March 30, (THEWILL) – The decision by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to suspend the Rivers State Government, including Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy and the State House of Assembly, has ignited a firestorm of debate across Nigeria.
On March 18, Tinubu declared a state of emergency in the oil-rich state, citing a breakdown of governance stemming from the bitter feud between Fubara and Nyesom Wike, the former governor now serving as Minister of the Federal Capital Territory.
The President appointed Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas, a retired naval officer, to run the state as sole administrator, effectively sidelining elected officials. This move, justified by Tinubu under Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution, has drawn sharp criticism from legal experts, opposition leaders and civil society groups, who argue it oversteps constitutional boundaries and threatens Nigeria’s fragile democracy. The judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, now faces a defining moment to determine whether this action holds water or sets a dangerous precedent for executive overreach.
The root of this crisis lies in the political tug-of-war between Wike and Fubara, a rivalry that has paralysed Rivers State for nearly two years. It began shortly after Fubara took office in May 2023, when tensions flared over alleged control of the state’s funds and political machinery. Wike, a powerful figure in the Peoples Democratic Party and Fubara’s predecessor, expected to maintain influence over his successor. Fubara, however, moved to assert his independence, sparking a feud that escalated into chaos.
Key flashpoints included Fubara’s demolition of the House of Assembly complex in December 2023, which he claimed was structurally unsound and the defection of 27 lawmakers loyal to Wike, a move the Supreme Court later ruled unconstitutional in another bizarre ruling. By February 2025, the apex court declared that Rivers State had lacked a functioning government for two years, pointing to the absence of a legitimate legislature and Fubara’s failure to re-present the 2025 budget (The governor tried to represent the budget but the House of Assembly leadership dodged). Tinubu seized on this ruling, alongside reports of pipeline vandalism, to justify his emergency declaration. Now this is where I strongly disagree with the President.
Section 305 of the Nigerian Constitution grants the president power to declare a state of emergency if there exists a “clear and present danger” to public order, safety or the federation’s stability. The process requires the National Assembly’s approval within two days if the President acts alone, a step Tinubu followed, securing a controversial voice vote from both chambers of the National Assembly on March 20. Hell-bent on approving the President’s emergency declaration, the leadership of the National Assembly opted for voice vote when it was obvious they did not have the 240 votes needed in the House of Representatives and 73 votes in the Senate, a key constitutional requirement. I have been asking myself whether it is possible to determine 2/3 approval by voice vote? LOL. The National Assembly in my opinion violated the constitution.
I also will like to state here that the constitution remains silent on whether this power extends to suspending elected officials or dissolving democratic institutions. Section 1(2) insists that Nigeria must be governed only in accordance with its constitutional provisions, while Section 188 outlines impeachment by the state legislature – not presidential fiat – as the sole method to remove a governor.
Some legal scholars have been quick to point out this gap, arguing that Tinubu’s suspension of Fubara and the assembly lacks explicit constitutional backing. Historical examples, such as Olusegun Obasanjo’s 2004 emergency in Plateau State, where the governor was removed, remain contested and never fully validated by the Supreme Court, casting doubt on their legitimacy as precedent. Again, in my opinion, Obasanjo’s action was illegal and unconstitutional.
There is enough to point to Tinubu’s action as a blatant overreach, a power grab dressed up as a stabilising measure. The situation in Rivers, while chaotic, hardly amounted to the kind of existential threat Section 305 envisions – think widespread violence or a total collapse of order, not political infighting. Compare this to the northern states plagued by terrorism or the Southeast reeling from killings and intimidation, where Tinubu has not declared emergencies. Why Rivers, then?
Many point to Wike’s fingerprints. The optics make it appear like a stitch-up between Tinubu and Wike to wrest control of the state. It is a power grab and reckless executive overreach to secure victory for the President in 2027 election. This position is echoed by figures like Atiku Abubakar, Peter Obi, Wole Soyinka, Femi Falana, labour unions and several others.
The appointment of a sole administrator to replace an elected government strikes a particularly sour note. It harks back to military rule, when unelected officials ran states at the behest of a central authority. Democracy, however flawed in Rivers, demands that the people’s mandate – Fubara and the assembly were elected, after all – be respected. Suspending them hands the President a tool that could easily be wielded against other states for political ends.
Imagine a future where any governor falling out with Abuja risks the same fate. Letting this stand invites dictatorship masked as democracy, a sentiment also shared by the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project, which has sued Tinubu over the “unlawful” suspensions. Even the All Progressives Congress’s Felix Morka, defending the move, admitted Fubara “trampled on democracy,” but that critique cuts both ways—does Tinubu’s response not do the same?
A better path was open to the President. He could have called Wike and Fubara to the table, using his stature to broker peace without torching democratic structures. Mediation, not suspension, aligns with Nigeria’s federal system, where states enjoy autonomy under the Constitution.
Fubara’s missteps, like the assembly demolition, deserved scrutiny—perhaps even legal consequences—but unseating an entire government oversteps the mark. Patience might have spared Nigeria this constitutional quagmire. Instead, the sole administrator, Ibas, has sacked all Fubara’s appointees, running Rivers State like a fiefdom answerable only to Abuja—a far cry from democratic governance.
Reactions have been swift and fierce. Seven PDP governors, led by Oyo’s Seyi Makinde, have dragged Tinubu and the National Assembly to the Supreme Court, arguing that Section 305 does not empower the president to suspend elected officials or appoint administrators. They challenge the voice vote’s legitimacy, insisting it fell short of the two-thirds majority required for such a proclamation. Even within Tinubu’s camp, the Presidency defends it as a “temporary reset,” not a takeover, but that rings hollow when elected voices are silenced.
The Supreme Court now holds the key. It must decide whether Tinubu’s actions align with the Constitution or violate its core tenets. Yet the court’s record is patchy—decisions in cases involving former Senator President Ahmed Lawan, Senate President Godswill Akpabio and Hope Uzodinma have raised eyebrows for apparent political bias. This case, though, feels clearer. The lack of a dire emergency, the bypassing of impeachment processes, and the imposition of an unelected ruler all clash with democratic principles. A ruling against Tinubu could reinstate Fubara and the assembly, sending a message that presidential power has limits. Failure to do so risks normalising executive impunity, a blow to Nigeria’s 26-year democratic experiment.
Rivers matters because Nigeria’s democracy hangs in the balance and the region has a history of volatility which the current administration must do everything in its power to avoid given that it is the region with the country’s cash cow – crude oil. If President Tinubu can suspend one state government on shaky grounds today, what stops him – or his successors – from targeting others? The judiciary must rise to the occasion, not just for Rivers’ people but for the nation.
Restoring the elected government in Rivers State would affirm that power flows from the ballot, not Abuja’s whims. President Tinubu missed a chance to lead by example, to show that disputes can be settled without dismantling democracy. Now, the Supreme Court must clean up the mess. It owes Nigeria a verdict rooted in truth and justice, one that ends this standoff and shores up a system already buckling under strain. Anything less, and the cracks in this democracy will only widen.
