President Bola Tinubu’s recent declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State, along with the suspension of the state’s executive and legislative branches, has ignited widespread debate among legal experts, human rights advocates, and political observers across Nigeria.
The move, intended to address the deepening political and security crisis in the state, has drawn mixed reactions.
While some see it as a necessary measure to restore stability, others argue that it raises constitutional concerns and sets a troubling precedent for federal intervention in state affairs.
Background of River Crisis
Rivers State has been mired in a prolonged political impasse, marked by intense clashes between rival factions, allegations of government interference, and a breakdown of law and order.
There are two sides. The side of the incumbent governor, Siminalayi Fubara and that of his predecessor, Nyesome Wike.
The situation escalated when national petroleum infrastructure became a target of destruction, prompting heightened federal concern and intervention.
Legal experts question the constitutionality
The declaration of a state of emergency has sparked fierce debate among legal practitioners, many of whom question its legality under Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution.
A central point of contention is whether the President has the authority to suspend a democratically elected governor and state legislature, even under emergency provisions.
Renowned constitutional lawyer Festus Ogun argued:
“President Bola Tinubu has no constitutional power to suspend Rivers State Governor Siminalayi Fubara and his deputy. While the President may declare a state of emergency, he is not legally empowered to remove elected officials.”
Similarly, human rights lawyer Inibehe Effiong asserted:
“President Tinubu has no constitutional authority to suspend the Governor of Rivers State or members of the Rivers State House of Assembly. The emergency powers outlined in the 1999 Constitution do not grant him such authority.”
Another legal analyst, tweeting under the handle @egi_nupe___, emphasized the role of the National Assembly in approving the proclamation:
“Any declaration of a state of emergency must be supported by a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly before it can take full effect.”
Constitutional Provisions on State of Emergency
Legal scholars have pointed to Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution, which outlines the conditions under which a President may declare a state of emergency:
When Nigeria is at war or faces an imminent threat of war.
When there is an actual or imminent breakdown of law and order in any part of the country.
In the event of a natural disaster or other public dangers threatening the existence of the federation.
If a state governor formally requests such a declaration, with the approval of two-thirds of the state’s legislature.
However, critics argue that the Constitution does not grant the President the power to suspend elected officials.
“The Constitution is silent on the fate of elected officials during a state of emergency. The principle of ‘expressio unius est exclusio alterius’ applies—if the law does not explicitly grant the President the power to suspend officials, then such authority does not exist.”
Furthermore, once a state of emergency is declared, the President is required to transmit the proclamation to the National Assembly.
Both chambers must then convene and either approve or reject the proclamation by a two-thirds majority. The emergency rule expires after six months unless extended by the legislature.
