can afford.
As Dangote races to consolidate power, the regulators must choose: Will Nigeria become a captive market for a corporate titan? Or will Nigeria become a diversified economy where competition fuels progress?
We do not know yet. But, the answer will determine whether Nigeria in the long run will stand tall or fall victim to myopia.
Arekpo, a public affairs analyst, lives in Lagos.
![[OPINION] Visiting Fidel Castro in Havana - Owei Lakemfa](/media/k2/items/cache/0e6d6810c9a98ae322534a0e53c61580_M.jpg)
I never personally met Fidel Castro Ruz, one of the iconic figures of the 20th Century. I only saw him once in the streets of Havana while he drove and the crowds cheered. On November 25, 2016, this African-Latin American ancestor joined the pantheon.
When on Friday, March 14, 2025 I visited the Fidel Castro Ruz Centre in Havana, Fidel came alive for me. I was transfixed to the gun he used in the Sierra Maestra Mountains where he led a dozen surviving youths to perform what Pentecostal Christians will call a miracle. That foci, with the assistance of peasants and many supporters across Cuba, in 25 months, defeated what was then one of the strongest armies in Latin America.
A photograph of Fidel slinging his gun in the thickset of the mountains was iconic. Now I was seeing it, preserved for generations. He never attended any military school. He had gotten the inspiration to fight from the examples of Jose Marti, Antonio Maceo, Simon Bolivar and other liberation fighters. As for theoretical military studies, he had gotten most of it from the 1929 novel, A Farewell To Arms, by the famous American writer, Ernest Hemingway. His military experience and tactics, he learned primarily in the battlefield.
The military victory the rebels scored on January 1, 1959 made Fidel one of the most successful guerilla Generals in history. When a military force, put together and trained by the United States, US, Central Intelligence Agency, CIA, invaded Cuba on April 17, 1961, Fidel as Commander-in-Chief of the Cuban Armed Forces, went personally to the battlefield. It was quite unconventional for the President of a country to personally go into the battlefield. But Fidel did and, in three days, the Bay of Pigs invasion was over, the enemy was routed. Over 1,000 invaders were taken prisoners of war, POWs. The humiliated US government was made to pay Cuba $53 million in food and medical suppliers in order to get the POWs released.
This victory solidified Fidel as a practical General in conventional warfare. So he became an experienced and successful General in both guerilla and conventional warfare.
At the Castro centre, the mythical Fidel was also present. After the young rebels crushed the Batista army in the decisive Battle of Santa Clara led by another famous revolutionary, Ernesto Che Guevera, and they entered Havana, Fidel spent a week in caravans travelling to the country’s capital. On January 8, 1959 he arrived in Havana to address a city overflowing with people. As he did so, a white dove flew through the crowds and landed on his shoulder. To some in the crowd, it reminded them of the dove at the baptismal of Jesus. But to many Cubans, it was the consecration of Fidel by the Afro-Cuban god, Obatala. It was the sign that he was fearfully made and cannot be killed by humans. This took the form of realism with a record 634 assassination attempts made on his life principally by the CIA. The attempts had taken some urgency after President Dwight D. Eisenhower in March, 1960 directed the CIA to remove Fidel by any means necessary.
Some months later, Fidel attended the United Nations General Assembly and there was an alleged attempt to poison his cigars.
The UN visit itself was quite explosive. It was his first major appearance on the world stage and was clearly the most talked about President at the world assembly with the press covering his every move.
Fidel had checked in at the Shelburne Hotel in Midtown Manhattan, but stormed out when the hotel asked him to pay a $20,000 deposit. The legendary African-American leader, Malcolm X, then secured accommodation for him and his entourage at the Hotel Theresa in Harlem where his Organization of Afro-American Unity, OAAU, had offices.
The Theresa was a Whites-Only hotel which flung its doors open to people of all colours in 1940 after it had been bought by an African-American, Love B. Wood. It had become a centre of African-American activities, and Fidel’s stay became a game changer for the hotel.
Famously, Soviet Premier, Nikita Krushev, visited Fidel in the hotel as did then Indian leader, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, and President Gamar Abdel Nasser of Egypt. Famous intellectuals like the sociologist, C. Wright Mills and famous writer, Langston Hughes, author of the iconic play ‘A Raisin in the Sun’ also visited him.
Cuba, led by Fidel sent its youths to go fight the very powerful Apartheid regime in South Africa which was backed by major Western powers like the US and the United Kingdom. Cuba lost lots of those youths under the African sun. But the Apartheid forces were routed from Angola and pushed into Namibia where they sued for peace. The direct result was the independence of Namibia and South Africa.
When due to the Cuban military defeat of Apartheid, the legendary Nelson Mandela was released from 27 years imprisonment, he visited Cuba in 1991. There, he said: “In all my years in prison, Cuba was an inspiration and Fidel Castro was a tower of strength.” This visit is kept alive in the highly digitalised Castro centre. Famously, as Fidel talked, Mandela interrupted him: “Before you say anything, you have to tell me when you are coming to South Africa. When are you coming?” To which Fidel responded: “I have not visited my South Africa homeland.” In 1994, Fidel was in South Africa, and the entire country rose in unison to receive him.
The Castro Centre also has lots of clips showing Fidel’s visits to many countries. The ones I found most interesting were those to Algeria and Guinea in which the Pan Africanist President Sekou Toure was with Fidel.
The centre houses many personal belongings of Fidel, including the original podium and microphones from which he made many simple, but very powerful speeches, some of his books, military uniforms and clothes he wore. The centre is also about Cuban history, including life before the revolution, and the revolution turning 74 Batista military fortresses into schools for children.
But even as I visited, the punitive 63-year blockade unilaterally imposed on Cuba since February 1962 by President John F. Kennedy was still in place. It continues to impose serious hardship on the people whose only crime is choosing to live as free people under a political system of their choice. One of the effects is that Cuba is not allowed to trade at the international market, not even to buy medicines or spare parts for their aging electricity system which collapsed for 48 hours during my visit. But the workers, symbolising the resilience of the Cuban people, restored the system. Truly, a people united can never be defeated.
![[OPINION] Cry me a RIVERS! - Donu Kogbara](/media/k2/items/cache/1fc35f4e511eefa74b384950f4b307a7_M.jpg)
I am so upset about the unfair imposition of a state of emergency on Rivers State. I have totally lost faith in President Tinubu, FCT Minister Wike, their supporters and the National Assembly.
I have complained extensively about this crisis on YouTube. Today I am feeling too emotionally drained to write anything, so let me leave you with two commentaries that were written by other people.
The first, which I chanced upon online, has no name attached to it but neatly and cynically outlines the way in which Nigerians sleepwalk into nonsense and allow themselves to be enslaved.
The night after the declaration…
1. Television and radio stations will be full of legal and political analysts huffing and puffing .
2. They will weigh in on the propriety or otherwise of the president’s decision.
3. Newspapers’ pages will be filled with articles and editorial opinions in like manners.
4. President Tinubu will read and watch if he cares to.
5. His media handlers will watch and read and decide which ones to respond to and those to ignore.
6. The National Assembly led by Godswill Akpabio will meet and endorse the declaration.
7. Fubara and his deputy will be watching events from the fringes of Niger Delta.
8. Government will encourage and pay some militants to burn a small section of the vast pipelines in the Niger Delta to justify a state of anarchy and the state of emergency.
9. Nigerians will gather at beer parlours, social media platforms and exercise their two-week outrage.
10. Contractors and politicians in Rivers State will look for the phone number of the military man now in charge and renew contacts with him for contracts and appointments even if temporal.
11. In the end what Tinubu and Wike want will happen and life will go on.
12. Please forget the judiciary. It is the presidency that is the judiciary.
13. Please forget the NBA. They will issue statements and that’s it. Their members are the lawyers who argue cases before the courts from where any judgement can be delivered regardless of the facts and the laws.
14. Those who are too vociferously opposed to the declaration may be invited by the DSS or the EFCC.
15. Members of the House of Assembly will pretend to be affected while they are busy popping champagne bottled; they are the winners and will emerge stronger. Quote me!
16. The president is one of the most powerful leaders in the world.
17. Nigerians are some of the most docile, corrupt, tribalistic, nepotistic, and incompetent people in the world as far as politics is concerned.
18. That’s how things work here.
•This second commentary was written by Farooq Kperogi just before the National Assembly surprised nobody by doing the wrong thing:
I just stumbled on a story in The Cable this morning claiming that President Bola Tinubu’s henchmen in the Senate and House are struggling to gather enough votes to rubber-stamp his unconstitutional suspension of democracy in Rivers State and installation of a retired military officer as sole administrator.
Frankly, it’s hard to believe. Most of our legislators have a reputation for having price tags attached rather openly to their principles, or what’s left of them.
Yet, if by some miracle this story checks out, I’ll gladly eat my scepticism. It might mean that amid Nigeria’s ocean of opportunists, there’s still a handful willing to occasionally pretend they have backbones.
Yes, the Constitution indeed allows Tinubu to declare a state of emergency, but nowhere does it grant him the authority to suspend elected governors, deputies, or legislators.
The idea of installing a “sole administrator” is a ghostly relic of Nigeria’s dark era of military absolutism.
Remember, former President Obasanjo pulled this stunt in Ekiti in 2006, not because the state burned uncontrollably, like Plateau State in 2004, but simply because he didn’t like the governor. So, he accused him of corruption, which became the basis for his unconstitutional ouster.
Of course, irony had a good laugh, given Obasanjo himself was swimming in allegations of corruption while citing corruption as his reason for undermining democracy.
Goodluck Jonathan, on the other hand, declared states of emergency in Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa because of the escalation of Boko Haram insurgency. But he did so without demolishing elected institutions.
Tinubu, a man who built his political career on the perception of battling military tyranny, now bizarrely aspires to mimic Obasanjo, the very authoritarian he once vehemently condemned.
Is irony on vacation or is hypocrisy now Tinubu’s political philosophy?
If we permit Tinubu to establish this precedent, democracy in Nigeria becomes a sitting duck.
Any future president with a grudge or craving for unchecked power can manufacture a crisis at will, dismantle elected institutions, and impose obedient lackeys as “sole administrators” to rule states by decree.
That’s not democracy; that’s dictatorship on drip-feed.
[OPINION] Nigeria’s Democracy at a Crossroads: The Threat of Emerging Authoritarianism - Akin Ogunlade
Admin![[OPINION] Nigeria’s Democracy at a Crossroads: The Threat of Emerging Authoritarianism - Akin Ogunlade](/media/k2/items/cache/2d85ef42a550b4fe5af79fe15d0d296b_M.jpg)
The recent declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State by President Bola Tinubu has ignited a national debate about the trajectory of Nigeria’s democracy. While the government justifies the move as necessary to restore order, critics argue that it is a dangerous precedent, signaling a shift toward authoritarian rule under the guise of democracy. This development raises fundamental concerns about constitutional governance, the separation of powers, and the potential erosion of democratic freedoms.
Nigeria operates a federal system where states should have significant autonomy. However, the president’s unilateral action in Rivers State undermines this principle. If a governor can be suspended at will under the justification of security concerns, what stops the federal government from extending this power to other states? This overreach threatens the ability of state governments to function independently, making them vulnerable to federal manipulation and political control.
One of the most alarming aspects of this crisis is the National Assembly’s swift approval of the president’s decision. Ideally, the legislature should act as a check on executive power, ensuring that decisions align with constitutional principles. However, their near-instant support raises serious concerns about the separation of powers. If lawmakers simply endorse executive actions without scrutiny, it signals a collapse of democratic safeguards, leading to a system where the president’s decisions go unchallenged.
Legal experts, including the Nigerian Bar Association, have challenged the constitutionality of this emergency rule. According to Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution, a state of emergency does not automatically dissolve elected governments. However, if the judiciary fails to assert its independence and rule against such unconstitutional actions, it will further cement the executive’s dominance over all arms of government. A compromised judiciary means that citizens can no longer rely on the courts to protect their rights against state overreach.
Authoritarian regimes often use legal mechanisms to weaken opposition, and this case appears to follow that pattern. The removal of an elected governor under the guise of security concerns raises the question: Is this about stabilizing Rivers State, or is it a political strategy to control the state? If opposition leaders can be removed so easily, Nigeria risks becoming a one-party state where dissent is silenced through executive power rather than democratic elections.
Today, the federal government has justified overriding an elected governor due to security concerns. Tomorrow, this justification could extend to suppressing protests, censoring the media, or even cracking down on citizens who criticize the government. The normalization of such authoritarian tactics can gradually erode democratic freedoms, creating an environment where fear replaces free expression.
Nigeria is at a crossroads. The nation can either uphold democratic principles, where power is decentralized, and institutions function independently, or continue down the path of executive dominance, leading to full-blown authoritarian rule. The key question remains: Will Nigerians, civil society organizations, and the judiciary push back against this trend, or will this moment mark the beginning of a new era where democracy exists only in name?
If history is any guide, unchecked executive power rarely reverses itself. It takes active resistance from the people, institutions, and the international community to prevent democratic backsliding. The world is watching, and the choices Nigeria makes today will define its democratic future.
![[OPINION] A Further Clarification between the Ideal and Reality - Uthman Shodipe](/media/k2/items/cache/2959c9f105798358fd4136a42b29f2e3_S.jpg)
From the earliest beginnings of man there has always been that urge, the natural push to vault beyond the distorted present, questing beyond the limiting reality, casting his vision in enriching necessity to improve his position.
There has always been that innate need for progression, the impulse towards a gradation to an higher value and signification.
From the Neanderthals to the Cave man, to the Stone Age and the discovery of iron, man in his wandering enlightened passion, has always pushed far towards a greater vista of ennobling circumstances amid the thronging challenges of fate.
But it has never been the nature of man to withdraw, to crawl in cringing acceptability of the status quo. Man is instinctively an idealist, a restless, boundless spirit, yearning, working for what Ought to be.
The idealistic man does not capitulate before the vagaries of fate. He rebels against oddities. He questions the incongruous. He grapples with the subsisting aberrations, insistent that there is always a better way.
To submit to the present, to plead extenuating circumstance and avert your gaze from the festering malady of the moment is to instigate self implosion.
What IS can be changed. The present is not woven in stone save for those who reside within the delusional carapace of life.
It is chimerical to pretend that tomorrow will not come with all its thronging revolutionary appetite to disembowel the present order, to instill an improved , freshly scripted better dawn, flinging the odious emblem into the withering dust. That is the nature of our cyclical universe.
Tennyson puts it better: “The old order changeth, yielding place to new. And God fulfills himself in many ways lest one good custom should corrupt the world.”
Here the Tennysonian ringing leit motif is about the perceived good order which cannot be static.
Nature abhors the frozen somnolence. There must be actuation ; a progression beyond now - a banishment of the festering crudity.
Something new , something different; a nullifying stripping of the moment must always come to supersede the odious present.
Progression ! Progression ! That is the law of nature.
Nature does not dwell forever in the immobile present. The cyclical necessity must beckon. The Now must yield to another Truth. Tomorrow must come. It can’t be evaded . It can’t be voided by innumerable tons of lucre. It is an immutable certainty indifferent to the beckon of the transient immediacy. It is solidified in the constancy of renewal and progression. The present must yield to another Truth.
Those who presently revel in bacchanalian license , thinking there is a permanence in drunken dictates of Bachus will invariably wake up in sweeping destruction. There is no avoiding the dictates of Heaven.
Moral: The ideal, the greater horizon will invariably triumph over the puny, untoward ephemerality of the moment. That is the fated truth.
-Uthman Shodipe
[OPINION] President Tinubu Cannot Legally Remove An Elected Governor Of A State - Mike Ozekhome, SAN
Admin![[OPINION] President Tinubu Cannot Legally Remove An Elected Governor Of A State - Mike Ozekhome, SAN](/media/k2/items/cache/1bc776077f7f82f367206bd8e3097d6e_S.jpg)
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.
[OPINION] Godfather-Godson Conflict, State of Emergency in the Niger Delta, and the Way Forward - Magnus Onyibe
Admin![[OPINION] Godfather-Godson Conflict, State of Emergency in the Niger Delta, and the Way Forward - Magnus Onyibe](/media/k2/items/cache/e3e50bd75787e8a2a2d9e26dd59a2e9c_S.jpg)
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.
![[OPINION] As the military vans move into Rivers Government House - Abimbola Adelakun](/media/k2/items/cache/8582e9590852f03a754b59d4ae14e6f4_S.jpg)
Following the protracted political crisis in Rivers State, President Bola Tinubu declared a state of emergency on Tuesday. He suspended the embattled Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, Ngozi Odu, and all the members of the House of Assembly for six months. He also selected Vice Admiral Ibokette Ibas (rtd) as administrator to take charge of Rivers State’s affairs pending the suspension period. It is a crazy situation that culminates the months of crisis that has made Rivers State a centre of chaos and endless political sabre-rattling. Expectedly, there has been a legal debate about the constitutionality of the President’s actions and what is at stake for his political ambitions in the seemingly unending crisis. For the next couple of weeks, we can be very assured that we will be subjected to endless analysis of this development on various media platforms. The interpreters of all maladies will turn this development over and over, scrutinising it to death.
As military vans full of armed operatives head toward the Rivers State Government House in Port Harcourt following the President’s pronouncement, some of us are uneasy at this turn of events. One can only imagine what the spectacle of a military takeover even at a mere state level will mean for Nigeria’s fragile democracy. If armed personnel can be brought in to resolve the embattled Rivers State crisis, how many steps before people begin to make another plausible association between a military resolution at the federal level too? Yes, the Rivers crisis is overdue for a resolution, but a state of emergency and an appointment of a uniformed officer seems imprudent.
Unlike the previous instances where a state of emergency was declared, we had just passed a moment in our national life where people experiencing severe hardships made some rather loud and feverish calls for a military takeover. It was just this time last year. Those who dared voice out their desire to see the army return to power were scolded for their deliriousness. They said the military has no business in government anymore forever, and we should learn to stop casting nostalgic glances back to the time men in jackboots sashayed freely on the Nigerian political stage. A mere one year later, and it seems the possibility of them returning is not foreclosed.
In August, some 90 people were arrested because they had carried Russian flags during their demonstrations against strangulating economic hardship, and some misguided ones among them wanted a coup. In November, they were taken to trial although the authorities had to drop the charges of treason against them following the outcry that saw 30 minors among them being charged to court. These are all very recent developments where the present government demonstrated a high level of intolerance against any suggestion of military solutions to any of the crises facing Nigeria. Those who were looking for a coup might have been guilty of presuming that the military had anything better to offer Nigeria, but their agitation against a government that had grown too malicious against its own people was coming from nowhere.
During that protest, the police Inspector General Kayode Egbetokun swore that the demonstrations and the call for a military takeover were financed by some sponsors from “outside the country” and they must arrest those carrying flags to be able to get to the sponsors. He was so sure that “the sponsors of these protests, some of them, have a clear motive to subvert the government of the day; we are not going to allow that; we will defend our democracy”. The same government that promised to defend democracy against interlopers is using the military to subvert a fractious democracy in Rivers State. Do not get me wrong, even though I think the Rivers State crisis has reached a point where something needed to give, the sudden show of resolve on Tinubu’s part starkly contradicts the ethos of a democracy that corrects itself without the intervention of men in fatigues, which this administration has tried to project.
In October, Presidential Aide Bayo Onanuga went on a rampage against a media house that dared to give a voice to the agitation of Nigerians who were looking for a military solution to Nigeria’s economic crisis. Onanuga had said, “It is unacceptable…to incite calls for military intervention based on transient difficulties.” Why is it suddenly acceptable for soldiers to take over the Rivers Government House? Have they concluded that what is going on in that region is more than “transient difficulties”?
The second thing that comes to the fore is Tinubu’s record on a president’s declaring a state of emergency. Again, this is another instance where the bad faith politics that Tinubu has played for years catches up with him. Like his pre-presidency commentary on fuel subsidies and several other economic policies, Tinubu is once again being revealed as a blowhard with many opinions but very few moral convictions. Now that he is in power, his doublemindedness is being manifested when he takes the very actions for which he condemns his predecessors. From his poor record on human rights to the subversion of the ideals of democracy, Tinubu’s presidency has revealed him to be a man whose loudest pronouncements on issues were never more than cynically exploiting situations. For a man who once said that a state of emergency in Lagos would “kill” democracy, he has sure come a very long way.
In 2013 when former President Goodluck Jonathan declared a state of emergency in Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa, Tinubu condemned him saying it was a ploy to manipulate the 2015 election. Just 12 years later, the same Tinubu would go on to state in his speech about a state of emergency that the latest security reports made available to me show that between yesterday and today, there have been disturbing incidents of vandalisation of pipelines by some militant without the governor taking any action to curtail them….With all these and many more, no good and responsible President will stand by and allow the grave situation to continue without taking remedial steps prescribed by the Constitution to address the situation in the state, which no doubt requires extraordinary measures to restore good governance, peace, order and security.
So how did he move from reading Jonathan’s action as a ruse of self-perpetuation to now seeing a state of emergency as what a “good and responsible” president should do in a bad situation? It is tempting to think that he has evolved ideologically and politically, and that experience has taught him practical politics, but I am more inclined to believe he was just a loudmouth who never cared about Nigeria. His politics is, and has always been, self-serving. That is why, no matter where his heart might lie in this Rivers issue, it will be virtually impossible for him to convince anyone of his righteousness. His intervention in Rivers State is far more self-evidently about 2027 politics than his projection on Jonathan. Given how much the Rivers electoral figures tilted against him in 2023, he cannot risk losing that state again.
Yes, the politics of partisanship that makes people question the actions of a leader they did not vote for will definitely be at play in the cynicism that will greet Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers, but that will not exhaust the reason people will read meanings in his action. It will also be because this man spent his political opposition years blowing ashes into gusts of wind to taint his opponents. Now that the wind of fate has suddenly reversed direction, he is accumulating the same dust and his true self is being revealed. The same measure with which he judged others is being used to find him wanting.
More...
![[OPINION] The Rape of Constitutionality in Plateau - Ben Nwabueze](/media/k2/items/cache/dfe579e391908d0bf07ada4da94f3e80_XS.jpg)
THE suspension of the Governor and House of Assembly of Plateau State and their replacement temporarily by an Administrator by President Olusegun Obasanjo are the greatest and most brazen illegality committed by any government in Nigeria, colonial, military or civilian.
Emergency powers comprise two distinct powers, viz (i) power to declare a state of emergency; and (ii) power to make laws and to execute them with respect to matters within exclusive state competence in normal time, and to overstep, with some exceptions, the limitations on power arising from the constitutional guarantee of fundamental rights in chapter IV. Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution, relied on by President Obasanjo for his action in Plateau State, grants only the first power, but not the second; it only empowers the President to declare a state of emergency in situations there specified. It is not intended for present purposes to go into the question whether or not the state of emergency in Plateau State was validly declared under section 305.
A state of emergency validly declared under section 305 does not by itself, bring into play the second power. It is a fundamental principle of the Rule of Law that executive acts must be authorised by law, at any rate, insofar as they affect the rights and interests of an individual, and that the Executive is not the one to confer the necessary legal authorisation on itself. The principle is well established by many authorities. As far back as 1921 in the celebrated case, Eshugbayi Eleko v. Government of Nigeria, the Privy Council applied it to invalidate the deportation of the then Oba of Lagos by the colonial Governor of Nigeria without authorisation by law, which as the sole legislature for the country at the time, he could have conferred on himself by simply issuing an Ordinance, but which he failed to do, relying instead on what he called his inherent authority as the Executive. In a judgement that has become a great constitutional landmark, the Privy Council, speaking through Lord Atkin, said that the Executive "can only act in pursuance of the powers given to him by law."
The section in the 1960 and 1963 Constitutions (section 65 and 70 respectively) authorising the declaration of a state of emergency also empowered Parliament to make "laws for Nigeria or any part thereof with respect to matters not included in the Legislative Lists as may appear to Parliament to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of maintaining or securing peace, order and good government during any period of emergency" (section 65(1) 1960; section 60(1) 1963; emphasis supplied.)
Pursuant to the power conferred by this provision, Parliament enacted the Emergency Powers Act 1961 authorising the Governor General-in-Council to make "such regulations as appear to him to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of maintaining or securing peace, order and good government in Nigeria, or any part thereof during any period of emergency." Altogether 12 regulations were made by the Governor General-in-Council under the Act. Of these the most far-reaching was the Emergency Powers (General) Regulations, 1962, which empowered the Prime Minister to appoint an Administrator for Western Nigeria (the emergency area.) The Administrator was authorised by the Regulations to administer the government of the Region, with power to legislate by means of orders for the peace, order and good government of the Region, and with full executive powers. He then suspended the Regional Governor, Premier, Ministers, and House of Assembly.
The Emergency Powers Act 1961 and the Emergency Powers (General) Regulations 1962 clearly went beyond what was contemplated by the enabling provision in Section 65(1) of the 1960 Constitution; they were a perversion of power, but they at least provided some measure of legal authorisation and basis for the appointment of the Administrator by the Prime Minister, and the suspension of the Regional Governor, Premier, Ministers and House of Assembly by the Administrator. The Act and the Regulations made under it lapsed by effluxion of time under Section 65(2) of the 1960 Constitution (section 70(2), 1963) that "any provision of law enacted in pursuance of this section shall have effect only during a period of emergency," so that they are not in force today as existing laws under Section 315 of the 1999 Constitution. They are not therefore reproduced in the laws of Nigeria 1990. Even supposing them to be existing law, they will be inconsistent with Section 11(4) and (5) of the 1999 Constitution, quoted below.
With the experience of the perversions of 1962 in mind, Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution (reproducing Section 265, 1979 Constitution) gives the Federal Government no emergency powers, legislative or executive, exercisable during a state of emergency declared under its provisions. It (i.e. Section 305) omits completely the power in Section 65(1) of the 1960 and Section 70(1) of the 1963 Constitution. The only provisions relevant upon the points are those in Section 11(3), (4) and (5) of the 1999 Constitution (same section number in the 1979 Constitution) which, again significantly, make no reference at all to an emergency declared in terms of section 305 (section 265, 1979 Constitution).
These provisions need to be reproduced in their precise wording in order to underline their underlying aim of avoiding the evil of perversion made possible by the 1960 and 1963 Constitution. Section 11:
(3) During any period when the Federation is at war, the National Assembly may make such laws for the peace, order and good government of the Federation or any part thereof with respect to matters not included in the Exclusive Legislative List as may appear to it to be necessary or expedient for the defence of the Federation"
"(4) At any time when any House of Assembly of a State is unable to perform its functions by reason of the situation prevailing in that state, the National Assembly may make such laws for the peace, order and good government of that state with respect to matters on which a House of Assembly may be necessary or expedient until such time as the House of Assembly is able to resume its functions, and any such laws enacted by the National Assembly pursuant to this section shall have effect as if they were laws enacted by the House of Assembly of the State.
Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed as conferring on the National Assembly power to remove the Governor or the Deputy Governor of the State from office."
"(5) For the purposes of subsection (4) of this section, a House of Assembly shall not be deemed to be unable to perform its functions so long as the House of Assembly can hold a meeting and transact business." (emphasis supplied)
The severest of the restrictions on the powers of the Federal Government under these provisions is that where a situation of an abnormal extraordinary nature is confined to the territory of one State and does not extend beyond its boundaries, then, even although a state of emergency has been declared in the state in terms of section 305, the National Assembly is not to assume power to make laws on matters within exclusive state competence unless the State House of Assembly is "unable to perform its functions by reason of the situation prevailing in that state" (section 11(4) - i.e. the situation prevailing in the state independently of, not one brought about by, a declaration of an emergency. Further, "a House of Assembly shall not be deemed to be unable to perform its function so long as the House of Assembly can hold a meeting and transact business" (section 11(5). Again, what is envisaged is inability to perform its functions arising from the situation prevailing in the State independently of, but not one brought about by, a declaration of an emergency.
Finally, the removal of a State Governor from office by reason solely of an emergency situation prevailing in the State, whether or not an emergency is formally declared under section 305, is completely and unequivocally procluded by the proviso in section 11(4), which declares that "nothing in this section shall be construed as conferring on the National Assembly power to remove the Governor or the Deputy Governor of the State from office." The Governor remains in office during such period with his executive powers undiminished, since by section 11(4) any "laws enacted by the National Assembly pursuant to this section shall have effect as if they were laws enacted by the House of Assembly of the State." He is the rightful authority to execute such laws by virtue of the provision in section 5(2) that the executive powers vested in him shall extend to "the execution and maintenance of the Constitution (and) all laws made by the House of Assembly." And if the National Assembly cannot, in the exercise of its power to make law under section 11(4), remove a State Governor, it cannot by law authorise the President to do so. The President has no inherent power to remove or suspend a Governor, anyway.
It follows that a State Governor elected into office under the 1999 Constitution cannot be removed from office by reason solely of an emergency validly declared under section 305 of that Constitution; in order words, there is nothing in the provisions of the 1999 Constitution relating to an emergency that can cause or be used to make a state Governor to "cease to hold office" within the meaning of section 180 of that Constitution.
All the military governments that have ruled Nigeria observed the Rule of Law at least to the extent of enacting laws (Decrees or Edicts) as a basis for their executive actions, especially executive actions affecting the rights or interests of individuals. There was seldom, if ever, an executive action of the military government not backed by law, a Decree or Edict, made normally prospectively, but sometimes retrospectively.
The suspension of the elected Governor and House of Assembly of Plateau State and their replacement by an Administrator by the democratic government of President Obasanjo without authorisation by law must rank as perhaps the greatest tragedy to befall the Rule of Law in Nigeria.`
Professor Nwabueze (SAN), a constitutional lawyer, is a member of The Patriots
culled from GUARDIAN, May 20, 2004
![[OPINION] Cleaning up Ogoniland, the HYPREP way, - Ikechukwu Amaechi](/media/k2/items/cache/83f466163cf73081e05593b04a43e6a8_XS.jpg)
Visiting Ogoniland last week after my first visit in 1996 was a bittersweet experience. It was like traversing two worlds in less than three decades. Unbelievable! I went to Ogoni for the first time to chronicle the mess oil industry and the Nigerian state had made of Ogoniland.
Before oil was discovered in the Ogoni community of K-Dere, popularly called the Bomu oil fields, the territory made up of six kingdoms – Babbe, Eleme, Gokana, Ken-Khana, Nyo-Khana, and Tai – and now compressed into four local governments: Eleme, Gokana, Khana, and Tai, which covers approximately 1,000 square kilometers, with a population of about 832,000, according to 2006 census, was an agricultural and fishing society.
But all that changed with the coming of Bomu oil well 1 in 1958. Subsequently, Shell made more discoveries in other Ogoni communities, including Ebubu, Yorla, Bodo West and Korokoro, leading to the building of massive oil infrastructure, with crude oil pipelines crisscrossing the entire land. When the oil started spilling, nothing was done to mitigate the looming danger until it became a catastrophe. An environmental assessment conducted by the United Nations Environment Programme, UNEP, documented over 2,976 oil spills between 1976 and 1991. Consequentially, decades of unchecked spills and unmitigated gas flaring, which contaminated land, water and air, impacting the health and livelihoods of the people, turned what was hitherto the world’s third-largest mangrove ecosystem into an environmental disaster zone.
Faced with an existential threat, the people came up with the Movement for the Survival of Ogoni People, MOSOP, a non-governmental organisation with the mandate to campaign non-violently to promote democratic awareness and protect Ogoni environment, vesting themselves with the Ogoni Bill of Rights in November 1990.
Tragically, barely four years thence, a split in the ranks of its leadership turned MOSOP into a movement for the death of Ogoni people, with the gruesome murder by an irate mob, on May 21, 1994, of Albert Badey, Edward Kobani, Theophilus Orage and Samuel Orage, in Giokoo community, Gokana. More Ogoni blood subsequently flowed when the ruling military junta blamed Ken Saro-Wiwa, a social rights activist, and eight of his compatriots for the killings. Tried and convicted, Saro-Wiwa, Saturday Dobee, Nordu Eawo, Daniel Gbooko, Paul Levera, Felix Nuate, Baribor Bera, Barinem Kiobel, and John Kpuine, were executed on November 10, 1995, in Port Harcourt.
So, the Ogoni I visited in 1996 was a community under siege, occupied by the Nigerian military, with the people distraught, melancholic and forlorn. They walked about, their heads bowed in utter defeat and surrender.
That was until 2008, when at the behest of the Nigerian government, the United Nations Environment Programme, UNEP, conducted an independent assessment of the environment and public health impacts of oil contamination in Ogoniland. Over a 14-month period, with over 4,000 samples collected for analysis from more than 200 sites, 122 kilometres of pipeline rights of way surveyed, more than 5,000 medical records reviewed and engagement of over 23,000 people at local community meetings, UNEP’s independent scientific assessment finding was damning: Ogoniland had become a wasteland, which, unless immediate remediation steps were taken, may well become the world’s worst ecological disaster.
The report, which was first published in 2011 indicated that pollution from over 50 years of oil operations in Ogoniland had penetrated further and deeper than many had thought. But nothing was done until the Federal Ministry of Environment in a 2016 Gazette, established the Hydrocarbon Pollution Remediation Project, HYPREP, to undertake environmental restoration in Ogoni, building on the 2011 UNEP report. This environmental restoration is turning out to be one of the world’s most wide-ranging and long-term oil clean-up exercise given the fact that contaminated drinking water, land, creeks and important ecosystems such as mangroves are being systematically brought back to full, productive health.
With the dual mandate of remediating hydrocarbon impacted communities and restoring livelihoods in Ogoniland, HYPREP has done an incredible job. It is to the HYPREP restored Ogoni community that I returned to last week. And it was a soul-lifting experience. Contrasted with the 1996 experience, Ogoni is a land on the cusp of renaissance. The air was fresh, the vegetation was greener, the rivers had palpable aquatic life and the people no longer walked about with their heads bowed. They rather had a spring in their step.
And the reason is simple. As Prof Nenibarini Zabbey, the project coordinator, said: “HYPREP has achieved significant milestones,” working endlessly to address the devastation caused by oil spills, gas flaring and other pollutants in the area.
Besides, beyond the core value of remediation, HYPREP is adding electricity, healthcare delivery services and potable water facilities to spur economic activities. “What we are doing is a sustainable clean-up project and we are in conformity with the original mandate of UNEP while we are also adding values,” he said.
The projects are breathtaking. For instance, at one of its 39 medium risk sites for soil and groundwater remediation at Ajen-Okpori, Eleme, Israel Sigalo, the team lead, remediation execution, environmental remediation unit of HYPREP, explained the incredible remediation processes and techniques. So far, 48 lots have been completed and certified by the National Oil Spill Detection and Response Agency, NOSDRA, in the first and second phases of the project, while 39 medium risk lots are ongoing.
Yet, it was another experience at Goi and Kpor, Gokana, where two of the 34 lots for the ongoing shoreline cleanup, witnessed active remediation activities. Peter Lenu, technical adviser to the project coordinator on shoreline cleanup explained how low-pressure active flushing of the sediments was deployed in removing hydrocarbon residue.
In Bomu, the host community for the mangrove project, well over 1.5 million mangrove seedlings have already been planted in HYPREP’s effort to recover 560 hectares of lost mangrove areas. Four million seedlings will be planted in the first phase of the project while a total 10 million seedlings will be planted over the restoration period, which holds significant benefit for restoration of ecosystem goods and services, fish production, climate change mitigation and adaptation. A sight of the healthy mangrove seedlings sprouting on the tidal flats of Bomu, was, in itself, rejuvenating.
But going beyond its core mandate, HYPREP has embarked on massive water project with water schemes in Alesa, Ebubu, Korokoro, Barako, Terabor, Kpean, Bomu, Kporghor, already completed. In the healthcare, a specialist hospital, with an oncology department as special feature, is nearing completion in Kpite Tai, as well as Buan cottage hospital in Ken-Khana. Besides, primary health centres in Bori, Terabor, Nchia and Kpite, are being strengthened, while health outreaches benefitting over 10,000 Ogonis are carried out. Moreover, the Ogoni health impact study, as recommended by the UNEP report of 2011, will be conducted by the World Health Organisation, WHO, this first quarter.
But it is in the area of livelihoods where 5,000 Ogoni women and youths trained in 20 skill sets and graduated with starter packs that the most intangible impacts are being made. There has also been training for 200 farmers, aviation training for 30 youths, 60 SMEs entrepreneurs empowered with N300,000 each, 40 Nano businesses empowered with N100,000 each, education support of N250,000 paid to 200 final year students and award of N200 million scholarship to 300 Ogoni post-graduate students (200 Masters and 100 Doctoral). Specialised skills training is billed to commence in mechatronics, seafaring and creative arts.
The sheer scale of the project is mindboggling. But what is even more astounding is the fact that most of the young men and women executing these highly technical jobs are Ogoni people. And to ensure sustainability, HYPREP is also building the Centre of Excellence for Environmental Restoration, CEER, a project Prof Zabbey described as “a monumental step forward in the remediation of hydrocarbon pollution in Ogoni and beyond.”
And in compliance with Federal Government’s directive that HYPREP should contribute to national food security, Prof. Zabbey announced an expansion of the Centre’s original remediation-related laboratories to include biotechnology, which he explained, will enhance phytoremediation studies and crop improvement research to contribute to national food security and sovereignty.
“We have never had it so good,” crowed Gideon Nwielaghi, an indigene Khana. “I never believed I would witness the restoration of Ogoniland in my lifetime.” He is not alone as that seems to be the singsong in the hitherto despoiled Ogoniland as HYPREP carries out its restoration magic.
[Vanguard]
[OPINION] The final capture of Rivers state: Wike’s total dominance under Tinubu’s emergency rule - Muhammad Jibrin Barde
Admin![[OPINION] The final capture of Rivers state: Wike’s total dominance under Tinubu’s emergency rule - Muhammad Jibrin Barde](/media/k2/items/cache/88e33a5e8ec75169b71fb8cd6b84357b_XS.jpg)
The recent declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has effectively stripped the state of its autonomy, placing governance directly under the control of the Federal Executive Council (FEC). While the official justification for this drastic measure is to restore stability, the political reality is far more revealing.
This is not just federal intervention—it is a well-executed takeover that has cemented the influence of former Governor Nyesom Wike, making him the de facto ruler of Rivers State.
A FEDERAL TAKEOVER IN THE NAME OF STABILITY
For months, Rivers State has been embroiled in a bitter power struggle between Governor Siminalayi Fubara and factions within the state legislature. The crisis escalated with the demolition of the House of Assembly building and the paralysis of governance. The Supreme Court even warned that a state cannot function without a properly constituted government, providing the perfect excuse for federal intervention.
President Tinubu, invoking Section 305 of the Constitution, suspended the executive and legislative arms of Rivers State and appointed Vice Admiral Ibokette Ibas (rtd.) as Sole Administrator. But this was no ordinary intervention. Ibas was not given the powers of a governor—he cannot enact laws, make executive decisions, or govern independently. Instead, he must refer all matters to the Federal Executive Council (FEC), where final decisions on Rivers State will now be made in Abuja.
THE MOST SYMBOLIC MOMENT: IBAS SWORN IN WITHOUT RIVERS REPRESENTATION
Perhaps the most telling moment of this entire process was the swearing-in of Ibas. Rather than taking place in Rivers State, as would be expected for a state administrator, the ceremony was held at the Presidents’s meeting room in Abuja.
Even more shockingly, the only Rivers indigene present was Nyesom Wike.
No other Rivers leader, elder, or stakeholder was invited. Not a single other Rivers man or woman witnessed the transition of power. The symbolism of this moment cannot be ignored. It was a clear message:
– Rivers State is no longer governed from Port Harcourt—it is now controlled from Abuja.
– The people of Rivers have lost their voice.
– And Wike is now the only person who speaks for them.
WIKE: THE DE FACTO GOVERNOR AND LEGISLATURE
With the governor and legislature suspended, decision-making for Rivers State now rests solely with the FEC. But in that council, only one person represents Rivers: Nyesom Wike.
This means:
– Every policy, budget, and governance decision concerning Rivers State will be discussed and approved in Abuja, where Wike is the sole voice speaking for the state.
– There is no elected governor to challenge him.
– There is no House of Assembly to provide checks and balances.
– There is no opposition within the state to counterbalance his influence.
Wike has now secured more power than he ever had as an elected governor. He does not need to campaign. He does not need to answer to the people of Rivers. He controls the state from Abuja with the full backing of the Presidency.
A CAREFULLY ORCHESTRATED CAPTURE
Wike’s re-emergence as the de facto ruler of Rivers State did not happen by accident. Since leaving office in 2023, he has remained at the center of Rivers politics, ensuring that his grip on power never loosened. His rift with Governor Fubara was not about governance—it was about control.
Now, with emergency rule in place, Wike no longer needs to fight for control of Rivers from within. Instead, he has positioned himself as the single voice representing Rivers at the highest level of government.
A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT
This move sets a dangerous precedent for Nigerian democracy:
1. Can the federal government now take over any state experiencing political instability?
2. If Rivers can be governed remotely from Abuja, what stops the same from happening to other states?
3. Does this mean that states can be stripped of their autonomy whenever it is politically convenient?
By placing Rivers governance in the hands of one man at the FEC, this intervention is not about stability—it is about consolidating power.
A STATE WITHOUT A VOICE
For the people of Rivers, the implications are dire. Their state is now governed by decisions made in Abuja, not by their elected officials. Their resources, policies, and future development are now subject to the interests of a federal minister who no longer holds an official mandate in the state.
Wike is now the sole gatekeeper of Rivers affairs. He decides what is discussed. He decides what is approved. And with the full support of the Presidency, he has achieved something unprecedented: total control without an election.
THE FINAL QUESTION: WHO SPEAKS FOR RIVERS NOW?
With the governor, deputy governor, and lawmakers all sidelined, and Wike sitting comfortably as the only voice at the FEC, Rivers State is now in the hands of one man. The people must ask themselves:
– Is this the governance they voted for?
– Can Rivers truly claim to be a federating unit when it has no local decision-making power?
– Has Rivers State officially become an extension of Abuja’s political power play?
If the people of Rivers remain silent, they risk becoming mere spectators in the administration of their own state. The final capture of Rivers has been completed—not through elections, not through democracy, but through a carefully designed federal maneuver that has placed power in the hands of a single man.
And that man is Nyesom Wike.
![[OPINION] Wike, Natasha and the explosions in the creeks - Etim Etim](/media/k2/items/cache/ee6d4eb56e366eaa713b4bdb6d6e2652_XS.jpg)
Suddenly, the crisis in the Nigerian senate has been replaced in the headlines by the state of emergency declared in Rivers state by President Bola Tinubu and the resurgence of bombings in the creeks. Senator Godswill Akpabio is perhaps the happiest politician in the country today because of the respite he has just received. I understand that the “Queen of the Senate” was already planning to give interviews to CNN; Al Jazeera and other cable networks to further ridicule the senate president. She has also been invited to make presentations at a few women’s events in Lagos and Abuja in the months ahead.
But she’s had to shelve her media plans in view of the national mood and the shift in attention to Rivers. However, she is going ahead with her intentions to write to Western embassies in Abuja to report Senator Akpabio and advise them to register the senate president as “a serial sex offender”. She’s a relentless fighter and she knows what she wants, one of her advisers told me.
Meantime, continued explosions in the creeks of the Niger Delta will disrupt crude oil production and exports, and this would set the economy tail spinning into chaos. The Nigerian economy has been experiencing its severest fiscal crisis in a generation and further commotions could trigger a recession – a nightmare scenario that is better imagined than experienced.
The country has been struggling to go beyond a production volume of 1.5 million barrels per day, and with oil prices hovering between $70 and $77, a deficit of N13. 39 trillion in the 2025 budget, a recession will lead to hyperinflation, job losses, insecurity and political violence. Tinubu’s plan to achieve a $1 trillion economy by 2031 is increasingly becoming a mirage. Whosoever pushed Tinubu on this political path is putting him on the path to self-destruct. Did he see this coming or is he sleep-walking into it? Can Nigeria handle a full-scale uprising in the Niger Delta?
Although his backers are quick to ascribe supernatural political powers to the president, he is clearly out of depth in his handling of the Rivers crisis. He has allowed a combination of bad politics, greed and the politics of 2027 to cloud his sense of judgement. Nyesom Wike was able to procure a bogus election result in favour of APC in the 2023 presidential election and that helped propel Tinubu into office, while Wike became his premier political ally. With another election coming in two years, there have been mounting revolts against the president from important political blocs in the north – a region that gave him the invaluable support he badly needed. The north claims that his draconian economic policies have worsened poverty in the region and his nepotism has denied the region the patronage it’s used to.
Desperate for a second term, the president has turned to the eight southern states where his party is not in power for succour – four in south-south; three in south-east and one in south-west. He wants to railroad them into supporting him. Akwa Ibom governor, Umo Eno, is under severe pressure to decamp to APC, while the governors of Bayelsa and Delta have been told to pledge their unalloyed support for Tinubu.
The suspension of Governor Sim Fubara and the Rivers house of assembly through the emergency rule last night is deemed illegal by various constitutional lawyers, scholars and commentators, but it is an option preferred by the president’s strategists as the easiest way to capture the state.
Dismantling the political structures in a state and imposing a military officer on the people is tantamount to a coup and Nigerians are expectedly aghast. Tinubu has imperiled this democracy and we have to stand up to him and resist this dictatorship.
David Augustine, a Nigerian journalist who is studying for a PhD in the UK, said: “Tinubu has been pretending to be a progressive politician; a patriot and fighter for the causes of democracy. He has been pretending to be intelligent and pragmatic. But the veil has been lifted. He has unravelled as a scheming, slimy dictator; an economic nitwit and a colossal, corrupt and nepotistic politician entirely fixated on feathering his political and economic nests at the expense of the people and the nation’s wellbeing. He is unwittingly throwing the country to the pre-Yar’adua era of pipeline sabotage and the attendant near-crippling economic stagnation – a situation deftly managed with diplomacy, responsibility, and clear-eyed sensitivity.
“It took the humility of President Yar’adua and his enormous personal integrity and trust capital to navigate the country through that era. Tinubu does not have the humility, the tact, the integrity, and the character to get the country out of a similar bind. Every step he takes now would be seen as the politics of 2027. Thus, the national consensus that helped to douse the tension just before the amnesty programme would be lacking.
“The president lacks the sensitivity to act with time. He is too steeped in politics to transform into a national leader and statesman. If care is not taken, his end would be catastrophic for the entire country. We pray we don’t get to that point. His misadventure in Rivers state must be keenly watched for its likely effect on the nation.”
When this crisis is finally over and the dust has settled (hopefully the roof won’t collapse on all of us), there will be enough admonitions for the key actors. For Nyesom Wike, your greed is your major undoing; for Tinubu, you cannot pretend for too long because you are neither Awolowo nor Ghandi and for Akpabio, ‘’the queen’’ is not yet done; choose your friends more carefully; set and respect boundaries for your enemies are closer than you think.