Tinubu’s Emergency Rule Drama Unfolds

The declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State by President Bola Tinubu is nothing short of a political blockbuster movie with all the drama, intrigue, and suspense you’d expect from Nollywood.

On Tuesday, Tinubu dropped the bombshell, suspending Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, and the entire House of Assembly.

The President cited a “prolonged political crisis” and security concerns as justification for this drastic measure. But let’s be honest, isn’t this more about politics than security? The timing is suspicious, coming shortly after an impeachment notice was filed against Governor Fubara. Even the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Lateef Fagbemi, admitted that the suspension may have saved Fubara from being removed completely. “If that process had been allowed to continue, the governor would have lost entirely,” he said.

To be sure, Rivers State has been in turmoil for months. The crisis began when Governor Fubara allegedly demolished the House of Assembly complex in December 2023. A Supreme Court ruling in February 2025 found his actions unconstitutional.

Come to think of it, should we be celebrating the deployment of military might to solve what is essentially a political problem? I thought we were beyond military solutions in our democracy. The appointment of retired Vice Admiral Ibokette Ibas as state administrator seems to signal a return to our not-so-glorious past of military administrators.

The President claimed he made “personal interventions” that were “largely ignored.” Fair enough. But was an emergency declaration the only option left? Politics is a game of numbers and lobby. This declaration appears to be a sledgehammer approach when perhaps a scalpel would have sufficed.

Some have argued that the crisis in Rivers threatened the nation’s economic lifeline due to pipeline vandalism by militants allegedly emboldened by Governor Fubara. Valid point. But the question is, how has suspending democratically elected officials benefitted the common man? Will it stop militancy or merely change who the militants align with?

I recall that when the Supreme Court ruled on February 28, 2025, about the unconstitutional acts in Rivers, it didn’t recommend an emergency rule. It simply stated that “a government cannot be said to exist without one of the three arms that make up the government of a state.” The leap from this statement to suspending all elected officials seems like a constitutional stretch.

The attorney-general’s defence of the emergency rule raises more questions than answers. “Where do you put the Minister of FCT in this case?” he asked, dismissing claims that Nyesom Wike, Fubara’s political rival, influenced the decision.

Ok, let’s put it this way: what happens when the emergency rule expires after six months? Will the suspended officials return to a clean slate? Or will this just be a temporary pause in an ongoing political war? The seeds of bitterness planted today will likely bear bitter fruits tomorrow.

The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has argued that the political crisis didn’t justify emergency rule. I completely agree. The Constitution allows for emergency powers when governance is impossible, but was governance truly impossible in Rivers, or just inconvenient for certain political interests?

I strongly suggest that what Rivers needed was political dialogue, not an emergency rule. The federal government could have appointed a mediator or established a reconciliation committee of respected elder statesmen. Instead, we got a military solution to a political problem.

It’s also an insult to the people of Rivers State who elected these officials. Their votes have been suspended alongside their elected representatives. Democracy is messy, yes, but it’s still better than the alternatives.

Consequently, the National Assembly’s quick approval of the emergency rule also raises eyebrows. While President Tinubu has commended them for their “decisive and patriotic ratification,” one wonders if there was adequate debate on such a monumental decision.

The President affirmed that the six-month emergency will “empower the newly-appointed sole administrator to stabilise Rivers State.” But stability imposed from above rarely lasts. True stability comes from political consensus built from below.

The AGF mentioned that Rivers State funds may be released to the sole administrator. This is where things get even more interesting. Who will oversee how these funds are spent? What mechanisms are in place to ensure accountability?

Ultimately, this emergency rule in Rivers sets a dangerous precedent. It sends a message that when political crises arise, the federal government can simply suspend democracy temporarily. This is a slippery slope we should all be concerned about.

Those opposed to the Rivers emergency rule have been advised to approach the National Assembly. But with the National Assembly having already given its blessing, where do the aggrieved turn to now?

The President has stated that this emergency measure is “a lifeline to safeguard livelihoods, secure critical infrastructure, and restore democratic accountability.”

In the end, the comedy of errors playing out in Rivers State is a reflection of our broader political culture where power trumps process, and immediate victories are valued over long-term stability. For the sake of our democracy, let’s hope this emergency rule doesn’t become the new normal for resolving political disputes.

The truth is no political crisis, no matter how complex, justifies the suspension of democracy. Politicians on both sides of the divide need each other to make democracy work. Blackmail and subtle threats will not work. The emergency rule may have temporarily resolved the Rivers crisis, but at what cost to our democratic culture?