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

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

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

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

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

1. A recall process initiated by the electorate.

2.Impeachment through constitutional means.

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

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

Political and Socioeconomic Consequences

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

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

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

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

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

The Justification and Its Pitfalls

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The late American comedian Richard Pryor once said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Being a politician in itself is a major nightmare. But perhaps one of the major occupational hazards of a politician is taking hard decisions on behalf of the people even when he is misunderstood by the very society he serves. This is why politics is not for the faint-hearted but for risk takers who promise miracles without knowing how the miracle will come about.  This is why governance which includes defending fortune-seekers who do not know what is in their best interest can be very challenging.

What is not always apparent to the governed however is that government is not an independent arbiter but a tool in the hands of those who with their control of a disproportionate share of the national resources, are out to preside over an empire of slaves?  It is ironic that it is this same people that often mobilise those bent on pulling down government.

I sympathise with President Tinubu who before last week anti-government conspiracy he survived had been going through stress and strain over his government’s harsh economic policies. Last week’s mass mobilisation of critical segment of Nigerians including those whose battle he was fighting against by his many political foes must have been very distressing.

For taking a bold decision to confront those who have for two years held people of Rivers hostage, his government was painted  a Leviathan, a huge fearful sea monster that must be brought down.  And leading the war with a battle cry of “the democracy we fought for” are fake democrats without democratic ethos.  We have PDP sore losers like Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi who, two years after losing an election won round and square by their opponents, are yet to congratulate the victor.

Others include Pat Utomi who has professed that the president’s interference to end the siege on Rivers by those benefiting from their misery sounded the death knell of democracy in Nigeria. There is Rotimi Amaechi, Nasir El-Rufai, former APC insiders who have decided to start urinating inside from outside. We have the Nigerian Bar Association that one had thought would be more introspective but has chosen to declare the president a ‘totalitarian’ based on its jaundiced judgment.

And finally anchoring the activities of the president’s political foes was Fubara’s media meddlers who swear in the name of patriotism which as has been shown can be “the last refuge of the scoundrels”. (Samuel Johnson 1775).

Even with his celebrated versatility and political brinkmanship, President Tinubu must have felt lonely last week with all round denunciation and condemnation of his bold move to stop the drift in Rivers. Not even from Rivers came any form of relief as a segment of the elders, first identified by Saro Wiwa, an Ogoni hero as ‘vultures’ who feed on the blood of their people, Rivers women for Fubara, restive jobless Rivers youths forgotten as successive governors became obsessed with infrastructural development since 1999, threatening Ijaw youths, meddling politicians from outside Rivers, all taking up arms against the government and insisting Rivers has been short-changed by the president’s action. Of course, except for the president who is always one step ahead of his political opponents, no one knew what was going to happen in view of tension that took over the country until relief came from the National Assembly after two days that was like an eternity.

And how did it start?

For close to two years, Fubara the democratically elected governor of Rivers was at war with his state lawmakers said to be loyal to his godfather Nyesom Wike, the FCT minister. Unable to understand that compromise is the highest badge of honour in a democracy where the ruler rules while others dictate the tune, he reneged on the truce he reached with his other arm of his government in a meeting presided over by the president. He opted to rule with an assembly of three people. And of the other 27 elected lawmakers, he had said:

 “They are not existing; these are people eating in my house, I helped to pay their children school fees when I was not even a governor, I accepted the accord to give them a floating, their existence is me allowing them to exist”.

The February 28, Supreme Court judgment indicted the governor for demolishing the state House of Assembly to prevent his impeachment, for disobeying Abuja High Court judgment, Abuja appeal court judgment that declared presentation of budget to three people unconstitutional and mandated him to present the budget to the 27 member House of Assembly recognized by the Supreme Court after being made redundant for close to two years. While the governor embarked on what most people saw as his game of ostrich playing, the House slammed him with notice of impeachment.

The president after lamenting that he “made personal interventions between the contending parties for a peaceful resolution of the crisis, but my efforts have been largely ignored by the parties to the crisis, the president echoing aspects of the Supreme Court’s decisions, accusing the governor of frantically working to collapse the state’s legislature said,

“In the circumstance, having soberly reflected on and evaluated the political situation in Rivers State and the governor and deputy governor of Rivers State having failed to make a request to me as President to issue this proclamation as required by section 305(5) of the 1999 Constitution as amended, it has become inevitably compelling for me to invoke the provision of section 305 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended, to declare a state of emergency in Rivers State with effect from today, 18th March, 2025 and I so do.”

Then the war mongers went to town. PDP that watched the Rivers crisis drift for two years claimed the president action was “an attempt to suspend the 1999 Constitution and overturn a democratic government”. Pat Utomi, a chieftain of Labour Party said “the act signals the end of democracy in Nigeria; Rotimi Amaechi alleged it “points to a brazen attempt at power grab in the state by force”. The respected human rights lawyer Clement Nwankwo blamed the National Assembly.

Joining the hordes of partisans was the chairman of Nigerian Bar Association who should know better but was more reckless. He claimed the situation in Rivers “has not called for state of emergency”. Since he is not the president or member of the National Assembly, he was not in the position to make such assertion.

But without restraint, the NBA chairman declared “At this inauspicious moment in our nation’s trajectory, all people of goodwill and conscience should rise to oppose this audacious violation of our constitution and rape of our democracy.

“Mr. President must be made to know and understand in unmistakable terms that this illegality cannot stand”. He concluded by “asking politicians across Nigeria to speak up and rise against the country’s descent into totalitarianism.”

Section 305 of the Constitution which vests the president with the power to declare a state of emergency, also gives him power of discretion. He could adopt any strategy he deems fit to bring sanity to a troubled area. The NBA chairman deliberately ignored that fact.

In any case, if the NBA chairman believes the president has committed an infraction, the best place to go is the court where we have competent and discerning judges who can make a distinction between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law; i.e. the underlying aim purpose and intended ethical considerations behind legal statutes as opposed to its literal wordings”.

Then there are the Fubara media meddlers. They hailed him the morning after masterminding the bombing of Rivers state House of Assembly as he matched with thugs on the street of Port Harcourt.

They lionized him and encouraged him to abandon a truce he reached with the warring members of his state assembly supervised by the president.

When the Abuja High Court and Abuja Appeal court ruled it was an aberration to present the state budget before three people, they asked tongue in cheek, ‘why should his opponents approach the Abuja Court?’

And when on February 28, the Supreme Court ruled there has been no government in Rivers since he removed one leg of a tripod that sustains democratic government, the Supreme Court was disparaged.

When the president finally declared state of emergency, Fubara media meddlers who angrily said anyone who disagrees with their views must be ‘stupid’ said the president committed impeachable offence and must be impeached. They tried to blackmail the National Assembly not to endorse the president’s action while they arrogantly advised the administrator nominee to reject the president’s appointment.

Senator Magnus Abe, a stakeholder in Rivers who appeared on their platform and pleaded they tone down the rhetoric and lower the temperature in the interest of Rivers State people who just want to reconcile their difference and live in peace was bullied.

Fubara’s media meddlers want to continue the war. They claim they are more patriotic than Nigeria’s elected president, the National Assembly and the Supreme Court, all of which they freely bullied in the last two years.

What the Leviathan Nigeria should worry about is not Tinubu’s government but Fubara’s media meddlers.

Affirmative Action refers to proactive measures taken by organisations or governments to ensure equal opportunity for historically marginalised groups. It aims to address past and present discrimination by implementing policies that promote diversity and inclusion… - The Oxford Review

The saying: “What a man can do, a woman can do better,” may be considered a cliché. But Namibia is set to prove doubters wrong, at least as far as gender mainstreaming is concerned.

Namibia’s newly elected President Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah was sworn in as the country’s first female president on Friday 22nd March 2025, with fellow women Lucia Witbooi as Vice President and Saara Kuugongelwa-Amadhila as Speaker of the National Assembly - to complete the female triumvirate that will pilot the affairs of state in a largely patriarchal African continent.

Kuugongelwa-Amadhila is the first woman to hold the position of the third most powerful citizen in Namibia, next to President Nandi-Ndaitwah and her deputy, Witbooi, the second woman to serve as the country’s vice President.

As if this were not enough, Nandi-Ndaitwah’s 14-member cabinet has eight women.

The unprecedented gender shift followed the death of President Hage Geingob, whom Nandi-Ndaitwah succeeded on 24th February 2025.

A popular gender activist herself, Nandi-Ndaitwah, 72, however, believes that ability is critical to effective performance in leadership positions.

“As women, we should not ask to be elected to positions of responsibility because we are women, but because we are capable members of our societies to hold those positions,” she affirmed.

Addressing parliament after her inauguration, she reminded the MPs that while they might have been “elected on the tickets of our respective political parties, we have assumed the responsibility to represent all Namibian people without any discrimination.”

“The task facing me as the fifth president of the Republic of Namibia is to preserve the gains of our independence on all fronts and to ensure that the unfinished agenda of economic and social advancement of our people is carried forward with vigour and determination to bring about shared, balanced prosperity for all,” the new president pledged.

President Nandi-Ndaitwah's major decisions since her inauguration include reducing the Cabinet size from 21 to 14 and restructuring government ministries and agencies.

Erica Shafudah is named Minister of Finance, Lucia Iipumbu, Minister of Home Affairs, Immigration, Safety, and Security, and Selma Ashipala-Musavyi, International Relations. The three are women.

Elijah Ngurare is the new Prime Minister, while Natangwe Ithete, also a man, will serve as Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Mines and Energy.

Under the new government structure, the oil and gas sectors are now under the Office of the President, and the Ministry of International Relations and Cooperation will handle the trade portfolio, to strengthen economic diplomacy.

Describing poverty eradication as cross-cutting, President Nandi-Ndaitwah, daughter of a clergyman, directed all government ministries to implement programmes to support socio-economic development.

Responsibilities for disabled persons and marginalised groups now fall under the Office of the vice-President and Labour Relations are to be handled by the Justice Ministry and a yet-to-be-named public entity will manage government properties and assets.

Social Grants will move to the Ministry of Finance and Public Enterprises, while the Fisheries and Marine Resources Ministry is to merge with the Ministry of Agriculture, Water, and Land Reform.

The Education Ministry will also oversee Arts, Sport, and Culture, and the Ministry of Industrialisation is combined with the Ministry of Mines and Energy to boost industrial growth, especially in mining.

President Nandi-Ndaitwah, nicknamed “NNN,” an MP since Namibia’s independence in 1990, became politically active at age 14. She became the leader of the Youth Wing of the Southwest Africa People’s Organisation (SWAPO), which led the struggle for the country's liberation from apartheid South Africa.

Nandi-Ndaitwal was Namibia’s National Women's Organisation (NANAWO) president from 1991 to 1994 and became SWAPO President in 2024.

In 1973, she was forced into political exile in neighbouring Zambia and proceeded to then-Soviet Union and later the United Kingdom, to continue her education in public administration and management.

In 1988, Nandi-Ndaitwah obtained a post-graduate diploma in International Relations from Keele University, UK, and a master's degree in diplomatic studies from the same University.

She became Namibia’s third vice-President under President Nangolo Mbumba from 2024 to 2025 after serving as Deputy Prime Minister from 2015 to 2024 and Minister of Foreign Affairs, later renamed International Relations and Cooperation Ministry from 2012 to 2015, and Minister of Environment and Tourism from 2010 to 2012.

Nandi-Ndaitwah served as Deputy Minister of International Relations and Cooperation from 1990 to 1996, later Director-General of Women's Affairs in the Office of the President, until 2000 when she was promoted to Minister of Women’s Affairs and Child Welfare.

She was SWAPO’s Deputy Representative in Zambia, from 1976 to 1978, Chief Representative in Zambia from 1978 to 1980, and from 1980 to 1986, the SWAPO Chief Representative in East Africa, based in the Zambian capital, Dar es Salaam.

In 2017, Nandi-Ndaitwah was elected SWAPO’s vice-president, the first woman in that capacity.

Under President Geingob, Nandi-Ndaitwah was Deputy Prime Minister from March 2015, and she combined that role with that of the International Relations and Cooperation portfolio and SWAPO’s Secretary for Information and Mobilisation, making her the party’s main spokesperson.

In March 2023, President Geingob named her, SWAPO's presidential candidate in the 2024 Namibian general elections.

On 3 December 2024, Nandi-Ndaitwah was officially declared the President-elect with 58.7% of the vote, defeating two political rivals Panduleni Itula and McHenry Venaani.

She is Africa’s fourth female President following in the footsteps of Liberia’s Nobel Laureate Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, Joyce Banda of Malawi and Samia Suluhu Hassan of Tanzania.

Her victory extends SWAPO’s 35-year hold on power in Namibia, whose founding/liberation President Sam Nujoma died earlier this year at age 95.

Nandi-Ndaitwah succeeded Nangolo Mbumba, who stood in as president from February 2024 following the death of President Geingob, which led to her promotion to vice-President.

Married to Namibia’s former Chief of Defence Force, retired Lt.-Gen. Epaphras Denga Ndaitwah, the new president and her women-dominated administration face the challenge of proving that beyond their exemplary roles as home builders and resource managers, women can also out-perform their male counterparts in political governance.

Namibia's 1325 National Action Plans  (NAP), builds on the country’s National Gender Policy, developed as complementary to other mechanisms and frameworks to advance women’s rights. The overarching goal of the NAP is to create “a safe and peaceful Namibia where all women, men, girls and boys have equal rights and live without fear or want and in dignity”

Namibia is expected to address other aspects of inclusiveness in governance to involve Persons with Disability (PWDs) and other marginalised groups.

But from the composition of Nandi-Ndaitwah’s cabinet, the Southern African nation with a relatively small population estimated at three million is making a strong statement to bigger countries in the advanced and developing World about the values and merits of diversity and Affirmative action.

Equal treatment of, and opportunities to persons irrespective of gender, race, religion, tribe/ethnic considerations, appearance or social standing will not only engender peaceful co-existence but also promote human development and progress.

Paul Ejime is a Media and Communications Specialist and Global Affairs Analyst

Imagine a Rivers State where President Bola Ahmed Tinubu hesitated to declare a state of emergency. The political standoff between the State Assembly and Governor Siminalayi Fubara could have continued and degenerated into violence. Impeachment threats might have spurred attacks on lawmakers by the Governor’s supporters, while militants in the creeks—primed to sabotage critical oil infrastructure—could have plunged Nigeria’s oil production back to pre-2023 lows. Sensational reporting of the crisis by journalists and opportunistic litigation would have inflamed tensions further, paralysing governance and risking lives. Schools and hospitals would shutter; investors would flee. We can only imagine the human and economic toll.

Thanks to the President’s intervention, Rivers State can breathe again today. Political tensions have eased, banal headlines have quietened, and stakeholders—encouraged by the newly appointed administrator—are charting a path to lasting peace. Critics who argue the crisis “did not yet warrant” an emergency rule ignore a stark truth: waiting for the breakdown of law and order to escalate into anarchy before acting is like withholding firefighters until a house burns to ashes. 

A responsible leader like President Tinubu, who swore an oath to protect the constitution and corporate existence of the country, can not fail to act when a constituent part of the Federation is careering towards the precipice. The political crisis in Rivers State between Governor Siminalayi Fubara and members of the State House of Assembly who owe allegiance to the Minister of Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, that blew open barely six months into the administration of the Governor has degenerated by 18 March. A chain of events since the war of attrition started 14 months ago among the combatants had indeed paralysed the government of Rivers State to the point where Fubara, copying from the bad book of former Governor Obaseki in Edo, emasculated an arm of government entirely. This reality informed the Supreme Court’s damning verdict about the absence of government in the State as enshrined in the 1999 constitution of Nigeria, as amended. The court also excoriated Fubara for acting like a despot.

Rivers was in a grave situation, as the combatants refused to allow reason to prevail, even after the Supreme Court judgment,  before President Tinubu declared a state of emergency on 18 March. The President took action in the best interest of the people of the State, who had become victims of the warring politicians, the people they elected to serve them. President Tinubu needed to act. He chose prevention over cure.

Section 305 of Nigeria’s Constitution empowers the President to act when the nation faces a breakdown of law, order, and economic security —precisely the case in Rivers, a bastion of Nigeria’s oil-dependent economy. Intelligence confirmed militants, told by Fubara to await signals, were already targeting pipelines, risking a collapse in output and a Niger-Delta domino effect. Historical precedents, such as the past emergencies in Plateau and Borno and the doctrine of necessity, support the President’s proactive measures to avert disaster. The President’s oath demands he must not fail in his sacred duty to safeguard national stability, not watch idly as partisan strife strangles our democracy and the material well-being of Nigerians, whose prosperity depends on the social and economic interdependence of every part of the country. Rivers State is a significant hydrocarbon economic artery in Nigeria, and any dislocation and politically motivated disruption of the State’s oil industry have ripple effects on the national economy.

Answering the Critics: 

Critics claim the emergency rule in Rivers undermines democracy. Their position misrepresents reality. The intervention is temporary, surgical, and aimed at restoring—not replacing—democratic institutions. The suspension of political actors for six months is no power grab; it is not a permanent removal but a reset to disarm warring factions. Notably, the same critics who assailed the President’s action for suspending the political actors remain silent on Governor Fubara’s refusal to collaborate with the legislature, exposing their partisan bias. Democracy can not thrive amid lawlessness—anarchy is its antithesis.

The appointed administrator, Vice Admiral Ibok Ibas (Rtd.), has already convened a meeting with traditional leaders,  one of his first steps to forge lasting solutions. This intervention ensures Rivers’ people retain their democratic rights while shielding the Nigerian and Rivers State economies from collapse. It is worth repeating that President Tinubu acted within the law and his executive powers under the constitution until the  Supreme Court says otherwise. 

President Tinubu and the National Assembly remain committed to lifting the emergency once stability returns and ensuring elected officials resume their duties.

The 18th-century English philosopher Edmund Burke once warned, “The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” President Tinubu chose courage over complacency. His action prioritised Nigeria’s interest over political expediency, averting a more profound crisis. To those who brand him a democrat turned “tyrant,” my response to them is simple:  Which democracy prospers in chaos? Rivers’ newfound calm vindicates President Tinubu’s resolve. He deserves commendation, not condemnation, not calumny for his statesmanship. Rivers and Nigeria are safer for it.

-Onanuga is the Special Adviser to President Tinubu on Information and Strategy