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 A STATE OF EMERGENCY?
Oxford Language dictionary defines a 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 a state of emergency, suspension or right of suspension is implicit and inherent.
Since the C-in-C’s proclamation of a state of emergency in Rivers State, whether genuinely motivated or politically induced, I noted that each of the opinion writers agrees that Section 305 of the CFRN makes provision for the President of FRN to proclaim a 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 the power to issue a proclamation of a state of emergency only when:
(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…
FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES PREVALENT IN RIVERS STATE AS OF 18/03/2025, WHICH NECESSITATED THE PROCLAMATION
For the past 16 months, Rivers State has experienced ongoing political tensions between the Executive and Legislative arms of government, culminating in a Supreme Court judgment on 28th February 2025. The ruling favoured one party over the other, with Governor Siminialayi Fubara losing the case. Shortly after the verdict, the Governor addressed Rivers State youths during a project commissioning, where he made statements interpreted by some as inciting. His remarks about the youths being "on standby" for future instructions raised concerns about potential misinterpretations that could lead to unrest.
Following these remarks, groups of youths issued threats against national assets, and incidents of destruction occurred. Some observers argue that the Governor did not act swiftly enough to de-escalate tensions or prevent further damage. Meanwhile, there were unverified reports that former President Olusegun Obasanjo visited the Governor, allegedly advising him to request a state of emergency to demonstrate his commitment to restoring order. The Governor's decision not to pursue this option led to speculation about whether he had adequately addressed security concerns.
Given the escalating situation, the Commander-in-Chief (C-in-C) was faced with the responsibility of maintaining national security. The destruction of national assets posed a serious risk to economic stability and public safety. In such circumstances, security considerations often take precedence over individual political interests, requiring decisive measures to prevent further deterioration of law and order in the state.
CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURE FOR THE PROCLAMATION OF A STATE OF EMERGENCY
Subsection (1) & (2) of Section 305 of the CFRN provide the procedure for the proclamation of a 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) makes provisions for how the state of emergency may cease or be abated. The most foreseeable one in this case is if the National Assembly does not approve the proclamation. The time within which the National Assembly is authorised 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, the suspension of the Governor and others was unconstitutional. With all due respect, that is misconceived. Suspension is inherent in the concept of a state of emergency. In fact, suspension is a natural consequence of that concept.
The whole essence of a state of emergency is to SUSPEND “NORMALCY and CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURES” to pave the way for EXTRAORDINARY MEASURES and 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 a state of emergency is unconstitutional. With due respect, I have yet to find such a pronouncement by the Supreme Court of Nigeria as claimed. In fact, the case of Government of Plateau 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 endorsed and gave credence to section 305 of the CFRN in that case. The Supreme Court not only recognised 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 the House of Assembly). In the instant case, the affected persons were not removed from office but merely suspended pending when the threats 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 threats 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 a 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