1. Introduction
On March 18, 2025 at about 18:00hrs, pursuant to Section 305 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), the President and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, GCFR, made a proclamation of an Emergency Rule in Rivers State suspending both the executive and legislative arms of government for a period of six months in the first instance and appointed a sole administrator to restore law and order in the state for the time being.
This proclamation has elicited unprecedented public debates under different shades; from law to politics, ethics to morality. In the fray were lawyers, politicians, especially those in opposition parties, public analysts, socio-cultural groups, human rights activists and other non-state actors. The debate has in the quickest polarised the public opinion in Nigeria into “supporters” and “antagonists” of the President and his federal government on the Emergency Rule declaration in River State. Therefore, it has become pertinent and extremely inevitable for me as a citizen and stakeholder in the Nigerian project to lend my view to the raging discussion with insistence on disposition to constitutional framework, democratic governance and national security.
2. The Constitutionality of the Emergency Rule Declaration in Rivers State.
In the context of a state of emergency, the President’s prerogative is enshrined in Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution, which delineates the conditions under which emergency powers can be exercised. These include situations where there is:
(a)A breakdown of public order and safety requiring extraordinary intervention.
(b)An occurrence that prevents the functioning of constitutional governance in any state.
(c)Threats to national security, including insurgency or civil unrest.
(d)Natural disasters or any other circumstances that endanger public safety.
The Concept of Presidential Prerogative and Constitutionalism
Prerogative, in governance, refers to the discretionary power vested in a Head of State to act in situations of grave national importance without requiring prior approval from another authority. However, in a constitutional democracy such as Nigeria, presidential prerogative is not absolute but is instead regulated by legal and institutional checks to prevent autocracy.
Under the doctrine of constitutionalism, the exercise of emergency powers must be strictly confined to the enumerated conditions and must not devolve into arbitrary rule. The separation of powers doctrine further ensures that emergency powers are not wielded in a vacuum, as they are subject to legislative oversight, judicial review, and, ultimately, the sovereignty of the people.
Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution provides a clear legal basis for the declaration of an emergency rule. The provision requires the President to consult with the National Council of State before issuing a proclamation, which must subsequently be submitted to the National Assembly for approval. If ratified, the emergency rule remains in effect for six months in the first instance, with the possibility of an extension should the crisis persists. The Supreme Court, in Attorney General of Abia State v. Attorney General of the Federation (2002) 6 NWLR (Pt. 763) 264, affirmed the President’s discretion to declare a state of emergency where governance has effectively collapsed. The Court emphasized that such a declaration must be necessary, proportionate, and consistent with the principles of democracy and the rule of law.
Given that the crisis in Rivers State, characterized by political tension, defiance of judicial orders, executive recklessness epitomised by wilful destruction of critical infrastructure owned by Rivers State, and threats to critical Federal infrastructure in the State, it is evident that the conditions for emergency rule as stipulated in Section 305 were present ahead of the declaration by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu on March 18, 2025.
Similarly, defining element of constitutional democracy is adherence to the rule of law. Section 287 of the 1999 Constitution mandates all authorities, including state executives, to comply with judicial decisions. However, in Rivers State, the failure of the suspended Governor, Sim Fubara to promptly and wholesomely implement the Supreme Court rulings on several matters in the crises, including the nullification of the inglorious local government elections of October 5 2024, representation of the appropriation bill for 2024, and resubmission of list of commissioners and other nominees to the House of Assembly for screening created a dangerous precedent of executive defiance to the rule of law and respect to the courts of the land. The lackadaisical attitudes and the manoeuvrings demonstrated by the suspended Governor of Rivers state was tantamount to undermining the authority of the Supreme Court. This act of constitutional disobedience on the part of Sir Sim Fubara heightened political tension and exacerbated threats of insecurity in the state leading to violent clashes among supporters of the two factions to the political crisis in the State, especially over the control of local governments after the Supreme Court judgement of February 28, 2025. The Federal Government, in fulfilling its constitutional duty of upholding rule of law and maintaining law and order across the federation acted validly through the Emergency Proclamation on Rives State. Therefore, by publishing the emergency proclamation in the Federal Gazette and submitting it to the National Assembly, the federal government has adhered to constitutional due process.
3. Threats to Democratic Governance in Rivers State
Another constitutional breach and threat to democratic institutions on the side of Sim Fubara was the provocative demolition of the Rivers State House of Assembly Complex on December 13, 2023. The sudden demolition of the Rivers State House of Assembly complex negated the sprit and latter of democratic governance. The act of wilful destruction of public property by anyone is treason which carries heavy sanctions. For clarity, Section 41 of the Criminal Code Act addresses treasonable felonies, stating that any person who forms an intention to effect certain actions, like levying war against Nigeria to compel changes in policy or intimidate the legislature, is guilty of a treasonable felony.
The suspended Governor acted under the constitutional immunity for the Executive to act barbaric destroying a democratic and constitutionally ordered institution, the Legislature, a treasonable offence. Political differences as emphasized by the Supreme Court or fear of impeachment cannot provide lawful justification for deliberate destruction of public property and desecration of another democratic institution as brazenly carried out by Sim Fubara. The Rivers State House of Assembly was unable to perform its constitutional duties effectively as elected representatives of the good people of Rivers State for fifteen months due to the overbearing posture and official recklessness of the suspended governor.
In a democracy, a state legislative complex was left perpetually in ruins without reconstruction which symbolizes paralysis of democratic governance in Rivers State. The legislature is a fundamental pillar of democratic governance, and its wanton destruction, without immediate plans for reconstruction, effectively paralysed legislative functions. The demolition led to factional struggles within the Assembly, further deepening the state’s political crisis and soaking public chaos. Given that the legislature plays a crucial role in democratic governance, its incapacitation left the executive unchecked, allowing unbridled allocation of state resources without legislative oversight. Such an environment is fertile ground for authoritarian and autocratic tendencies which necessitated the federal intervention in form of emergency declaration to prepare the grounds for savaging democratic governance and restoring constitutional order within the space of six months or less.
4. The Threats to National Security.
A fundamental responsibility of state governments is to protect both state and federal assets within their jurisdictions. The failure or inability of Mr. Sim Fubara as governor of Rivers State to prevent repeated attacks on critical national infrastructure, particularly oil and gas installations, posed serious economic and security threats to the Federation. Security reports cited incidents of pipeline vandalism by militants, exacerbated by the Governor’s inaction. Nigeria’s economy is heavily reliant on oil revenue, and Rivers State is a key hub for petroleum production. Disruptions to oil installations not only affect national revenue but also pose risks of economic sabotage. The suspended governor of Rivers State had on March 3, 2025 said in Port Harcourt that the “youths should await instructions”, consequently his apparent inaction in curbing or speaking up against sustained attacks on oil infrastructures in the state by the restive Rivers youths on the eve of the emergency declaration justified the Federal Government stance and the decision taken.
The security challenges in Rivers State extended beyond internal political disputes; they have profound implications for national security. With intelligence reports pointing at increasing incidents of militancy, economic sabotage through large scale destruction of oil and gas infrastructure threatening national energy security and economic stability. The evident indisposition of the suspended Governor to take decisive action against these anti-state activities raises critical national security concerns. The President’s decision to declare a state of emergency in Rivers State is, therefore, grounded in both legal and national security considerations.
Moreover, the escalating crisis in Rivers State had begun to affect national security. Protests, violent clashes, and a general breakdown of public order signalled an imminent threat to stability of a region that is known for volatility. Under such circumstances, the Federal Government was not expected to sit back and allow the ugly trend in Rivers State degenerate to wider national security problems. The President, as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, has an obligation under Section 14(2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution to ensure the security and welfare of the people of the commonwealth called Nigeria. Where a state government is unable or unwilling to maintain public order, federal intervention becomes inevitably imperative.
5. The Implications of Emergency Rule in Rivers State.
Emergency rule often necessitates temporary restrictions on fundamental rights of the citizens, including freedom of movement, expression, and assembly, as permitted under Section 45 of the 1999 Constitution. However, such restrictions must be proportionate, lawful, and necessary to restore order. The National Assembly retains oversight functions to ensure that emergency measures do not degenerate into human rights abuses.
A primary objective of emergency rule is the restoration of democratic governance. The temporary suspension of the Governor, Deputy Governor, and State House of Assembly is not aimed at subverting democracy but rather at stabilizing the state’s political environment to enable a return to normal constitutional order.
Emergency rule also serves as deterrence. The Rivers State crisis underscores the importance of adherence to constitutional norms. If state executives can defy judicial pronouncements, demolish legislative institutions, and fail to protect national assets without consequences, it sets a dangerous precedent for future governance. Federal intervention serves as a deterrent against executive lawlessness and reinforces the supremacy of constitutional governance.
Throughout Nigeria’s history, federal intervention in state governance has been a recurring theme, especially when state authorities fail to secure public safety and critical infrastructure. The recent intervention in Rivers State follows a historical precedent where presidential emergency powers have been invoked in response to governance failure, legislative dysfunction, and security crises in states.
In 2004, on May 18, the then-President Olusegun Obasanjo declared a state of emergency in Plateau State following a severe outbreak of ethnic violence. The crisis, which led to widespread killings and lawlessness, prompted the federal government to suspend Governor Joshua Dariye and the State House of Assembly. Retired General Chris Alli was appointed as Sole Administrator to restore stability. This action underscored the necessity of federal intervention when state authorities fail to maintain public order.
In 2006, on October 19, then President Olusegun Obasanjo declare emergency rule in Ekiti State when the state was in political turmoil stemming from impeachment controversies and governance paralysis. President Obasanjo responded by declaring a state of emergency, suspending Governor Ayodele Fayose, and appointing an interim administrator. The federal government justified this intervention as necessary to prevent a breakdown of law and order, further solidifying the precedent for emergency governance in Nigeria.
In 2013, on May 14, then-President Goodluck Jonathan declared a state of emergency in Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa States in response to the escalating Boko Haram insurgency. Unlike previous interventions that focused on political crises, this action was rooted in national security concerns. The emergency declaration aimed to enable military operations against insurgents, demonstrating the necessity of emergency powers in times of existential threats to national stability. These precedents illustrate the federal government’s obligation to act when state authorities fail in their primary duty of ensuring public safety. However, they also raise concerns about the potential for executive overreach and political misuse, necessitating clear constitutional safeguards.
In 2025, ahead of March 18, Rivers State crisis manifested multiple factors that contributed to an environment of instability and chaos including breakdown of democratic governance which culminated in the action of President Bola Tinubu in declaring emergency rule on the State.
Constitutional and International Safeguards on Emergency Powers
6. Conclusion
The Proclamation of the State of Emergency on Rivers State by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu on March 18 2025 is a constitutionally justified measure aimed at restoring stability, enforcing the rule of law, and preserving national security and economic stability. The political crisis in Rivers State which was driven by political differences between two factions, culminated into executive recklessness, judicial abuse, threats to democratic governance and ultimately, significant challenge to regional stability and national security. While emergency powers must be exercised cautiously to prevent abuse, their use in this case is deemed necessary and legally sound. The National Assembly’s oversight ensures democratic accountability, preventing the misuse of such powers. Historical precedents, such as interventions in Plateau and Ekiti States serve as meaningful precedents.
However, federal government intervention in crisis moments in a state must uphold constitutional and human rights safeguards to sustain democratic ideals. The National Assembly must ensure that the measures remain proportionate and serve the nation’s best interests. Finally, emergency rule should serve as deterrence to the executive arms of governments in the states, where governors act like emperors with crass disregard for constitutional separation of powers between executive and legislative arms and importantly, the compelling independence of the legislature as the ground norm of a democratic society.
The action of the suspended Governor Siminalaiye Fubara to boastfully insist on non-recognition of twenty-seven out of thirty-one legitimately elected members of the Rivers State House of Assembly on the ground purported defection from PDP to the APC was an aberration. The suspended Governor arrogated to himself the judicial powers to suspend twenty-seven members of House of Assembly, declared their seats vacant and thereafter, and chose to be dealing with just four members in grave disregard for constitutional norms and the judiciary. It is hoped that the lesson from Rivers State will be enough for all the state executives in Nigeria to be true democrats in their conducts in office as governors by respecting the very legal and political instrument (the constitution) from which they derive their powers and existence in office just as other arms of government in a democratic polity.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Hon. Washington Osa Osifo, Ph.D,
Benin City,
Edo State.
