President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s demonstrably unconstitutional suspension of the elected leaders of Rivers State and his illegal imposition of a retired military lickspittle as sole administrator in the exercise of his otherwise constitutional privilege to declare a state of emergency in any part of the country is the latest addition in a long list of instances of his embrace of the very things he once resented and fought against when he was outside the reins of federal power.

For example, he was brutally censorious of Goodluck Jonathan’s withdrawal of fuel subsidies in 2012. He expressed sentiments in writing and in speeches that resonated with the angst of the masses. He even helped finance a nationwide mass protest that so convulsed the country that Jonathan was compelled to back off his plans.

Yet, one of the first acts Tinubu did as a president in May 2023 was to announce an economically and socially disruptive withdrawal of fuel subsidies that has deepened poverty, annihilated the middle class, and ruptured the very fabric of Nigerian society.

Again, when Olusegun Obasanjo unconstitutionally suspended Plateau State’s Governor Joshua Dariye—along with state legislators— in May 2004 and appointed General Chris Ali as the state’s sole administrator, then Governor Bola Ahmed Tinubu of Lagos rightly called the act “illegal.”

“It is unfortunate and illegal,” he said. “This has to be discouraged. It is a bad precedent. What the president of the country has done, I pray it doesn’t stand.”

In fact, when Goodluck Jonathan declared states of emergency in the three northeastern states of Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa without suspending the elected leaders of the states, which I commended in a May 25, 2013, column titled “The Malcolm Xian Logic in Jonathan’s Praiseworthy Boko Haram Offensive,” Tinubu condemned it as unacceptable federal overreach.

“No governor of a state in Nigeria is the chief security officer,” he said. “Putting the blame on the governors, who have been effectively emasculated, for the abysmal performance of the government at the centre which controls all these security agencies, smacks of ignorance and mischief.”

He contended that Jonathan’s action “seeks to abridge or has the potential of totally scuttling the constitutional functions of governors and other elected representatives of the people” and that it would be “counterproductive in the long run.”

Given an opportunity to give materiality to the principles he espoused when he had no access to federal power, he has become indistinguishable from, and in many cases worse than, the objects of his erstwhile censure.

Tinubu now implements the same policies he once condemned and has become the same personality he once reviled. He exemplifies the aphoristic wisdom (often attributed to historian Ariel Durant or her husband Will Durant) that says, “Today’s rebel is tomorrow’s tyrant.” In Tinubu’s case, he was yesterday’s rebel and today’s tyrant.

Why do most people who initially invested symbolic and political capital in fighting against authority or oppression eventually become the very oppressors they once resisted? Why do firebrands and idealists often morph into the very thing they once denounced after assuming power?

 The evidence of history shows us that resistance to tyranny can, and often does, end in new tyrannies. Critics of war or corruption frequently adopt those same practices when they find themselves in the circles of power.

So, this is beyond Tinubu as a person, who probably never really had any principles to begin with, whose resistance to past oppressive policies was probably mere calculative opportunism.

But why do previously genuinely adversarial people become the very things they once opposed with such regularity? Observers from psychology, philosophy, and political theory have long studied this phenomenon.

A previous column I wrote (and republished twice) on the psychology of power pointed out that “people under the influence of power are neurologically similar to people who suffer traumatic brain injury” and posited that situational, power-induced brain damage may be responsible for this.

Philosophers have also grappled with the paradox of noble ideals curdling into oppression. Friedrich Nietzsche, for example, famously warned of the moral danger that comes with fighting evil too intensely. “He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster,” Nietzsche wrote, adding, “if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”

Nietzsche’s metaphor speaks to how the struggle for power or justice can warp people’s souls. Revolutionaries and reformers, in attempting to vanquish a “monster” (e.g. a tyrant or an unjust system), may take on the very methods and mindset of that monster.

His concept of the “will to power” also suggests that the drive to attain power can override other moral constraints, so that once the will to power is unleashed, individuals rationalize actions that serve dominance.

French theorist Michel Foucault provides another lens through which we can make sense of the phenomenon of people taking on the very methods and mindset of the beasts of power they once fought.

He said, “Power is everywhere; not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere.” By that, he means no one is ever truly outside power relations; even the most vicious critics of the most monstrous regimes operate within a field of power. Once the critics take control, he said, they often reproduce the very power dynamics they once criticized, even if their rhetoric changes.

The line between oppressor and liberator can blur: the roles may switch, but the play remains the same. Foucault’s insight is that systems of power tend to self-perpetuate, regardless of who is at the helm, unless conscious effort is made to dismantle those underlying structures.

 In other words, a change in leadership without a change in what Foucault calls the “microphysics of power” is likely to yield similar repressive outcomes. The new boss becomes “same as the old boss,” because the circuitry of power channels them into that role.

That’s why the sadly familiar pattern of “condemning in opposition, then doing in government” is so widespread that it almost seems like a political law of gravity. It’s good to bear this in mind as we read and listen to the pronouncements of current “opposition” politicians who seem like they identify with popular causes and sentiments.

Like Tinubu, today’s opponents of executive overreach may extend their own executive powers once they have the opportunity.

Like Tinubu, they will have a story to tell themselves and the public to justify their U-turn: the situation is different, their actions are for the greater good, their previous stance was based on incomplete information, etc. And indeed, sometimes circumstances do legitimately change.

But when the dust settles, the outcome looks awfully familiar. Pro-democracy activists become a congress of tyrants and justifiers of tyranny; the fierce social critic and human rights activist who once decried abuses now defends them; the liberator who once raged against oppressors now only liberates his stomach. As the Roman philosopher-politician Cicero once wrote, “It is easier to criticize than to do better.”

Fortunately, this cycle is not inevitable. Many thinkers advocate checks and balances, institutional limits, and personal integrity as antidotes, although even those seem to be insufficient.

Nigeria’s National Assembly, as we have seen in the last few years, particularly in the last few days, can neither check nor balance the excesses of the executive. It’s a slavish extension of Aso Rock. The voices of the few honest, conscientious ones among them are drowned out by the cacophony that the rapacious, unprincipled, mercenary self-seekers among them, who constitute the majority, emit. The judiciary is even worse.

It is easy to be disillusioned and to surrender amid this reality. To be frank, I have found myself in that state many times. But power must be continually guarded and checked. Philosopher Hannah Arendt observed that only constant vigilance and a commitment to plurality and law prevent rebels from calcifying into tyrants. 

We must all do our part to hold people in power to account, even if we’re not sure we would do better ourselves. At this point, the only check and balance against creeping tyranny is the democratic rebellion of the people. 

There is an African proverb that says, “When you give someone a goat, you must also release the rope.” This wise saying warns against the tendency of benefactors to maintain control over what they claim to have relinquished. The ongoing political crisis in Rivers State is a clear reflection of this truth. Former Governor Nyesom Wike, minister of the FCT, anointed and supported Siminalayi Fubara as his successor, yet he has found it difficult to step aside and allow his protégé to govern independently. Instead, Rivers State has been plunged into political chaos, with a battle for supremacy between a former leader who refuses to let go and a sitting governor struggling to assert his authority.  Alas! The squabble has compelled President Bola Tinubu to recently declare a state of emergency in Rivers State, citing the prolonged political crisis and governance paralysis. Against the foregoing backdrop, it is not illogical to reason that had Wike truly released the “rope” after gifting the “goat,” Rivers State would have been enjoying political stability today.

Without a doubt, the Wike-Fubara crisis is not an isolated case; it is a symptom of a much deeper problem that has plagued Nigerian politics for decades. Across the country, the godfather-godson syndrome continues to wreak havoc on governance and development. In many instances, outgoing political leaders handpick successors, not necessarily based on competence, but on perceived loyalty and the ability to continue serving the interests of their political benefactors. However, once these successors assume office and begin to understand the weight of governance, they often seek to establish their own authority, leading to bitter power struggles.

We have seen this scenario play out in multiple states. In Lagos, President Bola Tinubu’s political dominance has ensured that successive governors remain firmly under his influence. Although Tinubu has successfully maintained control, not every godfather is as lucky. The conflict between former Lagos State Governor Akinwunmi Ambode and Tinubu led to Ambode’s political downfall when he sought to exercise independence. In Kano, a similar battle for supremacy occurred between former Governor Rabiu Kwankwaso and his successor, Abdullahi Ganduje. Their fallout created deep political divisions in the state. In Edo, Adams Oshiomhole and Godwin Obaseki went from allies to fierce political rivals, leading to an intense struggle that reshaped the political landscape of the state.

In fact, the godfather syndrome has proven to be one of the biggest threats to Nigeria’s democracy. Instead of allowing the electorate to choose their leaders, political heavyweights impose candidates who they believe will serve their interests. The result is that many governors come into office shackled by expectations that they must remain loyal to their predecessors rather than serve the people. This breeds mediocrity in governance, as the focus shifts from development to appeasing political benefactors.

Moreover, the battle for control often leads to instability, which in turn affects governance and service delivery. When a godfather and his successor fall out, the entire state apparatus is often thrown into turmoil. Political loyalists are divided, state assemblies become battlegrounds, and critical governance issues take a backseat to power struggles. The people, who should be the primary beneficiaries of governance, end up suffering the most.

Without a doubt, the crisis in Rivers State is particularly troubling because it highlights how political godfatherism can derail a state’s progress. Wike was a dominant force during his tenure as governor. He built a strong political structure and was instrumental in Fubara’s emergence as governor. However, instead of stepping back and allowing his successor to lead, Wike has continued to exert influence over the state’s affairs. Fubara, on the other hand, has gradually begun to assert his independence, leading to a bitter fallout between the two.

The Rivers State House of Assembly has been a key battleground in this crisis. Lawmakers loyal to Wike have clashed with those siding with Fubara, leading to legislative paralysis. The in-fighting has also affected governance, as key decisions and policies have been stalled due to the political crisis. Instead of focusing on development and governance, Rivers State has been consumed by political maneuvering and factional battles.

Had Wike truly allowed Fubara to govern without interference, Rivers State would have remained peaceful. The lesson here is clear: political godfathers must learn to let go. Once a leader has handed over power, they should step aside and allow their successor to govern independently. Anything short of this leads to unnecessary strife and instability.

In fact, political godfatherism is deeply entrenched in Nigeria’s political system. Many politicians see public office as an extension of their personal estates, and they are unwilling to relinquish control even after leaving office. This has led to a situation where many state governors operate under the influence of political heavyweights who dictate key decisions behind the scenes.

The only way to break this cycle is to strengthen Nigeria’s democratic institutions. Political parties must move away from the culture of imposition and allow internal democracy to thrive. The electorate must also demand accountability from their leaders and resist attempts to impose candidates who are merely stooges of powerful politicians. Until these changes occur, the problem of political godfatherism will continue to plague Nigeria’s democracy.

For Nigeria to move forward, political leaders must learn to embrace true leadership. True leadership is about service, not control. It is about mentoring the next generation of leaders and allowing them the freedom to govern independently. A good leader should not seek to manipulate or dictate to their successor but should instead offer guidance when sought and step aside when necessary.

The crisis in Rivers State serves as a cautionary tale. It is a reminder that power is transient and that no leader, no matter how influential, can hold onto it forever. Those who fail to understand this end up being consumed by the very system they seek to control.

The problem of political godfatherism is not just a state-level issue, it is a challenge that must be addressed before it escalates to the national level. If not checked, a similar crisis could rear its ugly head at the presidential level, throwing the entire country into chaos. Imagine a scenario where a former president installs a successor and then refuses to step aside, using political influence to control national affairs from behind the scenes. The consequences would be disastrous for Nigeria’s democracy, leading to instability at the highest levels of government.

To prevent this, decisive action must be taken to discourage the culture of political godfatherism. Institutions must be strengthened to ensure that power truly resides with the people and not with a select few individuals who manipulate the system to their advantage. Political leaders must be made to understand that governance is about service to the people, not about maintaining personal control over public office.

If Wike had left the rope after gifting the goat to Fubara, Rivers State would have been peaceful today. But the political crisis in Rivers is just one of many examples of how political godfatherism continues to undermine Nigeria’s democracy. From Lagos to Kano, from Edo to Anambra, the same story repeats itself: political benefactors refusing to let go, leading to instability and setbacks in governance.

Until Nigerian politicians learn that leadership is about service rather than control, the cycle of godfatherism and political conflict will continue. The people deserve better. Governance should not be a personal empire; it should be about delivering progress and development to those who elected leaders into office. If Nigerian leaders can embrace this simple truth, the country’s democracy will be the better for it.

The Northern Elders Forum (NEF) has asked President Bola Tinubu to reverse the state of emergency declared in Rivers state.

In a statement signed by Abubakar Jika Jiddere, the spokesperson of the forum on Friday, NEF said while the president is empowered under section 305 of the 1999 Constitution 1999 (as amended) to declare a state of emergency on the federation or any part of it, the situation in Rivers does not warrant the proclamation.

“Except perhaps for personal vendetta in alliance with the President’s serving Federal Minister of the FCT and the immediate past Governor of Rivers State, who has been in personal conflict with the suspended Governor for selfish interests rather than public good,” the statement reads.

“The maintenance of peace, public order and corporate existence of the Federal Republic of Nigeria cannot be compromised on personal aggrandizement and should be the primary concern of each Nigerian.

“As such any form of disturbance in any part of the country will have serious negative tendency and impact on the whole country.

“The Federal Government and the President in particular must find a viable and permanent solution to the political crisis in Rivers State, and also immediately lift the suspension of the Governor, Deputy Governor and State Assembly to restore the spirit of democracy, justice and public order.”

The forum advised the federal government not to allow the escalation of political disputes in some other places such as Kano, where there has been a tussle in the state’s traditional institution.

The elders advised Tinubu “to resolve political disputes through negotiation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration and adjudication”.

They warned that “the naked and brutal abuse of political power can only pose imminent danger to the democratic processes in Nigeria which is currently facing serious numerous challenges”.

On Tuesday, Tinubu declared a state of emergency in Rivers and appointed Ibok-Ete Ibas, a retired naval chief, as sole administrator for the state.

On Thursday, the national assembly ratified the president’s decision through voice votes.

Coconut water, often hailed as a natural electrolyte-rich drink, has become a popular choice for hydration and health benefits. But is it truly as healthy as it’s made out to be?

Let’s take a closer look at its nutritional profile and potential health benefits.

Nutritional Profile

Coconut water is a low-calorie, naturally sweet beverage derived from the liquid found inside young green coconuts. It’s packed with essential nutrients, including potassium, magnesium, calcium, and vitamin C, making it a natural alternative to sports drinks. A single serving (about 8 ounces) typically contains:

Calories: 45-60

Potassium: 600 mg (about 15% of the daily recommended intake)

Sodium: 200-250 mg

Carbohydrates: 9 grams

Sugar: 6 grams

Magnesium: 60 mg

Health Benefits

Hydration

Coconut water is an excellent hydrating beverage. It contains natural electrolytes like potassium and sodium, which help replenish lost fluids after exercise, making it a natural alternative to sports drinks. It’s especially useful for rehydration after physical activity, particularly for those who want to avoid the added sugars and artificial ingredients in many commercial beverages.

Rich In Potassium

Coconut water is one of the best natural sources of potassium, an essential mineral that helps regulate fluid balance, muscle function, and blood pressure. Potassium helps prevent muscle cramps and supports heart health, which is why it’s commonly recommended after intense physical activity.

Supports Heart Health

The magnesium found in coconut water plays a role in maintaining a healthy heart by supporting normal blood pressure and proper muscle function. Some studies suggest that coconut water can help lower blood pressure, especially in people with high blood pressure, thanks to its high potassium and magnesium content.

Rich In Antioxidants

Coconut water contains antioxidants that can help combat oxidative stress and inflammation in the body. Antioxidants neutralize harmful free radicals, which can reduce the risk of chronic diseases like heart disease and cancer. Regular consumption of coconut water may promote overall wellness and protect cells from damage.

Aid In Digestion

Coconut water is a natural source of fiber, which is beneficial for digestion. It can help prevent constipation and support healthy gut function. Additionally, the potassium in coconut water can balance electrolytes in the digestive system, helping to alleviate stomach discomfort or bloating.

Considerations and Potential Drawbacks

While coconut water is healthy for many people, there are a few considerations:

Sugar Content: While it’s a natural sugar, the 6 grams of sugar per serving might not be suitable for people who need to monitor their sugar intake, such as those with diabetes.

Caloric Intake: Though low-calorie, drinking coconut water excessively can add up. It’s best enjoyed in moderation as part of a balanced diet.

Electrolyte Imbalance: For people with kidney problems or those on medications that affect potassium levels, drinking too much coconut water could pose a risk due to its high potassium content. Always consult a doctor if you have concerns.

Incorporating coconut water into your diet can offer a variety of health benefits, from enhanced hydration to improved heart health and digestion. Its natural electrolytes, antioxidants, and low-calorie profile make it an excellent choice for people seeking a healthy, refreshing beverage. However, like any food or drink, it’s important to consume it in moderation and pay attention to your body’s individual needs.

If you’re looking for a natural, refreshing drink to hydrate and nourish your body, coconut water is a great choice!

Nigerian actress, Regina Daniels has advised her followers on steps to take if their plan A fails.

The actress gave the advice amid separation rumours from her billionaire husband, Senator Ned Nwoko.

DAILY POST reports that Regina Daniels had dropped her marital name after deleting Nwoko from her page and his pictures from her official page on social media platforms.

The development came after rumours that Nwoko was planning to marry actress Chika Ike after welcoming a child with her. A speculation denied by the senator.

In a post shared on her Instagram page on Thursday, the actress advised her followers to always have options. Reminding them that the English alphabet consists of 26 letters (A – Z).

She wrote; “If Plan A fails, remember there are 25 other letters”.

[DailyPost]

Reality TV star and actress Bam Bam has shared a troubling encounter with Nigerian police officers, describing their behavior as “inappropriate and forceful.”

In a post on X (formerly Twitter), Bam Bam revealed that after completing a movie shoot, she was stopped by police officers for no reason, ordered to step out of her car, and allegedly asked for money.

Expressing her discomfort and frustration, the actress questioned what might have happened if she had refused their demand. 

She emphasized the need for citizens to feel safe around law enforcement, rather than intimidated or harassed.

Bam Bam also highlighted the difference between respectful requests and coercive demands, stressing that tips should be earned through good service, not claimed as an entitlement.

She wrote: “Just wrapped up from a movie set, heading home, and Nigerian police stopped us for no reason—forced us to step down only to start begging for money. What kind of nonsense is this? If we refused, what would they have done?

“He was a bit inappropriate and forceful. I came down, greeted him, he asked if I was okay, I said I’m fine just tired. He said “show me love now” he could have asked from the car window, but my assistant and I were down, we couldn’t drive off so I was forced to give something.

“We shouldn’t see the police and feel uncomfortable but safe. Asking and demanding are two different things. Feeling entitled about your money and tipping because they were respectful and actually doing their job are two different things.

Seven vessels carrying imported Premium Motor Spirit, popularly called petrol, are expected to berth at seaports along the nation’s borders between Monday, March 17, and Sunday, March 23, Saturday PUNCH reports.

According to a document obtained from the Nigerian Port Authority on Thursday, these vessels carrying 115,000 metric tonnes representing 154.22 million litres of PMS will bring in products through three seaports to improve fuel supply nationwide.

The latest development follows an exclusive report by The PUNCH, which disclosed that the landing cost of imported PMS dropped to N797 per litre.

It also comes amidst the suspension of the sales of petroleum products in naira by the Dangote Petroleum Refinery following a stalled renegotiation of the naira-for-crude deal with the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited.

Domestic crude oil refiners argued that the halt in crude supply in naira was the latest ploy to frustrate the Dangote refinery and bring back the full importation of refined petroleum products.

The National Publicity Secretary of the Crude Oil Refinery-owners Association of Nigeria, Eche Idoko, disclosed that suspending the deal defeats the efforts of all stakeholders to achieve energy security in-country.

He said some persons were aggrieved by the continuous reduction in petrol prices by the Dangote refinery and only used monopolistic talks to bring back importation as an alternative.

True to this fact, the continuous importation of refined products has persisted despite improving local capacity.

Recall that the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority recently stated that the country’s three operational refineries contribute less than 50 per cent of the nation’s daily petrol consumption, with the shortfall being filled with imported products.

An analysis of the document from NPA showed that the commodities landed at the Tincan port in Lagos, the Lekki Deep Seaport in Lagos and the Calabar port in Cross River State.

The document also revealed that the Dangote refinery imported 654,766 metric tonnes of crude oil within the same period.

The first shipment carrying 20,000 metric tonnes of PMS allocated to the West African Port Services berthed at the Dangote terminal on Monday, March 17, 2025, at 4:03 pm.

On the same day, two vessels conveying 20,000 metric tonnes respectively berthed at the Tincan and Calabar seaports.

This was followed by the arrival of a 20,000 metric-tonne Watson vessel on Thursday, March 20, at 3:18 pm. It berthed at the Ecomarine terminal and was handled by a Kach maritime agent.

Similarly, a Binta Saleh ship was scheduled to berth at the Tincan port in Lagos carrying 5,000 metric tonnes of imported petrol on Friday, March 21 at midnight.

On Saturday, March 22, at 11:06 am, another vessel carrying 15,000 metric tonnes of fuel will berth at the Calabar port. It was assigned to Peak Shipping as its agent.

At the same port, a vessel carrying 15,000 metric tonnes of fuel will arrive at the Eco marine terminal on Sunday at 5:10 pm. This means the seven vessels should bring in 115,000 metric tonnes.

Going by the conversion rate of 1,341 litres to one metric tonne, it, therefore, implies that the marketers are bringing in about 154.22 million litres of petrol.

Meanwhile, depot owners have continued to effect an increase in the loading cost of petrol and other refined petroleum products at their depots.

An analysis of data obtained by our correspondent revealing petrol price movements at loading depots on Thursday showed that Rainoil Depot increased its price from N835 to N860 per litre, and MEN depot effected an increase to N860 per litre despite not making sales the previous day.

Pinnacle Depot made a similar price change from N835 to N860 per litre, while Aiteo and Nipco changed their prices to N856 and N860 per litre, respectively, from N835.

Senate President Godswill Akpabio has debunked insinuations of a $15,000 bribe allegedly parceled to senators to endorse the proclamation of a state of emergency on Rivers State. He has described the rumours as part of a hate campaign directed against his person.

Akpabio spoke for the first time on the swirling rumour in the social media space that he facilitated the disbursement of the dollar for votes in his Maitama residence during the breaking of fast with senators.

Saturday Vanguard reports that the Senate President was alleged to have facilitated the disbursement of the dollars on two consecutive days; first $5,000 on Tuesday and then $10,000 on Wednesday, the eve of the vote on the proclamation.

However, dismissing the allegation as part of the campaign of hate and malice against his person, Akpabio speaking through his Special Adviser on Media, Hon Eseme Eyiboh said:

“I am aware and it is true that since Senator Godswill Akpabio, the president of the Senate assumed that position he has been breaking fast. He did it last year, he did it this year, so why is it turning it into a rumour?”

Asking why Akpabio would be giving out dollars to his colleagues, he continued:
“On the issue of the dollars, he is giving the money for what? I am aware of the breaking of the fast but I can tell you I am not aware and it is not true of the dollars, whether $5,000 or $10,000, people are just conjuring it to be able to give flavour to their malice and hate campaign.

“People are just conjuring the story of the $5,000, $10,000 to add flavour to their malice and hate campaign. He has been doing it. He did it last year, so why is this one associated with money,” Eyiboh asked?

Saturday Vanguard reports that the Senate and the House of Representatives passed the proclamation on a state of emergency in Rivers State with a unanimous voice vote on Thursday.

 [Vanguard]

The Nigeria Customs Service (NCS) says its operatives intercepted an undeclared $193,000 at the Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport, Abuja.

In a statement on Friday, Abdullahi Maiwada, the NCS spokesperson, said the undeclared currency was concealed inside a carton of yoghurt.

Maiwada noted that the passenger arrived in Nigeria on an Ethiopian Airlines flight, No. 951, from Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

He said the undeclared funds violated the Anti-Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 and the Nigeria Customs Service Act 2023, which require travellers carrying over $10,000 or equivalent in negotiable instruments to declare it upon arrival or departure.

“Acting on intelligence, customs officers conducted a detailed inspection, leading to the discovery of the concealed cash,” the statement reads.

“The seized money has been formally handed over to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for further investigation and possible prosecution.

“As required by law, we are handing over the forfeited funds to the EFCC for further necessary action.”

Maiwada reiterated the NCS commitment to enforcing financial regulations and preventing illicit financial flows across Nigeria’s borders.

He urged travellers to comply with the legal requirement to declare any cash or negotiable instruments exceeding the approved threshold when entering or leaving the country.

[TheCable]

There is no denying the fact that the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State is an ill-advised and disproportionate measure that threatens to escalate an already tense situation in the state. It is akin to using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, a classic case of applying a bigger problem to solve a smaller one. The crisis in Rivers, while serious, does not warrant the draconian measure of a state of emergency, which has historically been reserved for situations where a state has become completely ungovernable due to insurgency, war, or natural disaster.

Against the backdrop of the foregoing, it is germane to recall that Rivers State is a crucial economic hub in Nigeria that has been embroiled in a political crisis stemming from the power tussle between Governor Siminalayi Fubara and his predecessor, Nyesom Wike, who now serves as the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory. Thus, the friction between the two political gladiators has spilled over into the state’s legislature, judiciary, and even the security apparatus, leading to a breakdown in governance.

However, while the situation is concerning, it has not degenerated into total lawlessness. The courts are still functioning, the security agencies are still in operation, and economic activities have not ground to a halt. The political instability is largely an elite struggle for control, and while it has trickled down to affect governance, it has not created the kind of anarchic conditions that justify a state of emergency.

Declaring a state of emergency in Rivers would mean suspending democratic institutions, imposing military rule, and giving the federal government sweeping powers over the state. Historically, states of emergency in Nigeria have led to further crises rather than solving them. For instance, the declaration of a state of emergency in Plateau and Ekiti states in the early 2000s did not yield lasting peace but rather deepened political tensions.

The implications of such a declaration are dire. First, it would disenfranchise the people of Rivers by sidelining their elected government. Second, it would set a dangerous precedent where political conflicts are met with authoritarian responses rather than dialogue and democratic solutions. Third, it could have economic repercussions, as investors would see Rivers as an unstable environment, leading to capital flight and further economic downturn.

Without a doubt, the crisis in Rivers is a political problem that requires a political solution. In fact, the crisis in Rivers is fundamentally political, and political problems require political solutions. This is as the issues at play include loyalty struggles, governance style differences, and conflicting interests within the ruling party. These are challenges that should be resolved through dialogue, negotiation, and institutional mechanisms, not military intervention.

Rather than imposing a state of emergency, the federal government should facilitate a roundtable discussion involving all stakeholders, including Governor Fubara, Minister Wike, lawmakers, traditional rulers, and civil society leaders. Mediation efforts should be aimed at ensuring that the democratic institutions in the state function optimally and that governance is not held hostage by personal ambitions.

Additionally, the judiciary must play its role in resolving the legal disputes arising from the crisis. The courts should be allowed to function without political interference so that legal interpretations of the unfolding events can provide clarity and direction.

Irrespective of the fact that Nigeria’s democracy is not new to incidents of declaration of state of emergency, the latest declaration in Rivers, no doubt, highlights the dangerousness of its pronouncement for Nigerian Democracy. 

In fact, the recently declared state of emergency in Rivers, will no doubt further set a precedent that could be exploited in other states facing political crises. This is as Nigerian politics is replete with conflicts between governors and their predecessors, rival factions within parties, and power struggles at different levels of government. Therefore, if the federal government responds to such conflicts with emergency declarations, it could mark the beginning of an era of arbitrary interventions, weakening Nigeria’s democratic structure.

Moreover, the security forces, which are already overstretched with issues of insurgency in the North-East, banditry in the North-West, and separatist agitations in the South-East, should not be dragged into what is essentially a political conflict. Deploying federal forces to Rivers in an emergency scenario would further militarize governance and increase the risk of human rights abuses.

Against the backdrop of the foregoing view, it is not a misnomer to opine that Nigeria’s democracy is still evolving, and that part of that evolution is learning to handle political crises within the framework of democratic institutions. The situation in Rivers, while challenging, is not unmanageable within the bounds of democracy. The federal government must resist the temptation to employ excessive force where political engagement is needed. Declaring a state of emergency in Rivers would be a classic case of using a bigger problem to solve a smaller one, and history has shown that such approaches often create more chaos than they resolve. Instead of exacerbating the crisis, the focus should be on dialogue, institutional reforms, and upholding the rule of law. That is the only sustainable path to peace and stability in Rivers State.