Nigeria’s Rivers state crisis: state of emergency sparks political and constitutional debate

In a dramatic escalation of political tensions in Nigeria’s oil-rich Rivers State, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu declared a state of emergency, suspending the state’s democratically elected institutions and appointing a Sole Administrator to oversee its affairs. The move follows a protracted feud between the state Governor, Sim Fubara, and members of the state legislature, who are widely seen as proxies for former governor and current Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike.

The crisis, rooted in a power struggle between Fubara and Wike, has exposed deep political fissures in the Niger Delta state. Wike, who handed over to Fubara in May 2023, has sought to maintain his influence over the state, while Fubara has attempted to establish his own political base. This clash has pitted the governor against a state legislature dominated by Wike’s loyalists, leading to a series of impeachment attempts against Fubara and allegations of political marginalisation by his Ijaw ethnic group.

President Tinubu’s intervention came after a third impeachment attempt against Fubara sparked threats of violence. In a televised address, Tinubu announced the suspension of the governor, his deputy, Mrs. Ngozi Odu, and all elected members of the state House of Assembly for an initial period of six months. Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ekwe Ibas (retired), a former Navy chief, was appointed as Sole Administrator to manage the state’s affairs.

Tinubu emphasised that the state of emergency would not affect the judiciary, which would continue to operate under its constitutional mandate. However, the administrator will not have the power to enact new laws. Instead, he may formulate regulations subject to approval by the Federal Executive Council (FEC) and promulgation by the president.

Constitutional Controversy and Political Backlash

The declaration has kicked up a storm of criticism from legal experts, opposition parties, and civil society groups, who argue that the move undermines democratic governance and violates constitutional provisions.

Legal experts have described the proclamation as a self-serving political act. The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has condemned the suspension of elected officials as unconstitutional, warning that it sets a dangerous precedent for the future.

“The president does not have the constitutional power to remove an elected governor under a state of emergency,” the NBA stated. “Any such action is an unconstitutional encroachment on democratic governance and the autonomy of state governments.”

As one commentator puts it, the constitution would have stated clearly if “it intended a state of emergency as a pathway to remove a governor – even if momentarily – and also suspend the House of Assembly.”

Opposition leaders, particularly from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), have accused Tinubu of using the state of emergency as a political tool to weaken the party’s stronghold in Rivers state. PDP governors have vowed to challenge the declaration in court, arguing that Fubara had acted within his constitutional authority and that the legislature’s refusal to allow him to present a state budget was part of a premeditated plot.

Legal experts have also questioned the legitimacy of Tinubu’s decision. While the Nigerian constitution grants the president the power to declare a state of emergency under specific circumstances, critics argue that the suspension of elected officials exceeds these provisions. “The constitution would have stated clearly if it intended a state of emergency as a pathway to remove a governor,” one commentator noted.

A History of Contradictions

Tinubu’s decision has drawn comparisons to his past stance on similar issues. As an opposition figure in 2013, he vehemently opposed then-President Goodluck Jonathan’s declaration of a state of emergency in the northern states of Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa at the height of the Boko Haram insurgency. Critics have accused Tinubu of hypocrisy, noting that the current crisis in Rivers State poses far less of a security threat than the insurgency did a decade ago.

“What has changed since then?” asked Reuben Abati, a prominent journalist and former presidential spokesman. Speaking on the president’s decision to govern the state through the FEC, a process not recognised or instructed by the constitution, Abati says “By abrogating the powers of running the state to the FEC, the president has appropriated the authority to make laws for the Rivers State House of Assembly, which is an impeachable offense.”

The National Assembly’s approval of Tinubu’s declaration, through a simple voice vote, has further fuelled concerns about the lack of transparency and accountability in the decision-making process. Many fear that the move could embolden future administrations to use emergency powers to undermine democratic institutions.

A Precarious Path Forward

As the six-month state of emergency unfolds, the political and legal debate over Tinubu’s actions is expected to intensify. Former Agriculture Minister and PDP Chairman from 2001 to 2005, Audu Ogbe, has cautioned against the use of emergency provisions, urging the president to seek dialogue and reconciliation instead. “The ethic tinderbox in this nation is easy to inflame,” Ogbe warned.

For now, Rivers State remains in a state of political limbo, with its elected officials suspended and its future uncertain. As Nigerians watch this high-stakes drama unfold, the crisis in Rivers State serves as a stark reminder of the fragility of democratic governance in the face of entrenched political rivalries and constitutional ambiguities. The coming months will be critical in determining whether the state can emerge from this turmoil with its democratic institutions intact.