Twelve years after Goodluck Jonathan declared a state of emergency in three northern states due to Boko Haram, President Bola Tinubu followed suit with a similar declaration in Rivers State on Tuesday. However, the decision is widely viewed as hasty and politically motivated. Unlike the Boko Haram insurgency, Rivers has seen no active war. Instead, the unrest is rooted in political infighting between top political figures. This raises concerns about the ramifications of such a drastic move.

The Pattern of Hasty Decisions

This state of emergency follows a series of questionable decisions by Tinubu, including the “subsidy is gone” policy, the floatation of the naira, and his threat of military intervention in ECOWAS countries. These actions have drawn criticism for being rushed and lacking careful consideration. The decision to declare a state of emergency in Rivers appears to be another political misstep.

Suspension of Rivers’ Executive and Legislative Structures

Tinubu cited the ongoing power struggle between Governor Siminalayi Fubara and the Rivers State House of Assembly as the primary reason for the emergency declaration. The President initially suspended both the executive and legislative arms of the state government, which has severe implications. This move suggests that Fubara and the state lawmakers may face indefinite suspension. This harsh decision could destabilize the state further.

Fubara and the Crisis

Tinubu’s statement made it clear that Governor Fubara, his deputy Ngozi Odu, and all elected members of the Rivers State House of Assembly were suspended for an initial period of six months. In the interim, Ibok-Ette Ibas, a retired Chief of Naval Staff, was sworn in as the state’s administrator. However, this move disregards the role of the judiciary, which was spared from the suspension.

Political Backdrop and Power Struggles

The political crisis in Rivers has been brewing since Fubara succeeded Nyesom Wike as governor in May 2023. Tensions between Fubara and the state lawmakers, particularly the 27 members who have defied him, have escalated. The involvement of Wike, now the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, has further complicated matters. These divisions, backed by personal political interests, have fueled the crisis. Tinubu met with both parties twice to resolve the situation but resorted to the state of emergency when those efforts failed.

The Legal Concerns of Presidential Power

The core issue with this declaration lies in the interpretation of the Constitution. Section 305 allows the President to declare a state of emergency, but it does not authorize him to suspend a state governor or lawmakers. Under Section 188, only the state House of Assembly can remove a governor through a defined legal process. Therefore, the legality of Tinubu’s actions is highly questionable, as it bypasses constitutional safeguards.

Military Intervention and Democratic Implications

On Tuesday night, soldiers, accompanied by tanks, took over the Rivers Government House in Port Harcourt. Such actions tarnish the reputation of Nigeria’s democracy and raise alarms about the abuse of executive power. This move mirrors historical instances when military interventions in political crises led to disastrous consequences for democratic institutions.

The Broader Impact on Nigeria’s Democracy

Tinubu’s decision speaks volumes about the state of democracy and federalism in Nigeria. Granting the president absolute power to declare states of emergency undermines the independence of sub-national governments. This power imbalance fosters fear and a lack of autonomy for state governments.

Lessons from History: A Cautionary Tale

Tinubu’s actions echo past mistakes in Nigerian history. In 1962, Prime Minister Tafawa Balewa declared a state of emergency in the Western Region due to political turmoil between the Action Group’s Obafemi Awolowo and Ladoke Akintola. The resulting military intervention led to violent consequences, including Operation Wetie, political killings, and eventually, a military coup in 1966. This historical lesson serves as a stark reminder of the dangers of hasty political decisions.

Current Political Landscape and the Opposition

While Tinubu’s decision has received support from some quarters, it has also been condemned by several political figures and groups. The Nigerian Bar Association, opposition figures like Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi, and the New Nigerian Peoples Party, along with 12 PDP governors, have all spoken out against the state of emergency. Their concerns reflect the broader issue of political overreach and the need for careful, constitutional adherence.

A Call for Caution

Tinubu must tread carefully, as his actions could have long-lasting consequences for Nigeria’s democracy. By disregarding constitutional processes and resorting to executive overreach, he risks destabilizing the country further. History should serve as a cautionary tale in preventing similar actions from undermining democratic norms and institutions.

The Need for Political Accountability

In this context, it is vital that Tinubu, along with other political actors, prioritize dialogue and constitutional measures to resolve the crisis in Rivers. The use of a state of emergency should be reserved for genuine, urgent crises, not political disputes driven by power struggles. Until then, Nigeria’s democratic health and the integrity of its federal system will remain in jeopardy.