Tinubu’s state of emergency in Rivers sparks constitutional debate: Legal experts weigh in

Nigeria is once again facing a constitutional crisis following President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State on March 18, 2025.

The declaration, which includes suspending Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, and all elected members of the Rivers State House of Assembly, has drawn widespread criticism from legal experts, civil society organisations, and political analysts.

The move has ignited intense debate about its legality, with the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and several constitutional lawyers arguing that the President lacks the constitutional authority to suspend an elected governor.

The controversy raises questions about democratic governance, the limits of presidential power, and the sanctity of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution (as amended).

The Presidential Proclamation and the Legal Basis

President Tinubu justified the state of emergency by citing escalating political tensions in Rivers State and the alleged vandalisation of oil pipelines.

Relying on Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution, the President assumed emergency powers and appointed retired Vice Admiral Ibokette Ibas as an administrator to oversee the state's affairs.

However, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) swiftly challenged the legality of this move, asserting that while Section 305 grants the President the power to declare a state of emergency, it does not empower him to suspend or remove an elected governor, deputy governor, or lawmakers.

The NBA highlighted specific conditions under which a state of emergency can be lawfully declared, including war, external aggression, imminent danger, or a breakdown of public order.

The association questioned whether the situation in Rivers State met the constitutional threshold for emergency rule, particularly in the absence of war or large-scale public disorder.

Legal Experts Speak Out

Several legal experts have condemned the declaration and described the suspension of elected officials as an “unconstitutional usurpation of power.”

Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN (President, Nigerian Bar Association): The NBA firmly maintains that Governor Fubara's and his administration's removal is unconstitutional.

Section 305 of the Constitution does not grant the President the power to dissolve a democratically elected government under the guise of emergency rule.

If left unchecked, this sets a dangerous precedent for Nigeria’s democracy.

Barrister Deji Adeyanju: The President’s action is reminiscent of military rule. The Constitution is clear: only the courts or a duly followed impeachment process can remove a governor. If a president can suspend a governor via a press statement, then what stops the National Assembly from suspending the President through a similar declaration? This is a civilian coup, he told Pulse Nigeria via phone.

READ ALSO: State of Emergency: Atiku accuses Tinubu of fuming Niger Delta unrest with ‘selfish calculations’

Festus Ogun, Esq (Constitutional Lawyer): The President has chosen the path of executive lawlessness. Where in the Constitution does it empower him to appoint an administrator to govern a state? Rivers people elected Governor Fubara, not Vice Admiral Ibas. This is a grave affront to democracy.

Barrister Oladotun Hassan (Contrary Viewpoint): While many are condemning Tinubu’s actions, I believe he acted to prevent a full-blown political crisis. The Rivers State House of Assembly was on the verge of impeaching the governor amid escalating tensions. The state’s security was at risk, and the President had to act swiftly.

Constitutional and Democratic Concerns

The Nigerian Constitution provides clear procedures for the removal of a sitting governor.

Under Section 188, a governor can only be removed through an impeachment process conducted by the state legislature.

Alternatively, the courts can nullify a governor’s election if it is found to have been fraudulent. No provision in the Constitution grants the President the power to suspend a sitting governor under any circumstances, including a state of emergency.

Additionally, Section 305(2) states that any proclamation of emergency must be ratified by the National Assembly within two days when in session, or ten days if not in session. Until such approval is granted, the declaration remains ineffective.

The NBA and other stakeholders have urged the National Assembly to reject what they describe as an “unconstitutional encroachment” on state governance.

Political Ramifications and the Wike Factor

Some political analysts suggest that the crisis in Rivers State is not solely about governance but also political power struggles.

Many have pointed fingers at the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) and former Rivers State Governor, Nyesom Wike, who has been locked in a political battle with his successor, Governor Fubara.

READ ALSO: Rivers: History of state of emergency declarations in Nigeria since 1999

Barrister Deji Adeyanju believes Wike has a direct role in the crisis and suggests that security agencies should investigate his involvement in the pipeline explosions cited as justification for the emergency rule.

He argues that greater crises have occurred in other states without a state of emergency being declared, citing deadly attacks in Borno, Benue, and Kaduna.

What Happens Next?

The Rivers State government is expected to challenge the emergency declaration in court.

Legal analysts predict that the Supreme Court will have to interpret whether the President’s action is lawful and whether elected officials can be unilaterally removed under emergency rule.

Opposition parties, civil society organisations, and international observers are also closely monitoring the situation.

Many fear that if allowed to stand, this action could set a precedent for future political takeovers under the guise of emergency rule.

Conclusion

The declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State has thrust Nigeria into yet another constitutional crisis, raising fundamental questions about executive overreach, the rule of law, and the future of democracy.

Legal experts overwhelmingly agree that the President lacks the authority to suspend a sitting governor, with many calling his action a civilian coup.

As the situation unfolds, all eyes are on the judiciary, the National Assembly, and the Nigerian people to determine whether the country’s democratic institutions will withstand this constitutional test.

The coming days will be crucial in shaping Nigeria’s democratic future. Will the rule of law prevail, or will political expediency override constitutional order? Only time will tell.