The Legality of The Suspension of The Governor of Rivers State
by Takim Etta
Just like a military regime, when the military head of state is no longer at ease with the administration of a particular region, he orders its removal or suspension and replaces it with a new leader answerable to him. This is a clear reflection of President Tinubu’s State of Emergency Declaration of March 18th, 2025, where the democratically elected executive governor and all the representatives of the House of Assembly were suspended, and a military general was Vice Admiral Ibokette installed, answerable to the Federal Executive Council.
The baton of democracy, civilian rule, and a federal system of governance was handed down in 1999, with a guiding document known as the 1999 Constitution, which defined the powers of the entire governing structure from the presidency down to the local government areas. The Constitution is the foundation upon which other laws derive their validity. It spells out the powers, restrictions, and limits of all political office holders, as well as the modes upon which each political office holder should attain office.
As Nigerians still struggle to define true federalism, directed by our laws and given flesh by the courts, this article will delve into the constitutionality of the state of emergency declared by the President vis-à-vis the legality of suspending the executive governor of Rivers State. This article will give a historical background on the genesis of the problems, down to the declaration of a state of emergency and its future implications for the politics of Nigeria and its overall effect on Nigeria’s democracy.
The Genesis of the Problem
There exist powerful masquerades in the political class of Nigeria who recruit their loyalists to succeed them. This principle of godfatherism is prevalent in Nigerian politics and is the genesis of the political crisis in Rivers State. Just like in Lagos State, where President Tinubu remains the godfather of Lagos politics, Nyesom Wike earned the title when he supported and installed Governor Siminalayi Fubara as governor—his godson.
This system ensures that the governor of a state is answerable to his godfather rather than the people. The effect of such a system is that governors may lack independent decision-making power and, in most cases, may not implement programs and policies for the benefit of the people.
The genesis of the matter arose from a breach of agreement between the former Governor of Rivers State, Ezenwo Nyesom Wike, and the incumbent Governor of Rivers State, Siminalayi Fubara. It was alleged that Wike demanded 25% of Rivers State’s revenue—an allegation reported by Nwata on Arise Television on December 18, 2023. The political tension in the state escalated as House members loyal to Wike became increasingly angry over perceived disloyalty and initiated an impeachment process. In an attempt to stop the impeachment, Governor Fubara reportedly ordered the demolition of the House of Assembly complex.
After several failed attempts to resolve the crisis, 27 lawmakers defected from the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC), an act that violated the constitution. In response, the governor invoked the provisions of Section 68 and declared their seats vacant. The lawmakers, in turn, sued the governor to determine the constitutionality of their removal—a case that remains pending in court to this day.
Meanwhile, in a separate matter, the Supreme Court ruled that state allocations be withheld since the required number of Assembly members needed to pass an appropriation budget was not present. As a result, the state was now being governed by the executive governor and only four House members.
To resolve the political crisis, the president convened several reconciliation meetings between the parties, but these meetings repeatedly ended in deadlock. Reports of oil pipeline vandalism were allegedly linked to the crisis, raising the president’s suspicions of an imminent security threat. Consequently, a state of emergency was declared.
Historical Perspective
Ekiti State (2006)
In October 2006, President Olusegun Obasanjo imposed a state of emergency in Ekiti State after a political crisis led to the removal of Governor Ayodele Fayose. Allegations of corruption and poor governance created unrest, prompting the suspension of the state’s democratic institutions. To stabilize the situation, retired military officer Tunji Olurin was appointed as the interim administrator until order was restored.
Plateau State (2004)
On May 18, 2004, President Olusegun Obasanjo declared a state of emergency in Plateau State in response to prolonged ethnic and religious violence between Christian and Muslim groups. The conflict resulted in numerous deaths and widespread displacement. As part of the emergency measures, Governor Joshua Dariye was suspended, and retired Major General Chris Alli was appointed to oversee the state and restore peace.
Adamawa, Borno, and Yobe States (2013-2015)
The most extensive state of emergency in Nigeria’s history was declared by President Goodluck Jonathan in May 2013, affecting Adamawa, Borno, and Yobe States. This was due to the escalating violence caused by Boko Haram, a militant group responsible for bombings, killings, and kidnappings. The emergency declaration enabled heightened military action, curfews, and restrictions to curb terrorism. The emergency rule remained in effect until 2015, when a new administration took over.
The State of Emergency
A state of emergency is a situation in which a government is empowered to implement programs that it would typically not be permitted to undertake, for the safety and protection of its citizens. This tool of necessity is not invoked arbitrarily to prevent political officeholders from abusing their powers. The limits and conditions for declaring a state of emergency are prescribed by law.
A state of emergency is like a double-edged sword—if placed in the hands of a corrupt leader, it can lead to absolute corruption. The President of Nigeria is empowered by Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution to declare a state of emergency. However, this power is not without limits, as certain conditions must be fulfilled before it can be exercised.
Comditions For Decalration of a State of Emergency
(a) The federation is at war:
(b) The federation is in imminent danger of invasion or involvement in a state of war,
(c) There is actual breakdown of public order and public safety in the federation or any part thereof to such extent as to require extraordinary measures to restore peace and security.
Legality of state of Emergency decalred By President Tinubu
A state of emergency was declared by President Tinubu on March 18, 2025, in Rivers State due to a prolonged political crisis. This action suspended the entire democratically elected structure and imposed a military administrator—a move that has been termed a “democratic coup d’état.” The President relied on the provisions of Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution, alleging that the political crisis was degenerating into anarchy.
However, the conditions for declaring a state of emergency were not met, as the pipeline explosion was not unique to Rivers State—other states in the South-South region had experienced similar incidents. Moreover, there have been far worse security challenges in other parts of Nigeria, which would have justified a state of emergency, yet the President had not even addressed them publicly. The situation in Rivers State did not warrant a state of emergency, as the lives and property of its residents were not under immediate threat.
The issue at hand was merely a security challenge that the Chief of Army Staff and other security agencies could have handled if allowed to do their job.
Regarding the political crisis, the courts are the appropriate avenue for aggrieved parties to seek redress. The President’s involvement was moral rather than legal, as he attempted to play a fatherly role as the leader of the nation. However, he had no legal standing to intervene in the internal crisis of another political party. The declaration of a state of emergency is a clear abuse of power, aimed at disrupting the government of Rivers State, as the necessary conditions for invoking such powers were not met.
Legality of the suspension of the Governor
In his March 18th broadcast, President Bola Tinubu, upon declaring a state of emergency, suspended the Executive Governor of Rivers State, Similaye Fubara, along with all members of the House of Assembly for an initial period of six months. We will, to this extent, examine the constitutionality of suspending the entire governing structure and replacing it with a military administration.
While the Constitution grants the President the power to declare a state of emergency, it does not specify additional particulars, nor does it empower the President to suspend the governor or any member of the House of Assembly. The President’s act of suspending democratically elected representatives is unconstitutional and illegal.
Furthermore, Section 1(2) of the 1999 Constitution explicitly states that no person or group of persons can take control of Nigeria or any part thereof outside the provisions of the Constitution. The installation of a military administrator is grossly unconstitutional and, therefore, illegal.
Impact on Nigeria’s Democracy
The democratic coup d’état by President Bola Tinubu, if allowed to stand, has opened the door for future recurrences, where a president could simply wake up from his sleep, target a particular governor, suspend them, and extend the six-month period until their four-year term elapses. In doing so, the president would not need to rely on any serious tension or an existing state of affairs threatening lives and property in a state.
According to Montesquieu, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This would grant the president absolute power, allowing the suspension of any governor at will.
Furthermore, if the president’s actions are upheld, it would effectively eliminate the multi-party system and introduce a one-party system, thereby suppressing political opposition in Nigeria.
Conclusion
The suspension of the Governor of Rivers State and the imposition of a military administrator raise critical concerns about the sanctity of democracy in Nigeria. While the Constitution grants the President the authority to declare a state of emergency under specific conditions, it does not empower him to unilaterally remove elected officials. The events in Rivers State set a dangerous precedent that could be exploited in the future to undermine democratic institutions and silence political opposition. If unchecked, this action could weaken the rule of law and erode public trust in Nigeria’s democratic process.
Furthermore, the principle of separation of powers, which ensures that each arm of government functions independently, has been gravely violated. The judiciary, which should be the ultimate arbiter in political disputes, was sidelined, and instead, the executive branch overreached its authority. If political crises are resolved through force rather than legal means, it will create an atmosphere of instability where elected leaders live in fear of arbitrary removal. Democracy thrives when leaders are held accountable through lawful processes, not through unconstitutional suspensions.
Ultimately, Nigeria’s democracy must be safeguarded by upholding constitutional provisions and ensuring that no political leader—no matter how powerful—acts above the law. The people of Rivers State, and Nigerians as a whole, must demand accountability and resist any action that threatens their democratic rights. If this unconstitutional act is allowed to stand, it could set a dangerous tone for governance in Nigeria, where state of emergency declarations become tools for political control rather than mechanisms for genuine security and stability.
