By Achi William-Wobodo.
I have read several opinions and narratives concerning the State of Emergency proclaimed in Rivers State by the President and Commander-in-Chief (C-in-C) of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Senator Bola Ahmed Tinubu on the 18th of March 2025.
Since the proclamation was made by the C-in-C, no fewer than twenty (20) persons have called on me or sent text messages to my phone demanding my perspective and opinion on the vexed issue. It is on this note that I make this contribution.
In doing so, I have opted not to make too many conclusions like the other writers did, but to offer explanations and highlights on the concept of state of emergency under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) (CFRN), the facts and circumstances of the Rivers State case, and then allow the readers to reach their own conclusions.
WHAT IS STATE OF EMERGENCY.
Oxford Language dictionary defines state of emergency as: “a situation of national danger or disaster in which a GOVERNMENT SUSPENDS NORMAL CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURES IN ORDER TO REGAIN CONTROL.” From the above definition of state of emergency, suspension or right of suspension is implicit and inherent. I shall return to the inherent nature of suspension in state of emergency later.
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATE OF EMERGENCY UNDER THE CFRN, 1999.
From the opinions so far read, since the C-in-C’s proclamation of state of emergency in Rivers State, whether genuinely motivated or politically induced opinion, I noted that each of the opinion writers agrees that Section 305 of the CFRN makes provision for the President of FRN to proclaim state of emergency in the circumstances prescribed under subsection (3). The subsection is further divided into paragraphs (a)-(g). The most applicable and relevant paragraphs in the case of Rivers State are (d), (e) and (f); some others argue that paragraph (c) is also applicable.
For ease of reference, S.305(3) provides thus:
The President shall have power to issue a Proclamation of a state of emergency only when:
(a) xxxxxxxxxxx
(b) xxxxxxxxxxx
(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) xxxxxxxxxxxx
FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES PREVALENT IN RIVERS STATE AS AT 18/03/2025, WHICH NECESSITATED THE PROCLAMATION
It is notorious fact that in the last sixteen (16) months, the Executive and the Legislative Arms of the Government of Rivers State had been in a protracted dispute which culminated into a judgement delivered by the Supreme Court on 28th February, 2025. Expectedly, one party won the case and the other party lost. The Executive Arm, symbolized by the Governor lost at the Supreme Court, and by implication lost the war.
Unfortunately, the Governor, Sir Siminialayi Fubara, whilst addressing Rivers State Youth during the commissioning of a Project in the State, shortly after the Supreme Court verdict, either by inadvertence or internationally, made INCITING AND INFLAMMABLE STATEMENTS. One of such statements was his call on Rivers State youths to be on standby and that at the appropriate time they (the youths) WOULD GET INSTRUCTION ON WHAT TO DO. What the Governor did not realize or take into consideration was that by that SINGULAR OPEN-ENDED AND UNGUARDED CHARGE, any of his overzealous followers may leverage on same to commission the youths for crime.
In that swift moment of despair, the Governor overlooked the potential impact of his statements or the possibility of some mischievous persons stepping into the void to give a wrong directive under the guise of “AMANYANBO GBEM”; a Rivers Ijaw (Kalabari) saying; which means the King has directed…. Indeed the “King” inadvertently called for violence.
Spontaneously, groups of youths became emboldened and began to threaten national asserts and national security. The Governor, perhaps overwhelmed by the lingering crisis with the legislature or ill-advised, failed to promptly dissuade the youths from carrying out their treats or to avert the potential danger. Swiftly and in quick succession, national asserts were targeted and destroyed. Obviously, there were clear, present and apparent danger of breakdown of public order and safety in Rivers State, which would have degenerated but for the proclamation.
There was also an unconfirmed statement making rounds that a former President, Olusegun Obasanjo, in a preemptive move, visited the Governor of Rivers State to prompt him (the Governor) to request the President of FRN pursuant to S.305(4) of CFRN, 1999 to proclaim state of emergency in Rivers State. A move which would have demonstrated the Governor’s good faith and eliminated or whittled down suspicions of collusion between the Governor and those destroying the national assert. If that story of an alleged visit of Obasanjo to the Governor is correct, it would seem that the Governor did not appreciate the priceless efforts and advise from a former president of Nigeria who still had his ears to the ground.
Perhaps, all of those left the C-in-C with only one possible conclusion: collusion by Mr. Governor. As the Chief Security Officer of the FRN, whose duty it is to protect the country, should he standby and watch the complete destruction of national assets and revenue base of the nation? I do not know what your answer would be, but I honestly believe that he should not.
It is pertinent to state that the destruction of any national assets, especially the economic base of the nation, is a NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE. In any sovereign nation, NATIONAL SECURITY IS PRICED OVER AND ABOVE ANY INDIVIDUAL RIGHT OR INTERESTS, including Fundamental Human Right. The C-in-C must do everything legally permissible to eliminate every threat to national peace and security.
CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURE FOR THE PROCLAMATION OF STATE OF EMERGENCY.
Subsection (1) & (2) of section 305 of the CFRN provides for the procedure for the proclamation of state of emergency. Firstly, the President Gazettes the proclamation, and secondly, he transmits the Gazetted Proclamation to the National Assembly (the Senate and House Representatives respectively). The President has complied with both conditions. Subsection (6) make provisions for how the state of emergency may cease or be abated. The most foreseeable one in this case is if the National Assembly dose not approve the proclamation. The time within which the National Assembly is authorized to do so has not elapsed. There is therefore no breach of any constitutional procedure.
THE BIG QUESTION
The critics of the proclamation have not demonstrated why and how an act which is expressly provided for in the CFRN, 1999, and which procedure, as stated in the CFRN, has not been or is not being violated, can be described or adjudged to be unconstitutional? It is preposterous and perplexing to say the least.
INHERENT NATURE OF SUSPENSION IN A STATE OF EMERGENCY.
Some of the critics argue that because there is no express use of the word suspension in S.305, therefore the suspension of the Governor and others was unconstitutional. With due respect, that is misconceived. Suspension is inherent in the concept of state of emergency. In fact; suspension is a natural consequence of that concept. The whole essence of state of emergency is to SUSPEND “NORMALCY and CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURES” to pave way for EXTRAORDINARY MEASURES, to enable the government to tackle, contain, and bring the threats which gave rise to the state of emergency under control. I dare the critics of the proclamation to give us a contrary intendment of the drafters of S.305 of the CFRN.
JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT ON STATE OF EMERGENCY UNDER THE CFRN, 1999.
Most of the critics have also argued that the Supreme Court of Nigeria had settled the point that state of emergency is unconstitutional. With due respect, I am yet find such pronouncement by the Supreme Court of Nigeria as claimed. In fact, the case of Government of Platue State VS the AGF (2006), an action filed on behalf of the suspended Governor and members of the House of Assembly of that State before the Supreme Court, was struck out by the Supreme Court for want of jurisdiction.
It would be safe to argue that the Supreme Court tacitly endorse and gave credence to section 305 of the CFRN in that case. The Supreme Court not only recognized the appointed Sole Administrator, Major General M.C Ali, but it also placed reliance on the affidavit evidence of the Sole Administrator in striking out that case.
SUSPENSION VS REMOVAL
I noticed that some of the critics confused suspension with removal and thus used them interchangeably. It is trite that the removal of a Governor and members of the House of Assembly is as prescribed in S.188 CFRN (and Ss.109 and 110 for House of Assembly). In the instant case, the affected persons were not removed from office but merely suspended pending when the treats would be put under control. The process for the removal (impeachment) of the Governor of Rivers State has just been punctuated by the proclamation of the state of emergency.
It is also important to highlight that the effect of removal is different from the effect of suspension. Whereas, for removal, the Governor automatically loses his office, but for suspension, once the intervening factors are no more, they are returned to status quo. Meaning that they might be restored to their positions/offices should the dangers and treats abate.
TIMING OF THE PROCLAMATION
Another argument of the critics is that the President acted hastily. I totally disagree. The President was proactive and swift with the proclamation. Insisting that the President whose country is struggling with both economic and security instability, should wait until the country is plunged into deeper crisis by large scale economic sabotage and national security threat, is not only naive, but also mischievous. Mr. President ought to be commended for his proactiveness.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, Mr. President did not only act in line with CFRN, but he also acted timely in the best interest of the socio-economic well-being of Rivers State and Nigeria. Mr. President should be commended.
I join well meaning Nigerians to commend Mr. President for averting breakdown of public order and safety in Rivers State.
Long Live My Country, NIGERIA 🇳🇬
Long Live My Rivers State
Long Live My President
Long Live My Sole Administrator
Achi William-Wobodo
Wrote from Abuja.
Culled from ABU Alumni Association, Kogi State branch.
