It was not midnight’s whisper but a political thunderbolt. Without grand banners or drips of ceremony, President Bola Tinubu signed a presidential proclamation declaring a state of emergency. The nation stirred, phones buzzed, power grids flickered in symptomatic irony—and questions flared: Which emergency? For whom? Under what power?
The proclamation arrived like a decree from a monarch—not a function of constitutional checks and balances. For many Nigerians, that moment exposed something deeper: fear that democratic norms are being sidelined under legal forms.
Then came the response from the Coalition of United Political Parties (CUPP), which refused to accept what many saw as silent acquiescence. Their message: this was no leadership—it was proclamation.
Key Details of the Dispute
CUPP’s condemnation: At a press briefing, CUPP issued a statement saying Tinubu “acted like a proclaimer general,” suggesting the move ignored constitutional limits and sidelined institutional oversight.
What the decree says: The state of emergency was declared in response to what Tinubu’s government calls escalating security threats. But critics argue the need hasn’t been clearly tied to the scale of force being deployed.
Did You Miss? Wike’s Reaction as Tinubu Ends Emergency Rule in Rivers, Reinstates Fubara
Legal voices: Lawmakers, human rights groups, and some constitutional scholars have questioned whether the President’s powers permit unilateral declarations without concurrent legislative backing or judicial oversight.
Why This Clash Matters Deeply
1. Balance of power on trial
Democracies survive when branches of government check each other. The state of emergency, by its nature, concentrates power. CUPP argues that without legislative ratification or defined timelines, executive power can veer into executive overreach.
2. Precedents being set
Once a state of emergency becomes normalized — declared quietly, extended without full disclosure — it can shift from crisis tool to default governance mode. Every succeeding administration might point to this precedent.
3. Public trust and civil liberties
Nigeria’s history has stories of declared emergencies that led to rights abuses. People fear curfews, detentions, media silencing. When governments sidestep legislative spaces, suspicion intensifies.
4. Political optics
CUPP’s harsh language—calling Tinubu “proclaimer general”—suggests strong political backlash. It’s not simply about law; it’s about identity, perception, and who gets to claim they preserve democracy.
Vigilance Over Convenience
A state of emergency might begin as a response to danger—but it ends as a mirror of priorities: what does a government fear more than disorder? What freedoms are expendable in the name of safety?
CUPP’s rebuke is loud. Let’s hope it isn’t lost in the echo chamber of power. For democracy to live, citizens must remember: power tolerated without question grows unchecked.
