The Thin Line between Leadership and Power Grab
By Emmanuel Adegbite
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State on March 18, 2025, has reignited discussions about the legality and political implications of such executive actions. The suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy Ngozi Odu, and the State House of Assembly has drawn comparisons to past emergency declarations in Nigeria, particularly under former President Olusegun Obasanjo.
The move raises fundamental constitutional questions: Does the president have the power to unilaterally remove an elected governor? What legal precedents exist? And, perhaps most importantly, does Tinubu’s action contradict his own past positions on executive overreach?
The 1999 Nigerian Constitution provides a framework for declaring a state of emergency under Section 305. According to this provision, the president may declare a state of emergency in a state, but only under specific conditions, including:
- War or invasion
- Breakdown of public order and safety
- Natural disaster
- Imminent danger that threatens the existence of Nigeria
However, for such a declaration to be constitutional, the National Assembly must approve it within two days (if in session) or ten days (if not in session). More critically, the constitution does not explicitly empower the president to suspend an elected governor or dissolve the state legislature.
This raises legal concerns. Professor Akin Oyebode, a constitutional law expert, argues that the suspension of Fubara may be unconstitutional.
“The constitution allows for emergency rule but does not provide for the removal of a sitting governor through a presidential proclamation. Tinubu’s decision, therefore, raises serious legal and democratic concerns,” he states.
Similarly, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), questions the legitimacy of the move.
“While the president has the right to intervene in crises, this must be done within the confines of the constitution. Removing a governor through executive order sets a dangerous precedent and undermines democracy,” Adegboruwa warns.
If challenged in court, legal experts suggest that the Supreme Court may have to determine whether Tinubu’s action aligns with constitutional provisions or constitutes executive overreach.
For many political observers, Tinubu’s decision is particularly striking given his own history of opposing similar measures.
In 2004, former President Olusegun Obasanjo declared a state of emergency in Plateau State, citing ethno-religious violence. Governor Joshua Dariye was suspended, and an administrator was appointed. Tinubu, then Governor of Lagos State, was one of the most vocal critics of the move.
At the time, he called it “an abuse of power” and warned that “using emergency rule to remove elected governors will undermine Nigeria’s democracy.”
Fast forward to 2025, and Tinubu has implemented an almost identical measure in Rivers State. Critics argue that this shift demonstrates the double standards of Nigerian politicians—opposing federal overreach when out of power but embracing it when in office.
Chidi Odinkalu, a human rights lawyer and former chairman of the National Human Rights Commission, provides a critical perspective.
“This is not just about Rivers State; it is about the future of Nigeria’s democracy. If a sitting president can unilaterally suspend a governor, what stops future presidents from using emergency rule as a political weapon?” Odinkalu asks.
He warns that Nigeria’s democracy is fragile and that actions like this risk creating a cycle where presidents use emergency powers to weaken political opponents.
“What happens when another president comes into office and decides to suspend a governor from the opposition party? This decision could open the door for future abuse,” he adds.
With Governor Fubara suspended and the state legislature dissolved, Rivers State is now under direct federal administration. However, opposition parties, civil society groups, and legal experts are likely to challenge this move in court.
Meanwhile, Tinubu’s political opponents may use this decision as ammunition against him, arguing that he has abandoned his past principles. How he navigates the legal and political storm ahead will determine whether this declaration is seen as a necessary intervention or a dangerous precedent.
One thing is certain: the implications of this decision will extend far beyond Rivers State.
