President Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State has sparked a national debate, with critics questioning the decision and its implications
President Bola Tinubu’s recent declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State has ignited a firestorm of controversy across Nigeria.
The decision, which involves the suspension of Governor Sim Fubara, his deputy, and all members of the State House of Assembly for six months, has left many questioning its legality and the implications for democracy in the state.
Tinubu’s move has drawn widespread condemnation and concern, with many political analysts arguing that the situation in Rivers does not warrant such drastic action.
The crisis in the state, which has been described as a political power struggle between Governor Fubara and his predecessor, Nyesom Wike, has now escalated to the point where the President felt compelled to intervene directly.
In his nationwide broadcast on Tuesday, President Tinubu nominated Vice Admiral Ibokette Ibas (Rtd) as the Administrator to oversee Rivers State during the emergency period, citing the governor’s inability to control the unrest as the main reason for the intervention. The declaration was made under Section 305(5) of the 1999 Constitution.
This is not the first time such actions have been taken in Nigeria. In 2004, President Olusegun Obasanjo declared a state of emergency in Plateau State, and similar actions were seen in Ekiti in 2006 and in three states in the northeast in 2013 under former President Goodluck Jonathan due to security concerns.
However, the current situation in Rivers has sparked debate, with critics pointing out that there are other states with ongoing security crises that have not faced similar measures.
**Atiku Abubakar,** former Vice President and presidential candidate of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), has labelled the decision as politically motivated, arguing that Tinubu’s involvement in the political turbulence in Rivers makes him responsible for the crisis. Atiku condemned the lack of preventative action and described the intervention as a failure of the government.
Similarly, **Omoyele Sowore**, the 2023 presidential candidate for the African Action Congress (AAC), accused Tinubu of using the state of emergency to “pacify his criminals,” implying that the move is part of a broader political strategy.
Veteran journalist **Jackson Ude** also criticized the President’s action, suggesting that the crisis was primarily caused by the ongoing political feud between Fubara and Wike. Ude argued that by suspending Fubara while leaving Wike untouched, Tinubu was showing bias and failing to address the root causes of the conflict.
The tensions in Rivers have been brewing for months, with Governor Fubara and Nyesom Wike reportedly engaged in a power struggle.
Wike, who is now serving as the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), has been accused of undermining Fubara’s governance efforts, using his position within the federal government to influence the situation in Rivers State.
The state of emergency declaration has raised serious questions about the constitutionality of the decision and whether it represents an overreach of executive power.
Many Nigerians are also questioning why similar actions have not been taken in other states where banditry, herdsmen violence, and other security challenges persist.
The ongoing political crisis in Rivers State has now escalated to a national issue, with significant implications for Nigeria’s democracy and governance.
As reactions continue to pour in, the true impact of the President’s state of emergency declaration remains to be seen.
What is clear is that this move has set the stage for more heated debates and may influence the political dynamics of the country in the months to come.
