Guest Columnist By USSIJU MEDANER
Eventually, I will offer my view in this week’s piece on the yet-to-be-settled political crisis in Rivers State. Since I am not a judge, I am in no position to offer a formal defence or criticise the legality or the constitutional interpretation of the final action of the president, that is, the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers state. However, as a citizen and one devoted to being somehow informed about the affairs of local and global politics and democracy, I have a few insights and the lessons that go with them to share about the political crisis in Rivers state.
I will begin by pointing out that there are quite a handful of things that went wrong, not only with the state but with Nigeria and Nigerians, that has resulted into the Rivers brouhaha and would likely reoccur sooner in some other states, as a certain fundamental democratic principle – of responsible majority citizens participation – has been broken and a chain reaction has set in, except and until we stopped being the kind of people we have become lately. I will also share my views on this aspect; and I will as much as possible, as always, avoid all forms of biases and frankly stand on the views that I consider the reality of the state and Nigeria as a whole.
It began in 1962; the nation had just witnessed what many referred to as large scale irregularities in the country’s first ever census exercise, leading to a major crisis in Western Nigeria controlled by the then Action Group (AG). May 29, 1962, the Prime Minister, Tafawa Balewa in a nation-wide broadcast declared a state of emergency in the Western Region. The reason being, an uncontrollable political unrest in the region, threatening the legitimate government of the day. The tension culminating into the event of a state of emergency was a typical intra party crisis rocking the Action Group that was becoming irresolvable, and adjudged threatening to national peace and stability. The Prime Minister declared ”I rise to move the Resolution standing in my name which reads as follows: That in pursuance of Section sixty-five of the Constitution of the Federation, It is hereby declared that a state of public emergency exists in Western Region and that this resolution shall remain in force until the end of the month of December, nineteen hundred and sixty-two.” The Prime Minister went ahead to declare that “No responsible Government of the Federation could allow an explosive situation such as that which now exists in Western Nigeria to continue without taking adequate measures to ensure that there is an early return to the Region of peace, order and good Government.” Need to know, Dr M A Majekodunmi was appointed the sole administrator of the Western Region in June 1962.
Then, the next episode was in 2004. The then president of the federation, Olusegun Obasanjo, citing section 305 of the 1999 Constitution, which empowers him as the president to declare a state of emergency, suspended the elected Governor Joshua Dariye and the State House of Assembly. He cited gross insecurity in the state leading to mass killings along religious grounds and the failure of the governor to take decisive actions to address the killings. A retired army general, Chris Ali was appointed the Sole Administrator for the state for the six month period. There were both praises and criticism for the action of the former president; from some quarters, they argued why it should be Plateau when there were more killings in Kano than the latter. The Human Right Watch would rather blame the problem in the state on the president who had not done enough to end the killings in the state. Luckily, the State of Emergency was lifted six months later.
Again in 2006, president Obasanjo, standing on section 305 of the 1999 Constitution declared a state of emergency in Ekiti state, suspending the governor of the state and the members of the House of Assembly and appointing General Tunji Olurin (Rtd) as the Sole Administrator for the state. There was however a clear crisis in the government structure in the state; the legislature had claimed to impeach the governor of the state and the Speaker laying claim to the seat of power in the state, when the president struck, claiming the impeachment process was constitutionally faulty and cannot be allowed to stand. Truly, the tussle between the governor and the legislature had taken a dangerous turn, with the two seats of governance operating simultaneously in the state; the former speaker was having a cabinet in one area of the city and Fayose’s deputy was having his own cabinet somewhere else on behalf of the governor that was removed from office.
In each and all of these events, the opposition voice was high. Accusations of attempts at power grab was loud, but surprisingly and unbelievable, we did not get to the point where the Supreme Court had to make decisive pronouncement on the validity or otherwise of the power of the president to exercise the power bestowed by Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution; as well as the extent of the power, to include the suspension of democratically elected officials of a state. Being fair to the reality of the above stated precedents, which has become the only basis for what becomes the fate of elected officials during a state of emergency, and regardless of the opposition’s outburst at each of the times, the country has inadvertently created a ground to not only declare a state of emergency, when security report supports one, but to also suspend democratically elected governors and others in the state.
So, as unexpected as it was, when president Bola Ahmed Tinubu declared a state of emergency in Rivers State, my reaction, after the shock of the unforeseen response from the federal government was not that of the legality or otherwise of the action, but of the many reasons why not just Rivers State, but the entire nation, was the case once again. So, today, as I vent out my view, it would not in any way be a criticism or denial of the president to take the decision he took, but rather an x-ray of the processes, action, non-actions and reactions that brought about the state to this point – which should itself be a learning point for the nation Nigeria.
Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution as amended states that:
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the President may by instrument published in the Official -Gazette} of the Government of the Federation issue a Proclamation of a state of emergency in the Federation or any part thereof.
3) The President shall have power to issue a Proclamation of a state of emergency only when ¬
(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;
(d) there is a clear and present danger of an actual breakdown of public order and public safety in the Federation or any part thereof requiring extraordinary measures to avert such danger;
(e) there is an occurrence or imminent danger, or the occurrence of any disaster or natural calamity, affecting the community or a section of the community in the Federation;
(f) there is any other public danger which clearly constitutes a threat to the existence of the Federation; or
(g) the President receives a request to do so in accordance with the provisions of subsection (4) of this section.
This is where the argument lies: it is obvious the president t possesses the power to declare a state of emergency if the situation in the federation or any part of the federation warrants it. But then, how do we measure the conditions that warrant such a reaction from the president? It is and would remain subjective. For all the events of previous state of emergencies in the country since 1962, there have always been opposition to what the government at the centre considered enough cause for a declaration of a state of emergency. In 1962, the Prime Minister claimed the irreconcilable intra party disagreement within the Action Group was turning the Western Region to a site of insecurity. In 2004, president Obasanjo claimed the Plateau State governor was no longer capable of maintaining order and guaranteeing the safety of lives and properties in the state after the continuous religious killings in the state, despite the fact that some other states were witnessing the same. In 2006, in Ekiti, it was the political struggle for control within the power structure in Ekiti, polarising power and brewing tension and real insecurity in the state. In 2025, president Tinubu standing upon the same Section of the Constitution cited the intra party clashes and seemingly unsolvable problem between the governor and the members of the state House of Assembly, which has for over sixteen months stalled governance in the state. The president also claimed the problem was deteriorating to physical attacks on national infrastructure in the state.
At what time can we say that these reasons are not constitutionally permissible under the section of the Constitution? Like I stated above, it would remain subjective; leaving room each time for criticisms.
Another germane concern would be the need to wonder if the wordings or the spirit of Section 305 of the Constitution also empowers the president to suspend the elected governors and others and appoint a sole administrator for a state under a state of emergency, or rather, have some other intent in mind as to what the actions of the president should be after the declaration. The only place we can find an answer to this national concern is at the Supreme Court. Until the Supreme Court interprets the Section of the Constitution to determine where the power of the president ends, the country would remain glued to the familiar precedent that is already laid. We all should know this. The same people who cried foul in 2004, and again in 2006, are still crying today in 2025. No, that does not appear to make sense of legitimate concerns about the issue at hand. If we are really bothered as we claimed, we would not have stopped at anything short of a final proclamation by the apex court on the issue.
This now takes me back to the real issue that exposes Rivers state to the challenges it is facing now. How did we get to this point as a people and a nation? We are and remain a bunch of hypocrites, with each and every of our actions stench of nothing but desire to profit from issues. Politicians, waiting to turn all events into opportunities to grab support; legal practitioners taking sides based on emotional biases and leanings, creating ground to explain the same constitutional provision to suit their stands; the people taking the sides of their chosen political friends or allies. Summarily, it is always about our biases. Rarely do we see anyone, staying neutral.
Since when did we begin to pretend not to know that the form of democracy and politics we practice in this country is largely detrimental to real growth and development of the country? Who is that politician among those on the spot today, who is not playing politics for personal gains? We talk of godfatherism; tell me one state without a godfather or struggles to become one by politicians, and a single politician who is not strategising to become one. We all know that no one can become a local government councilor in any part of Nigeria today without being sponsored by someone or a group. The culture of control over elected political officeholders should have been accepted as a norm in our system, if not that we prefer to continue to deceive ourselves. The problem in Rivers State only went out of control but it is the unspoken acceptable reality of all our states. As we cry foul now, we should also wait for the next state. The chain reaction is not ending anytime soon.
Should Rivers State have deteriorated to where it is now? No! The problem is a direct reflection of who we are. It was completely a political problem with the full possibility of a political solution, yet we got here. Why? Everyone who could have contributed to solving the problem was only interested in taking sides that benefited them. What cogent, productive efforts did all the elder statesmen who are crying today take before the unexpected turn of events in the state? I am sure no one can mention any because there was none to begin with. When the problem began initially, and the state governor was advised to enact the ‘Edo template;’ to demolish the assembly complex in broad daylight, and considered it appropriate to dismiss the constitutionally elected members of the House of Assembly unilaterally, we were all in the country, and enjoyed the drama as many voices were praising the governor and urging him on to take the battle to them. Rather than finding a way to solve the political impasse in the state, we were more interested in leveraging it for personal interests.
We were all here when they were all busy fighting for the financial war chest that the state represents. We saw the PDP crew led by the Bauchi state governor, Bala Muhammed, patronising the state, not to help the governor find a lasting solution to the problem, but to urge him to fight on, only because they want so badly, access to the state resources for future elections.
At no time did we hear of Atiku Abubakar, as the leader of PDP, making attempts to help solve the political problem in the state, nor any of all the ‘emergency’ outspoken elder statesmen who are now saints criticising the expedient declaration of a state of emergency in the state.
We were all here when the president made attempts to resolve the Rivers state crisis. It was these same people that pushed the governor to renounce the very agreement he submitted to Abuja. He is the governor, the president cannot decide for him how to run his state. Conveniently we all saw nothing wrong with our democracy all along. A state running with just three members out of a 30-member House of Assembly. Everything was wrong with the state; democracy was apparently dealt a blow. Trying to protect himself, the governor literally became a tyrant. It is therefore safe to conclude that all those who positioned themselves to benefit from the fight and the ensuing crisis, including the principal actors, are enemies of our democracy and the reason we are here today.
Today, I have not seen one person who is not trying to profit from the Rivers problem. Imagine even the body of the legal community taking sides; deciding what interpretation of the Constitution that favours the side they want to take. For the very first time, we saw former president Olusegun Obasanjo become absolutely quiet over a trending issue of national importance. Why? Because he probably knows the decision is right, and being in the president’s position, he would again take the same decision as he had done in the past, but he cannot afford to speak in support of the sitting president for partisan – and not national or patriotic – reasons! I don’t know if it is the politicians taking us for a ride, or we are the ones stupid enough to be what we are. It was in the same country that a president arrogated all the power to himself; removed the governor of Oyo state, Rashidi Ladoja, because of the governor’s problem with his godfather, Adedibu. We saw the same president’s manipulation of the governorship victory of Rotimi Amaechi and handed victory over to Omeiha. We saw one of the presidential elections’ results being announced by INEC while results collation were still ongoing in several states. Yet, it is now that some people just woke up from their sound slumber and are chorusing that democracy is at the lowest ebb of the ladder.
Because Nigerians are so myopic, we can be told anything and treated anyhow and get away with it. Did we all see how politicians quickly see opportunity to translate the event in Rivers State to a platform to win elections? What correlation does the declaration of a state of emergency have with the media conference to announce a coalition to unseat a sitting president? Should that be the appropriate time? Does that reflect a productive reaction that concerns the state under consideration? No. The truth is that, in the position of the president, most of them would take the same decision, but right now, they are not bothered with what is right or wrong, but what is their interests, be it immediate or long-term, or both.
Something instructive for all of us to take is that politicians, as they have all evolved to be, are busy playing on all our intelligence, setting us up as ground soldiers to propagate their respective versions of legality regarding the event in the state. The president needed the National Assembly to ratify his decision, the opposition number was enough to see to it that it failed. Wouldn’t it have been appropriate if PDP and the Labour Party summon a meeting of all their members at the National Assembly and give them instruction on what position to take? Yes, that should have been the way to go if they truly knew the president should be stopped, but rather they went the way of using the event only to increase their popularity! Over 90 percent of the opposition members proudly support the motion, and some of them even have sons and daughters there who proudly supported the declaration. Who are they deceiving? How can a father be on the street crying that democracy is under attack, and the son is at the National Assembly making sure the declaration stands? Does that speak to the genuineness of their actions? I don’t think so.
Finally, I will state that the state of emergency in Rivers has come to stay. Will it extend beyond six months? Maybe, if the actors fail to learn their lessons and the governor refuses to understand that everyone pushing him is not doing it for his interest, and turns around, he may never return to the seat. For all Nigerians, it is a shame on all of us; we have a nation taken over by a minority – that is, suspicious and dubious politicians – because we handed it over to them and become ready mourners and wailers at the sidelines. The earlier we wake up the better for the coming generations.
