PRESIDENT Bola Tinubu has commended the National Assembly for “its decisive and patriotic ratification of the State of Emergency proclamation in Rivers State”, a critical step to restoring stability after a protracted political crisis that paralysed governance in the state and endangered national economic security for over 15 months.

The President specifically commended the leadership of the National Assembly, the President of the Senate, Godswill Akpabio, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Tajudeen Abbas, other principal officers and members “for prioritising the security and welfare of Rivers State people above partisan interests and other considerations.”

A statement by the presidential spokesman, Bayo Onanuga, said the President “further acknowledged the lawmakers’ diligent review of classified security briefings, underscoring the urgent need for intervention to prevent further escalation.”

According to the statement: “The crisis in Rivers State was at a perilous tipping point, threatening the security of vital oil and gas installations and undermining the national economy and the significant progress we have made in the reforms initiated since our administration commenced in May 2023.

“As I detailed in my address to the nation on 18 March, the near-total collapse of governance, threats to federal economic assets, and the risk of widespread violence left no room for hesitation. This emergency measure is a lifeline to safeguard livelihoods, secure critical infrastructure, and restore democratic accountability.”

The President affirmed that the six-month emergency will empower the newly-appointed Sole Administrator to stabilise Rivers State, address systemic breakdowns, and facilitate dialogue among conflicting parties.

President Tinubu also reaffirmed his administration’s commitment to deepening collaboration with the National Assembly to advance peace, economic resilience, and equitable development across Nigeria.

“Today’s decision exemplifies what our nation can achieve when unity of purpose and patriotism guide the action of leaders. We remain steadfast in pursuing a safer, more prosperous Nigeria—one where every citizen’s potential is safeguarded and nurtured,” he said.

He thanked all Nigerians for their understanding and urged all stakeholders to support the restoration of peace in Rivers State.

[Vanguard]

Nigeria has moved up one place to 91st in the latest global passport ranking out of 199 countries.

Although the rating marks a slight improvement for Nigeria’s global image, travel access for citizens remains stiff with the country retaining its visa-free access to only 45 nations — same as last year.

Nigeria was ranked 91st alongside Ethiopia and Myanmar, two countries battling incursions from armed groups, according to the Henley Passport Index for 2025.

The Henley Passport Index is updated monthly based on exclusive data from the International Air Transport Authority (IATA).

In Africa, the Nigerian passport was only ranked above passports from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), South Sudan, Sudan, Eritrea, Libya, and Somalia.

This makes the Nigerian passport the seventh least desirable travel document from Africa. In 2024, it was the sixth.

The rating comes as Yusuf Tuggar, minister of foreign affairs, said the ministry had succeeded in redeeming Nigeria’s image abroad.

Tuggar spoke on Thursday at the ministerial press briefing held in Abuja.

“The next stage is to exalt and glorify Nigeria’s image,” the minister said as he recounted how the ministry negotiated the release of wrongfully imprisoned Nigerians in unnamed countries.

Tuggar did not clarify how the ministry would achieve this goal but noted that the country was committed to applying ethical considerations in implementing its foreign policy while liaising with other nations.

In July 2023, Nigeria was ranked 90th on the global passport list but fell to 97th position below African countries like Burundi, Cameroon, and Liberia, showing a significant shift in the nation’s visa policy.

The passport later made a comeback in 2024 climbing to the 92nd spot.

Meanwhile, Seychelles retained its spot as the most favoured African passport with an improved ranking of 22 — two spots higher than the previous year — with access to an increased 156 countries.

Singapore remained the most powerful passport with access to 193 nations while Afghanistan still held last with access to 25 countries.

[TheCAble]

With President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State on Tuesday, March 18, the Renaissance consortium—a group of local investors that recently acquired Shell’s onshore oil and gas assets in Nigeria for a staggering $2.4 billion—now finds itself in turbulent waters.

In hindsight, Shell, Mobil, TotalEnergies, Agip, and other major oil companies that divested from onshore assets in Nigeria and moved their operations offshore were remarkably foresighted. Like the mythical Nostradamus, they seemed to have foreseen the future and exited just in time to avoid the very risks that Renaissance now faces—risks of escalation into another wave of militancy and insecurity in the Niger Delta if not properly managed.

If chaos takes hold in the Nigerdelta, the Renaissance consortium, which invested heavily in Shell’s assets, along with Seplat Energy, which also recently acquired ExxonMobil’s onshore oil assets for $1.28 billion, will be among the hardest hit. That is underscored by the fact that the broader oil and gas sector now faces heightened uncertainty, as what was once a relatively stable business environment risks returning to a militarized zone that it once used to be before president Musa Yar’adua of blessed memory quelled the fire through innovative policies and programmes for the restive youths during his tenure 2007-2010.

As we know, businesses thrive on stability, and insecurity breeds uncertainty. The fallout from this development could reverse Nigeria’s recent economic gains—causing inflation, which had been trending downward, to spike again. The naira, which had been stabilizing against foreign currencies, may once more come under pressure due to the turmoil in Rivers State.

Other recent entrants into Nigeria’s oil and gas sector, such as Tony Elumelu’s Heirs Energy—which purchased Shell’s OML 17 for approximately $1.1 billion a few years ago—may also find themselves in a precarious situation. Similarly, Aliko Dangote, whose $20 billion, 650,000 barrels-per-day capacity refinery may not be located in the Niger Delta, could still face significant challenges in securing crude oil feedstock if the crisis disrupts production in the oil/gas rich Niger delta region.

This development is particularly concerning given the extensive efforts President Tinubu’s administration has put into restoring security in the Niger Delta. His policies, especially the Nigeria Upstream Perroleum Regulatory Commission, (NUPRC) led by Gbenga Komolafe’s initiative to ramp up production by one (1) million barrels within 24 months which had successfully increased oil production from approximately 1.3 million barrels per day before Tinubu took office to nearly 1.8 million barrels per day in february. The declaration of a state of emergency in the region now threatens to undermine this significant achievement.

The Niger Delta Crisis: A Threat to Economic Stability

It is worth recalling that Nigeria’s previously disappointing oil output was not just due to low investment—exacerbated by the prolonged delay in passing the Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB), which took about two decades to become law—but also due to the activities of sophisticated international oil theft syndicates operating in the Niger Delta.

To the Tinubu administration’s credit, a coordinated effort by Nigeria’s security agencies, led by the Office of the National Security Adviser (NSA) in collaboration with the military and the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPC Ltd), successfully dismantled these criminal networks. This crackdown played a crucial role in ramping up production, enabling Nigeria to meet its OPEC production quota and boost foreign exchange earnings.

The reality is simple: the more crude oil Nigeria produces, the stronger the country’s foreign exchange reserves become, which in turn stabilizes the economy, reduces inflation, and strengthens the naira against foreign currencies.

Given these hard-earned economic gains, the declaration of a state of emergency in the Niger Delta is a major setback. It threatens to undo much of the progress made, which is deeply unfortunate.

A Political Clash Turned Socioeconomic Disaster

What is particularly baffling is how a mere political dispute—essentially a struggle for supremacy between a godfather and his godson—was allowed to escalate into a crisis with such grave socioeconomic consequences for the entire country.

One is worried that despite his well-known political acumen, President Tinubu has permitted what should have been a minor local political squabble—an ego-driven contest between politicians—to snowball into a situation that could destabilize Nigeria’s economic and security landscape.

The challenge of godfatherism is not new to Nigerian politics. Since the return to democracy in 1999, such conflicts have repeatedly surfaced.

For instance, in Oyo State, former Governor Rasheed Ladoja was allegedly impeached in 2006 at the behest of his godfather, Alhaji Lamidi Adedibu, who reportedly orchestrated his removal after Ladoja refused to grant him unfettered access to a significant portion of the state’s security vote. Even after the Court of Appeal reinstated him in 2007, Adedibu ensured Ladoja never won reelection.

Similarly, in Anambra State in 2003, then-Governor Chris Ngige faced a brutal political battle with his godfather, Chief Chris Uba, who allegedly had him kidnapped and forced to sign a resignation letter under duress for refusing to repay the billions of naira Uba claimed to have spent securing his election.

While these incidents are among the most well-known, many other states—including Lagos, Kano, lmo,Bauchi, and Sokoto—have had their fair share of godfatherism and the conflicts it breeds.

However, none of these previous disputes was allowed to spiral into a full-blown crisis of the magnitude currently unfolding in Rivers State.

A Call for Strategic Intervention

At a time when Nigeria is striving to stabilize its economy, strengthen its currency, and attract investment, the last thing the country needs is an escalation of political conflicts that could disrupt oil production and erode economic gains.

Moving forward, it is imperative that this crisis is swiftly de-escalated through strategic intervention, ensuring that political disagreements do not morph into national security and economic threats. The lessons from past conflicts should serve as a guide for resolving the current situation before it causes irreparable damage.

Managing the Rivers State Crisis: A Path to Stability

President Bola Tinubu’s efforts to mediate between the warring factions in Rivers State—Nyesom Wike, the godfather, and Siminalayi Fubara, the godson—have been evident. His most recent attempt came on March 14, when he publicly urged Fubara to adopt a conciliatory approach while hosting Rivers State elders and leaders at Aso Rock. It is likely that he also privately counseled Wike, the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, to de-escalate tensions and avoid plunging the volatile Niger Delta into chaos—a warning that appears to have gone unheeded, given the recent attacks on oil pipelines following Fubara’s looming impeachment.

The failure of both parties to heed the president’s advice ultimately led to the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State. Tinubu justified his intervention by stating that the state—and the Niger Delta as a whole—was on the brink of widespread unrest, particularly with critical oil infrastructure coming under attack. While regrettable, this drastic step may still be remedied through a well-coordinated response from all three branches of government—the executive, legislature, and judiciary—in the broader interest of Rivers State, the Niger Delta, and Nigeria as a whole.

Balancing Crisis Management and Democracy

Given Nigeria’s democratic trajectory, now approaching 25 consecutive years of practice since 1999, strict legal interpretations should not override pragmatic solutions that serve the national interest. Instead of an extended emergency rule, a more balanced approach could involve reducing the suspension of democratic governance in Rivers State from six months to just one month. During this period, all parties should be brought to the negotiating table for a binding resolution, facilitated by representatives from the three arms of government and crisis management experts.

The reality of the situation is that neither the executive nor the legislature benefits from the state of emergency. Both the governor and state lawmakers have been stripped of their mandates, effectively sidelining the democratic institutions in Rivers State. More concerning is that the people of Rivers State have been deprived of their civic rights, effectively rendering them disenfranchised. This situation is further complicated by a Supreme Court ruling halting funding to the state, which, in legal terms, suggests that Rivers State currently lacks a legitimate government.

Without the emergency rule declared by President Tinubu, the Supreme Court’s decision would have resulted in a financial paralysis for Rivers state, with no funds available to pay civil servants, legislators, and public officials. In a state with a population exceeding five million, such a scenario would have been catastrophic. However, with a sole administrator now in place—enabled by the state of emergency—Rivers State will still receive its allocation from the Federation Account at the end of the month, ensuring that salaries and government operations continue uninterrupted.

A Strategic Political Move?

President Tinubu’s declaration of emergency rule, though unexpected, may have been a strategic move aimed at shocking both factions in the conflict into a resolution. A shock therapy of sorts. The abrupt suspension of democratic governance sends a strong message that continued political infighting comes at a high cost. This drastic step could force the feuding parties to prioritize peace and stability over personal rivalries. In light of this, it is imperative for Tinubu to further leverage his political acumen as an adept strategist to swiftly end this power struggle and prevent further destabilization of the Niger Delta, which remains Nigeria’s economic lifeline.

The Military Factor in Emergency Rule

One striking pattern in Nigeria’s political history is the recurring appointment of retired military officers as administrators during periods of emergency rule. Since the first state of emergency was declared under Prime Minister Tafawa Balewa, successive leaders—including Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo, Goodluck Jonathan, and now Tinubu—have continued this trend. The appointment of retired Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas as the emergency administrator in Rivers State follows this precedent.

This raises an important question: Why do Nigerian leaders instinctively turn to ex-military officers in times of political crises? Does this suggest a lack of trust in politicians or accomplished leaders from other sectors? Notably, when military rulers have had to step aside, they have sometimes chosen private sector leaders instead of fellow military officers. For instance, when General Ibrahim Babangida relinquished power in 1993, he appointed Chief Ernest Shonekan—a corporate executive—as head of the Interim National Government.

If military rulers have shown a willingness to transition power to civilian business leaders, why do democratic governments hesitate to appoint competent individuals from outside the military during emergency situations? This long-standing pattern deserves scrutiny, especially in a maturing democracy like Nigeria’s.

Ultimately, one hopes that with wise counsel and decisive leadership, the current crisis in Rivers State will not spiral further, and Nigeria’s economic recovery—marked by declining inflation and a stabilizing naira—will not be derailed. More importantly, Nigeria should strive to ensure that no unelected military officer is ever again called upon to replace a democratically elected leader, either at the state or national level.

Magnus Onyibe is an entrepreneur, public policy analyst, author, democracy advocate, development strategist, alumnus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Massachusetts, USA, and a former commissioner in the Delta State government.

The portrait showing Sir Siminalayi Fubara as governor of Rivers State was intact at Government House, Port Harcourt, when sole Administrator of Rivers, Admiral Ekwe Ibok Ibas (rtd), settled down for his first day in office.

President Bola Tinubu had appointed Ibas after declaring State of Emergency in Rivers as a result of the protracted political crisis in the state.

The president had suspended Fubara and members of the Rivers House of Assembly for six months, citing break down of law and order.

After the president swore him in on Wednesday, Ibas promised to restore law and order in Rivers.

In a chat with State House correspondents after he was sworn in, the retired naval chief said, “We know the circumstances that led to why we are here, and Mr President made it clear in his broadcast. If the main issue is that of maintaining law and order in the state, I think for any meaningful activities to take place in Rivers State, that is the utmost task that I have. We will work together with other stakeholders to ensure that we bring peace, order, security and stability to the people and government of Rivers State and Nigeria at large.”

The Sole Administrator was said to have arrived at the Port Harcourt International Airport, Omagwa, by 11.30am and proceeded straight to Government House, Port Harcourt where he was received by the Government House staff.

However, at the exco chamber, the pictures of Tinubu and Fubara were seen carefully hung.

[Daily Trust]

The presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, in the 2023 General Election, Atiku Abubakar, has announced the formation of a coalition of opposition political parties to unseat President Bola Tinubu in 2027.

The former Vice President of Nigeria, Atiku, made this known while responding to a question on behalf of the opposition leaders at an ongoing press conference at the Yar’Adua Centre in Abuja.

He said, “Yes, this is the birth of the coalition of opposition ahead of 2027.”

This announcement comes amid the chaos in Rivers State.

Recall that on Tuesday, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu declared a state of emergency in Rivers State.

Tinubu’s state of emergency declaration has sparked condemnations among Nigerians.

See full speech below:
JOINT PRESS CONFERENCE BY CONCERNED LEADERS AND POLITICAL STAKEHOLDERS IN NIGERIA ON THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL DECLARATION OF A STATE OF EMERGENCY IN RIVERS STATE BY PRESIDENT BOLA AHMED TINUBU

Fellow Nigerians,

We, a cross-section of leaders and political stakeholders from across the country, have come together to address the dangerous and unconstitutional actions taken by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, GCFR, on March 18, 2025—to wit, the declaration of a State of Emergency in Rivers State and the illegal suspension of the Governor, Deputy Governor, and the State House of Assembly.

This action is not only unlawful but a clear attempt to subvert democracy and impose federal control over a duly elected state government. We strongly condemn this development and call on all Nigerians of good conscience to resist this brazen assault on constitutional governance.

Seemingly, Mr President’s illegal and unconstitutional proclamation was driven by the protracted insidious political crisis in Rivers State, culminating in the recent ruling of the Supreme Court. Ordinarily, all parties involved would have been expected to follow laid-down procedures, motivated by good faith, to quickly implement the judgment of the highest court of the land. We note that Governor Fubara’s disposition is geared towards full implementation of the ruling of the Supreme Court, despite provocative statements from opposing quarters.

It is also notable that Mr President’s broadcast to the nation on 18th March 2025 betrayed his bias and is infra dig of the sophisticated communication expected from the highest office in the land. By so doing, the President dragged himself and his highly exalted office into the arena of the political brawl, thereby denigrating his high office through inelegant language, predisposed excessiveness and malignant deportment.

The Constitutional Violations

1.Illegal Removal of a Governor and State Assembly

The Nigerian Constitution does not empower the President to remove an elected Governor, Deputy Governor, or State Assembly under any circumstances. The procedure for removing a Governor is clearly outlined in Section 188 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) through an impeachment process initiated by the State House of Assembly—not by presidential proclamation.

2. Misuse of Section 305 on State of Emergency

Section 305 of the Constitution allows the President to declare a State of Emergency only in extreme cases where public safety, national security, or Nigeria’s sovereignty is at serious risk. However, it does not grant him the power to suspend elected officials or to demolish democratic structures as is currently being attempted.

Furthermore, Section 305(1) states that any proclamation of emergency is subject to the provisions of the Constitution—meaning it cannot override the tenure and removal procedures of a Governor.

3. Failure to Meet Constitutional Requirements for Emergency Rule

The conditions under Section 305(3) for declaring a state of emergency include:

War or external aggression

Breakdown of public order and safety

Natural disasters or any other grave emergency threatening Nigeria’s corporate existence

None of these conditions exist in current circumstances in Rivers State. There is no war, no widespread violence, and no breakdown of law and order warranting emergency rule.

4. Failure to Follow Due Process

Even if an emergency declaration were valid (which it is not), it would still require a two-thirds majority approval of ALL members of the National Assembly—that is, at least, 72 Senators and 240 members of the House of Representatives. If this approval is not secured, the proclamation must automatically cease to have effect.

5.Alternative Legal Avenues Were Ignored

If the issue was the dysfunction of the Rivers State House of Assembly, the President could have encouraged the National Assembly to intervene under Section 11 of the Constitution. However, even under such an intervention, the Governor and Deputy Governor cannot be removed by any arm of government except through constitutional means, as the proviso to S. 11(4) clearly provides.

A Manufactured Crisis for Political Control

This State of Emergency declaration is not about security—it is about power. The disagreements within Rivers State stem from the defection of 27 Assembly members from the PDP to the APC, their loss of seats under constitutional provisions, and the subsequent political manoeuvring to undermine the Governor’s mandate.

Rather than allowing the law to take its course, the federal government has engineered a crisis to justify this unconstitutional action. The excuse of pipeline vandalism—an issue squarely under the control of federal security agencies and privately contracted security firms—is laughable. If security breaches are the concern, the first question should be: Who controls the police, the military, and the DSS? The Governor or the President?

Our Demand and Call to Action

1.Immediate Reversal: We call on President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to immediately revoke this unconstitutional proclamation and reinstate the elected Governor, Deputy Governor, and State Assembly of Rivers State.

2.National Assembly’s Rejection: We call on patriotic Senators and Representatives to vote against this illegal action when it comes before them for approval. The National Assembly must not be used to legitimise an unconstitutional power grab.

3.Judicial Intervention: We urge the judiciary to act swiftly in striking down this proclamation, as it sets a dangerous precedent that could be used to arbitrarily remove any Governor in the future.

4.Nigerians Must Defend Democracy: We call on all civil society organisations, political groups, and Nigerians of good conscience to stand firm in the defence of this democracy that we have all toiled to build. Rivers State is not a conquered territory, and Nigeria is not a dictatorship requiring the replacement of an ELECTED GOVERNOR with a MILITARY ADMINISTRATOR.

Conclusion

A peaceful Niger Delta is critical to the economic health and stability of Nigeria. The federal government should not manufacture political crises that could disrupt this fragile stability.

We must never allow personal political interests to override the principles of federalism, democracy, and constitutional governance. This is not just about Rivers State—it is about the future of Nigeria’s democracy.

We thank you all.

The President of the Nigerian Senate, Godswill Obot Akpabio and Senator Seriake Dickson were, on Thursday, locked up in a heated argument over the provision of Senate Rules in the handling of debate on the State of Emergency in Rivers State.

As the Senate convened for plenary, Leader Michael Bamidele Opeyemi moved a motion for the Order Paper to be re-ordered to enable the Senate to handle the debate on the state of emergency before any other motion itemized for legislative action.

As Bamidele stood to point out the relevant order, Seriake Dickson\, representing Bayelsa Central Senatorial District and former governor of Bayelsa State raised a point of order, to which Akpabio was hesitant to oblige.

The angry Akpabio reminded Seriake Dickson in a witty manner, how he watched him on television saying he would not go the way of the Senate on the state of emergency in Rivers, even as Dickson insisted on getting the Senate President’s attention through a point of order.

Akpabio said: “Senator Seriake Dickson, let’s not argue, if we argue it won’t be good for any of us.

“We are all distinguished people, you were a former governor, I was a former governor. Please turn off your mic and sit down. I watched you on television. You said, whatever the Senate does, the Senate will never go with you.

“I said you said whatever the Senate does, the Senate will never have your vote.

“I don’t know but if you have already made up your mind to go on television when the Senate has not done anything or considered any issue, I am not arguing with you, but I say, please allow me to preside.

Replying to the Senate President, Seriake Dickson said: “Mr Senate President, you know we must have mutual respect for all our colleagues, and I do have regard for you, particularly, as our presiding officer and I think that should be reciprocal.”

Dickson said the point of order he raised was to draw the attention of Senators to the provision on the need to first break into a closed-door meeting.

The motion to close the door was immediately raised by the Senate Leader and seconded by the minority leader, Senator Abba Moro and the Senate went into a closed-door session.

[DailyPost]

Gospel musician Testimony Jaga has shared testimony of how he gave his life to Christ after a life-changing experience in jail.

In 2011, Jaga said he was wrongfully arrested and jailed for a crime he didn’t commit.

Speaking with Pulse, Jaga said he had been living with a friend who promised to help his music career, but things took a drastic turn when some people came to their house and arrested him for stealing along with everyone else in the house, despite being innocent.

This experience made him realise the harsh reality of life, and he eventually found solace in his faith.

After spending six months in jail, Jaga was cleared of all charges and released.

This marked a turning point in his life, as he decided to give his life to Christ.

He said: “In 2011, I gave my life to Christ after I left jail. I found myself in jail, not because I was a thief or anything. I was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

“Some people wanted to go do something, you know, like stealing. They came to the house where I was staying. I was sharing a house with someone who had promised to sign me.

“I was there, and stuff like that happened. When the police came, they arrested everyone around. That was when I saw the reality of life. I got myself into that mess, but with God’s mercy, I was saved. After six months, I came out of jail and gave my life to Christ.”

[Nation]

Following the protracted political crisis in Rivers State, President Bola Tinubu declared a state of emergency on Tuesday. He suspended the embattled Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, Ngozi Odu, and all the members of the House of Assembly for six months. He also selected Vice Admiral Ibokette Ibas (rtd) as administrator to take charge of Rivers State’s affairs pending the suspension period. It is a crazy situation that culminates the months of crisis that has made Rivers State a centre of chaos and endless political sabre-rattling. Expectedly, there has been a legal debate about the constitutionality of the President’s actions and what is at stake for his political ambitions in the seemingly unending crisis. For the next couple of weeks, we can be very assured that we will be subjected to endless analysis of this development on various media platforms. The interpreters of all maladies will turn this development over and over, scrutinising it to death.

As military vans full of armed operatives head toward the Rivers State Government House in Port Harcourt following the President’s pronouncement, some of us are uneasy at this turn of events. One can only imagine what the spectacle of a military takeover even at a mere state level will mean for Nigeria’s fragile democracy. If armed personnel can be brought in to resolve the embattled Rivers State crisis, how many steps before people begin to make another plausible association between a military resolution at the federal level too? Yes, the Rivers crisis is overdue for a resolution, but a state of emergency and an appointment of a uniformed officer seems imprudent.

Unlike the previous instances where a state of emergency was declared, we had just passed a moment in our national life where people experiencing severe hardships made some rather loud and feverish calls for a military takeover. It was just this time last year. Those who dared voice out their desire to see the army return to power were scolded for their deliriousness. They said the military has no business in government anymore forever, and we should learn to stop casting nostalgic glances back to the time men in jackboots sashayed freely on the Nigerian political stage. A mere one year later, and it seems the possibility of them returning is not foreclosed.

In August, some 90 people were arrested because they had carried Russian flags during their demonstrations against strangulating economic hardship, and some misguided ones among them wanted a coup. In November, they were taken to trial although the authorities had to drop the charges of treason against them following the outcry that saw 30 minors among them being charged to court. These are all very recent developments where the present government demonstrated a high level of intolerance against any suggestion of military solutions to any of the crises facing Nigeria. Those who were looking for a coup might have been guilty of presuming that the military had anything better to offer Nigeria, but their agitation against a government that had grown too malicious against its own people was coming from nowhere.

During that protest, the police Inspector General Kayode Egbetokun swore that the demonstrations and the call for a military takeover were financed by some sponsors from “outside the country” and they must arrest those carrying flags to be able to get to the sponsors. He was so sure that “the sponsors of these protests, some of them, have a clear motive to subvert the government of the day; we are not going to allow that; we will defend our democracy”. The same government that promised to defend democracy against interlopers is using the military to subvert a fractious democracy in Rivers State. Do not get me wrong, even though I think the Rivers State crisis has reached a point where something needed to give, the sudden show of resolve on Tinubu’s part starkly contradicts the ethos of a democracy that corrects itself without the intervention of men in fatigues, which this administration has tried to project.

In October, Presidential Aide Bayo Onanuga went on a rampage against a media house that dared to give a voice to the agitation of Nigerians who were looking for a military solution to Nigeria’s economic crisis. Onanuga had said, “It is unacceptable…to incite calls for military intervention based on transient difficulties.” Why is it suddenly acceptable for soldiers to take over the Rivers Government House? Have they concluded that what is going on in that region is more than “transient difficulties”?

The second thing that comes to the fore is Tinubu’s record on a president’s declaring a state of emergency. Again, this is another instance where the bad faith politics that Tinubu has played for years catches up with him. Like his pre-presidency commentary on fuel subsidies and several other economic policies, Tinubu is once again being revealed as a blowhard with many opinions but very few moral convictions. Now that he is in power, his doublemindedness is being manifested when he takes the very actions for which he condemns his predecessors. From his poor record on human rights to the subversion of the ideals of democracy, Tinubu’s presidency has revealed him to be a man whose loudest pronouncements on issues were never more than cynically exploiting situations. For a man who once said that a state of emergency in Lagos would “kill” democracy, he has sure come a very long way.

In 2013 when former President Goodluck Jonathan declared a state of emergency in Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa, Tinubu condemned him saying it was a ploy to manipulate the 2015 election. Just 12 years later, the same Tinubu would go on to state in his speech about a state of emergency that the latest security reports made available to me show that between yesterday and today, there have been disturbing incidents of vandalisation of pipelines by some militant without the governor taking any action to curtail them….With all these and many more, no good and responsible President will stand by and allow the grave situation to continue without taking remedial steps prescribed by the Constitution to address the situation in the state, which no doubt requires extraordinary measures to restore good governance, peace, order and security.

So how did he move from reading Jonathan’s action as a ruse of self-perpetuation to now seeing a state of emergency as what a “good and responsible” president should do in a bad situation? It is tempting to think that he has evolved ideologically and politically, and that experience has taught him practical politics, but I am more inclined to believe he was just a loudmouth who never cared about Nigeria. His politics is, and has always been, self-serving. That is why, no matter where his heart might lie in this Rivers issue, it will be virtually impossible for him to convince anyone of his righteousness. His intervention in Rivers State is far more self-evidently about 2027 politics than his projection on Jonathan. Given how much the Rivers electoral figures tilted against him in 2023, he cannot risk losing that state again.

Yes, the politics of partisanship that makes people question the actions of a leader they did not vote for will definitely be at play in the cynicism that will greet Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers, but that will not exhaust the reason people will read meanings in his action. It will also be because this man spent his political opposition years blowing ashes into gusts of wind to taint his opponents. Now that the wind of fate has suddenly reversed direction, he is accumulating the same dust and his true self is being revealed. The same measure with which he judged others is being used to find him wanting.

THE suspension of the Governor and House of Assembly of Plateau State and their replacement temporarily by an Administrator by President Olusegun Obasanjo are the greatest and most brazen illegality committed by any government in Nigeria, colonial, military or civilian.

Emergency powers comprise two distinct powers, viz (i) power to declare a state of emergency; and (ii) power to make laws and to execute them with respect to matters within exclusive state competence in normal time, and to overstep, with some exceptions, the limitations on power arising from the constitutional guarantee of fundamental rights in chapter IV. Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution, relied on by President Obasanjo for his action in Plateau State, grants only the first power, but not the second; it only empowers the President to declare a state of emergency in situations there specified. It is not intended for present purposes to go into the question whether or not the state of emergency in Plateau State was validly declared under section 305.

A state of emergency validly declared under section 305 does not by itself, bring into play the second power. It is a fundamental principle of the Rule of Law that executive acts must be authorised by law, at any rate, insofar as they affect the rights and interests of an individual, and that the Executive is not the one to confer the necessary legal authorisation on itself. The principle is well established by many authorities. As far back as 1921 in the celebrated case, Eshugbayi Eleko v. Government of Nigeria, the Privy Council applied it to invalidate the deportation of the then Oba of Lagos by the colonial Governor of Nigeria without authorisation by law, which as the sole legislature for the country at the time, he could have conferred on himself by simply issuing an Ordinance, but which he failed to do, relying instead on what he called his inherent authority as the Executive. In a judgement that has become a great constitutional landmark, the Privy Council, speaking through Lord Atkin, said that the Executive "can only act in pursuance of the powers given to him by law."

The section in the 1960 and 1963 Constitutions (section 65 and 70 respectively) authorising the declaration of a state of emergency also empowered Parliament to make "laws for Nigeria or any part thereof with respect to matters not included in the Legislative Lists as may appear to Parliament to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of maintaining or securing peace, order and good government during any period of emergency" (section 65(1) 1960; section 60(1) 1963; emphasis supplied.)

Pursuant to the power conferred by this provision, Parliament enacted the Emergency Powers Act 1961 authorising the Governor General-in-Council to make "such regulations as appear to him to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of maintaining or securing peace, order and good government in Nigeria, or any part thereof during any period of emergency." Altogether 12 regulations were made by the Governor General-in-Council under the Act. Of these the most far-reaching was the Emergency Powers (General) Regulations, 1962, which empowered the Prime Minister to appoint an Administrator for Western Nigeria (the emergency area.) The Administrator was authorised by the Regulations to administer the government of the Region, with power to legislate by means of orders for the peace, order and good government of the Region, and with full executive powers. He then suspended the Regional Governor, Premier, Ministers, and House of Assembly.

The Emergency Powers Act 1961 and the Emergency Powers (General) Regulations 1962 clearly went beyond what was contemplated by the enabling provision in Section 65(1) of the 1960 Constitution; they were a perversion of power, but they at least provided some measure of legal authorisation and basis for the appointment of the Administrator by the Prime Minister, and the suspension of the Regional Governor, Premier, Ministers and House of Assembly by the Administrator. The Act and the Regulations made under it lapsed by effluxion of time under Section 65(2) of the 1960 Constitution (section 70(2), 1963) that "any provision of law enacted in pursuance of this section shall have effect only during a period of emergency," so that they are not in force today as existing laws under Section 315 of the 1999 Constitution. They are not therefore reproduced in the laws of Nigeria 1990. Even supposing them to be existing law, they will be inconsistent with Section 11(4) and (5) of the 1999 Constitution, quoted below.

With the experience of the perversions of 1962 in mind, Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution (reproducing Section 265, 1979 Constitution) gives the Federal Government no emergency powers, legislative or executive, exercisable during a state of emergency declared under its provisions. It (i.e. Section 305) omits completely the power in Section 65(1) of the 1960 and Section 70(1) of the 1963 Constitution. The only provisions relevant upon the points are those in Section 11(3), (4) and (5) of the 1999 Constitution (same section number in the 1979 Constitution) which, again significantly, make no reference at all to an emergency declared in terms of section 305 (section 265, 1979 Constitution).

These provisions need to be reproduced in their precise wording in order to underline their underlying aim of avoiding the evil of perversion made possible by the 1960 and 1963 Constitution. Section 11:

(3) During any period when the Federation is at war, the National Assembly may make such laws for the peace, order and good government of the Federation or any part thereof with respect to matters not included in the Exclusive Legislative List as may appear to it to be necessary or expedient for the defence of the Federation"

"(4) At any time when any House of Assembly of a State is unable to perform its functions by reason of the situation prevailing in that state, the National Assembly may make such laws for the peace, order and good government of that state with respect to matters on which a House of Assembly may be necessary or expedient until such time as the House of Assembly is able to resume its functions, and any such laws enacted by the National Assembly pursuant to this section shall have effect as if they were laws enacted by the House of Assembly of the State.

Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed as conferring on the National Assembly power to remove the Governor or the Deputy Governor of the State from office."

"(5) For the purposes of subsection (4) of this section, a House of Assembly shall not be deemed to be unable to perform its functions so long as the House of Assembly can hold a meeting and transact business." (emphasis supplied)

The severest of the restrictions on the powers of the Federal Government under these provisions is that where a situation of an abnormal extraordinary nature is confined to the territory of one State and does not extend beyond its boundaries, then, even although a state of emergency has been declared in the state in terms of section 305, the National Assembly is not to assume power to make laws on matters within exclusive state competence unless the State House of Assembly is "unable to perform its functions by reason of the situation prevailing in that state" (section 11(4) - i.e. the situation prevailing in the state independently of, not one brought about by, a declaration of an emergency. Further, "a House of Assembly shall not be deemed to be unable to perform its function so long as the House of Assembly can hold a meeting and transact business" (section 11(5). Again, what is envisaged is inability to perform its functions arising from the situation prevailing in the State independently of, but not one brought about by, a declaration of an emergency.

Finally, the removal of a State Governor from office by reason solely of an emergency situation prevailing in the State, whether or not an emergency is formally declared under section 305, is completely and unequivocally procluded by the proviso in section 11(4), which declares that "nothing in this section shall be construed as conferring on the National Assembly power to remove the Governor or the Deputy Governor of the State from office." The Governor remains in office during such period with his executive powers undiminished, since by section 11(4) any "laws enacted by the National Assembly pursuant to this section shall have effect as if they were laws enacted by the House of Assembly of the State." He is the rightful authority to execute such laws by virtue of the provision in section 5(2) that the executive powers vested in him shall extend to "the execution and maintenance of the Constitution (and) all laws made by the House of Assembly." And if the National Assembly cannot, in the exercise of its power to make law under section 11(4), remove a State Governor, it cannot by law authorise the President to do so. The President has no inherent power to remove or suspend a Governor, anyway.

It follows that a State Governor elected into office under the 1999 Constitution cannot be removed from office by reason solely of an emergency validly declared under section 305 of that Constitution; in order words, there is nothing in the provisions of the 1999 Constitution relating to an emergency that can cause or be used to make a state Governor to "cease to hold office" within the meaning of section 180 of that Constitution.

All the military governments that have ruled Nigeria observed the Rule of Law at least to the extent of enacting laws (Decrees or Edicts) as a basis for their executive actions, especially executive actions affecting the rights or interests of individuals. There was seldom, if ever, an executive action of the military government not backed by law, a Decree or Edict, made normally prospectively, but sometimes retrospectively.

The suspension of the elected Governor and House of Assembly of Plateau State and their replacement by an Administrator by the democratic government of President Obasanjo without authorisation by law must rank as perhaps the greatest tragedy to befall the Rule of Law in Nigeria.`

Professor Nwabueze (SAN), a constitutional lawyer, is a member of The Patriots

culled from GUARDIAN, May 20, 2004

The Senate has entered a closed session to deliberate on President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of emergency rule in Rivers State and the suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara and other elected officials.

The closed session was announced after Senate President Godswill Akpabio read a letter from Tinubu at plenary on Thursday.

Senate leader Opeyemi Bamidele subsequently moved a motion for a closed session, pursuant to Order 135 of the Senate rules.

The motion was seconded by the Senate Minority Leader, Abba Moro.

Details shortly…