At any point one thinks that we have reached the rock bottom of descent into political abyss from which we cannot sink lower, something will happen to make us sink deeper. On 18th March, 2025, President Tinubu declared a purported state of emergency, which was predicated on an apprehension of tension in Rivers State which existed only in the figment of his security reports. He removed the Governor of the State, Siminalayi Fubara, and the elected members of the House of Assembly from their offices for six months and replaced them with a Sole Administrator, Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas (Rtd), a military officer.
For the avoidance of doubt, everyone in Rivers State was going about his/her normal duties without let or hindrance. There were no attacks on families or property of citizens. There was no breakdown of law and order. There were no inter-cult wars. Nigeria was not at war or in danger of any invasion from a foreign country. There was no natural disaster affecting Rivers State that required extraordinary measures to solve, and the Federation was not under any immediate threat of collapse from any attack, yet Tinubu declared a purported state of emergency in Rivers State. Indeed the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) led by its President, Afam Osigwe, SAN, made it clear that none of the conditions stated in Section 305(3)(a-f) had occurred to warrant the President declaring a state of emergency in Rivers State. Hear the NBA “The NBA firmly asserts that the situation in Rivers State, though politically tense, does not meet the constitutional threshold for the removal of elected officials.”
While acknowledging that political disagreements, legislative conflicts, or executive-legislative tensions are normal in a democracy, the NBA authoritatively asserted that they “do not constitute a justification for emergency rule” and counselled that “such conflicts should be resolved through legal and constitutional mechanisms, including the judiciary, rather than executive fiat.”
NBA even went further to proclaim that “The 1999 Constitution does not grant the President the power to remove an elected governor, deputy governor, or members of a state’s legislature under the guise of a state of emergency.” This means that assuming without conceding that the situation in Rivers State has reached the level that justifies a declaration of a state of emergency, the President lacks the constitutional powers to sack the elected members of the State while declaring the state of emergency, because the Constitution provides clear procedures for the removal of a governor and deputy governor and members of the House of Assembly, “none of which appeared to have been adhered to in the present circumstances by the President.”
The NBA concluded by stating: “A declaration of emergency does not automatically dissolve or suspend elected state governments. The Constitution does not empower the President to unilaterally remove or replace elected officials—such actions amount to an unconstitutional usurpation of power and a fundamental breach of Nigeria’s federal structure.”
It’s in this regard that the purported declaration of a state of emergency by Tinubu was actually a declaration of martial law, not strictly speaking, a declaration of a state of emergency. It’s only a declaration of martial law, that empowers a government to remove democratically elected government and install a sole administrator. State of emergency declaration does not empower an elected president to suspend any provision of the law to achieve any intended result. Tinubu, in order to illegally remove the Governor, Deputy Governor, Members of the House of Assembly from office, suspended Sections 1, 110, 117, 179, 180, 188, 189 etc of the 1999 Constitution as amended to achieve that. This is akin to a military coup which normally suspends portions of the Constitution in order to sack the democratically elected government of Nigeria. This is why the NBA rightly described the proclamation by Tinubu as “an unconstitutional usurpation of power and a fundamental breach of Nigeria’s federal structure.” Nothing in Section 305 grants the President the power to suspend some provisions of the Constitution in order to proclaim the state of emergency.
The last major incident that precipitated this chain of occurrences was the unfortunate Supreme Court judgement which compelled the Governor of Rivers State to re-present the already passed budget before the Supreme Court-recognised 27 members of the Rivers State House of Assembly, who had defected to another party and swore an affidavit to that effect after reading out their resignation on the floor of the House of Assembly. Note that the budget had already been passed by the authentic members of the Rivers State House of Assembly who did not defect to another party, and as such were the only constitutionally recognised members of the House, before the novel Supreme Court judgement which compelled the Governor to re-present the budget before its own recognized members.
Strictly speaking, one cannot even emphatically assert that the issue of their defection was discussed by the Supreme Court because that issue was not before the Court. It was just a statement made obiter dictum by one of the Justices and proponents of the members of the House went to town that the matter of their defection has been settled by the Supreme Court. For the avoidance of doubt, for a matter to be conclusively settled by the Supreme Court, it must be raised as an issue before the court and must be in the leading judgement, supported by the majority of the judges.
Mere mention of a matter by the Supreme Court does not mean that the matter is settled. The best that can be inferred from the Supreme Court judgement is that the Supreme Court recognized the 27 members of the Rivers State House of Assembly as authentic, pending the determination of the matter by a lower court that has the duty to evaluate and analyse the evidence before it. The Supreme Court alluded to the fact that there was not enough evidence before them to declare that the 27 members have lost their seat. We must remember that it’s not the duty of the Supreme Court to receive and evaluate evidence of parties to a suit. The SC ought not to even refer to the issue at all since it was not before it. This would have saved Rivers State the unnecessary crisis before it which is trying to boil over to the whole country.
However, the lesson from that judgement is that it’s only a judgement that produces justice that can guarantee orderliness in society, while any judgement, especially, from the Supreme Court, which is perverse and manifestly unjust will lead to anarchy and chaos as we are seeing in Rivers State.
It was disturbing that President Tinubu quoted the Supreme Court judgement to justify the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State. This is extremely deplorable. It is not the content of a judgement that gives an enforcement officer the right to use it against any party in civil proceedings, it is the disobedience of it. Parties go to court because they acknowledge that there is a dispute between them. It’s the duty of court to dispassionately evaluate the issues and give judgement. The President cannot use the stand of the parties during the dispute to judge any party because there is no gentleman’s way to fight. It is the disobedience of the judgement that condemns a party.
It is on record that immediately after the SC judgement, Gov Fubara proclaimed that he will obey the judgement and indeed obeyed all the decisions that arose in the judgement while the members of the House of Assembly (HOA) of Rivers State obeyed none. Yet the President blamed only the Governor. Maybe the President forgot that the Supreme Court judgement he was citing remained in court because of the disobedience of the Rivers State Assembly members to the terms of settlement between Gov Fubara and the HOA Members. Whereas the Governor withdrew all his cases in court, including his statement of defence in this matter at the Federal High Court, in deference to the order of the President in the settlement agreement, the HOA members treacherously continued with the matter, thereby placing the Governor in a disadvantaged position in the matter. Yet the President blamed the Governor for the crisis. Is there no limit to cruelty and treachery in high places in Nigeria?
This will teach every governor of an opposition party a lesson in Nigeria that there is no way a partisan president will sacrifice the interest of his party or party members to foster your own interest and the interest of your party and members. Alliance for Democracy (AD) controlled the entire six states in the South-West in 2003 but decided to endorse President Obasanjo of the Peoples Democratic Party for a second term in 2003. They decided not to field a presidential candidate for the party to ensure that a Yoruba continued to be President. It turned out that Obasanjo used that opportunity to take over five states of the South-West for the PDP and left only one state for the AD. The AD never recovered from that shock till date.
It was a mistake on the part of Fubara to embrace a President and a party, APC, who do not want him alive politically. Life is a lesson and may we not learn the hard way. Fubara must remember that he is holding the sacred mandate of the people of Rivers State who love and cherish him and must not give up the fight to reclaim the soul of Rivers State by every legitimate means possible. Rivers people must also stand up and reclaim their mandate that is stolen, even if it is temporarily, by people they didn’t vote into power.