WE WANT SIM: How Rivers Women Walk Out Of Remi Tinubu’s Empowerment Event, Demand Lady Valerie Fubara (VIDEO)

Thursday last week , tension soared n Rivers State as hundreds of women staged a dramatic walkout from the “Renewed Hope Initiative” empowerment programme organized by the Nigeria's First Lady Senator Remi Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

According to the report, the event, which was billed to feature the presentation of empowerment items to 500 women in the state, turned chaotic when the wife of the Sole Administrator, Mrs. Theresa Ibas, was invited to speak on behalf of the First Lady. The moment her name was announced, the atmosphere shifted.

Women chorus according to the video above:  “We want Valerie Sim-Fubara to address us, not the wife of an imposter! We want SIM!”

Accounts by Eyewitnesses said the women were visibly angered that Senator Remi Tinubu failed to show up after they were reportedly informed she would attend in person. Even more upsetting for them was the exclusion of the Rivers State First Lady, Lady Valerie Fubara, from the official lineup.

“We were told the First Lady of Nigeria would be here. If not her, then the wife of our Governor, Lady Valerie Sim-Fubara, should speak to us. Not someone representing someone who doesn't represent us,” one of the women fumed as she joined the protest walkout.

Despite efforts by the organisers to calm the situation, the crowd of women insisted on their demands and eventually exited the venue en masse, effectively grounding the event.

The protest is seen as a direct rejection of the political appointee structure in Rivers State and a strong show of support for Governor Siminalayi Fubara and his wife, Lady Valerie. Political observers say the incident reflects growing tensions over the legitimacy of certain figures aligned with recent federal interventions in the state.

 Neither Senator Remi Tinubu nor her media office issued a statement in response to the dramatic protest.

Governor Sim Fubara Secures Court Victory Over Wike, Tinubu 's State of Emergency as Federal High Court Orders Sole Administrator to Vacate River Government House

A Federal High Court sitting in Port Harcourt Tuesday ruled in favor of Rivers State Governor

Siminalayi Fubara of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and against the sole administrator imposed by the President Bola Ahmed Tinubu led APC federal government.

The court ordered the immediate removal of the Sole Administrator appointed by the President from the River State Government House.

In it's decision, the court gives the Tinubu-backed appointee 48 hours to vacate the premises, reaffirming Governor Fubara’s constitutional mandate as the duly elected leader of Rivers State.

The ruling, follows months of escalating political tensions between Governor Fubara and his estranged political godfather, former governor and current Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike. 

The political crisis intensified after the controversial appointment of a Sole Administrator by President Tinubu, which many legal experts and political observers deemed unconstitutional and a breach of democratic norms.

Justice Boma Diepriye, who presided over the case, ruled that the appointment of a Sole Administrator to oversee the affairs of a state with a sitting, democratically elected governor is “illegal, null, and void.”  Emphasizing that the Nigerian Constitution provides no room for such an appointment in a federating unit where a governor has neither been impeached nor incapacitated.

In his reaction to the judgment, Governor Fubara hailed the ruling as a “victory for democracy and the rule of law.” 

Speaking to a jubilant crowd of supporters outside the courthouse, he said, “The will of the people has once again triumphed over political manipulation and executive overreach. I remain committed to serving the good people of Rivers State without fear or favor.”

Meanwhile, legal representatives of the federal government are expected to file an appeal in the coming days, signaling that the political standoff may not be over yet.

Political analysts are calling the judgment a significant blow to the influence of Nyesom Wike, who has been accused by critics of using federal might to undermine his successor.

This decision not only reaffirms Sim Fubara's legitimacy but also sets a precedent in curbing excessive interference by the federal government in state matters.

As Rivers State awaits the departure of the embattled Sole Administrator, attention now turns to how this ruling will reshape the power dynamics in both the state and national political arenas.

Tinubu as yesterday’s rebel and today’s tyrant, By Farooq A. Kperogi

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.

State of Emergency in Rivers: You cannot determine a two-thirds majority by a voice vote. - Peter Obi

The house of representatives has in a voice vote, approved the illegality of President Tinubu s proclamation of state of emergency in Rivers State where the elevated governor, his deputy and all the members of the state house of assembly were suspended.

H. E. Peter Obi said the National Assembly cannot determine a two-thirds majority by a voice vote.

There have been reports that his members of the National Assembly pocketed $25,000 each to ensure the passage of the state of emergency.

Obi who had earlier reached out to Labour Party members of the national assembly on the needs to avoid supporting the illegality of the Tinubu led APC presidency on state of emergency in Rivers State said the Constitution is clear that this cannot be done through a voice vote but by calling individuals to answer 'yes' or 'no.'

His words: "While still agonizing over the ongoing deterioration of democracy in our nation, especially with the situation in Rivers State, and trying to reach out to our National Assembly members not to support and sustain the unconstitutionality and arbitrariness, I just heard that they have added salt to injury by using a voice vote to pass the illegality ."

"The Constitution is clear that this cannot be done through a voice vote but by calling individuals to answer 'yes' or 'no.'"

"You cannot determine a two-thirds majority by a voice vote."

"While a two-thirds majority is crucial, it does not justify bypassing proper procedures and undermining the principles of transparency and accountability. "

"The use of a voice vote in such a significant decision not only disregards constitutional requirements but also erodes public trust in the democratic process as well as the transparency and integrity of the National Assembly . "

"Decisions of such magnitude must be made with integrity, following the letter and spirit of the law."

"It is disheartening that a decision as crucial as approving an emergency proclamation — one that could alter the course of the nation — has been  handled with such casual disregard for constitutional standards. "

'The 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended) clearly requires that such a proclamation must be approved by at least two-thirds of all members of each House — the Senate and the House of Representatives. "

"A simple call of "Aye" or "Nay" cannot accurately measure this crucial threshold."

"When a supermajority is required, it demands a recorded vote — whether by division, roll call, or electronic means. This isn't just a technicality; it's a matter of law and legitimacy. "

"The Senate Standing Orders and House Rules were established to ensure that decisions of this magnitude are made transparently, with accountability. "

"Ignoring these procedures is not just an oversight; it is a betrayal of the democratic process."

"A voice vote for such a critical matter is not just insufficient; it's a dangerous precedent. If we can bend the rules so easily, what stops us from undermining other pillars of democracy? 

"Today, it's a voice vote on a state of emergency — tomorrow, it could be a voice vote on citizens' fundamental rights."

"It is painful to think that members of the National Assembly, who swore to uphold the Constitution, could participate in a process that sidesteps the very essence of due process. "

"We must ask ourselves: If the law no longer anchors our decisions, then what does?

"This is not just a flawed procedure; it is a warning signal. "

"We cannot afford to keep gambling with the soul of our democracy." Obi said.

PRESIDENT TINUBU CANNOT LEGALLY REMOVE AN ELECTED GOVERNOR OF A STATE

BY

PROF MIKE A. A. OZEKHOME, SAN, CON, OFR, LL.D

 

INTRODUCTION

In an era where democracy is supposed to reign supreme giving democracy dividends to beleaguered Nigerians, the nation has once again found itself at crossroads, a sober moment of reckoning where constitutional order is being tested in the most brazen of ways. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, sworn to uphold the Constitution, has taken a most unprecedented and unlawful step: the suspension of a democratically elected Governor, Deputy Governor and an entire State House of Assembly under the thin guise of emergency rule. What emergency? Nigerians and Rivers people did not see or feel any such emergency. 

Let me be very firm most  categorically and unequivocally that no constitutional provision,statute or any known convention grants the President the imperial and dictatorial authority to single-handedly dissolve the structures of an elected state government.That may probably have been in the locust days of military juntas; but Nigeria is today not under the firm grip of a military dictatorship. The last time I checked, she is supposed to governed under a constitutional democracy that operates a presidential and republican form of government. The emergency provisions under Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution exist to restore order only in times of grave national crisis; certainly not to topple duly elected state officials. Lois X1V of France as an absolute dictator could not have done better and would therefore green with envy from his cold grave,having on 13th April, 1655, stood in front of parliament and imperiously exuded," L'Etat C'est Moi" ("I am the State" ).A state of emergency does not and cannot translate to a civilian coup d’état, executed by executive fiat through a national broadcast which torpedoed elected structures and whimsically imposed a sole Administrator who would now illegally receive Rivers State allocations from the Federation account under section 162 of the Constitution contrary to the very judgement of the Supreme Court which President Bola Ahmed Tinubu pretended to be executing.We have seen this script play out before during the infamous 2004 Plateau State emergency, where former President Obasanjo suspended Governor Dariye in what was widely condemned as a travesty of constitutional governance. Then, as now, the excuse was “exceptional circumstances"; but the reality was nothing short of executive lawlessness and overreach masked as national interest.I had criticized it in the same way I also criticized those of former Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo and Goodluck Ebele Jonathan 

And now, as Rivers State stands at the centre of this unfolding simulated constitutional debacle, one must ask: Is this the signal of a dangerous precedent for and kite-flying to Nigeria, of a looming maximum dictatorship in the offing in a one-party State? Will other “erring” Governors who refuse to align with the central government be next in line? Are we witnessing the return of a

dangerous era of impunity where emergency rule becomes the bludgeon of political control rather than a tool for stability?

PROF MIKE A. A. OZEKHOME

Let me be very clear about this for historical purposes: President Tinubu clearly lacks the power,authority and vires to suspend democratic structures, especially the removal of Governor Sim Fubara and the Rivers State House of Assembly members. His act constitutes nothing but a gross constitutional aberration and a most illegal, unlawful, wrongful and unconscionable step that has the potential of imploding Nigeria at large and Rivers State in particular.The Constitution must stand hallowed, unassaulted,or democracy will fall and perish. Although time shall tell,but time is certainly not on our side. 

 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR A STATE OF EMERGENCY

The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, at page 379, defines “Declaration” as an official or formal statement, especially about the plans of a Government or an organization; the act of making such a statement.

Declaration or proclamation of a state of emergency therefore means proclaiming or making known a situation of emergency. What does “emergency” itself mean?

Emergency Doctrine is variously referred to as “emergency”, “imminent peril” or “sudden peril” Doctrine [Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, Page 523)

A “state of emergency” is defined in Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (P.1620) as

“when a government gives itself special powers in order to try to control an unusually difficult or dangerous situation, especially when this involves limiting people’s freedom”

“Emergency powers” are such powers as are conferred on a Government during such an unusual situation to hold the state together.

The Constitution  in Section 305, of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as altered (the organic law and grund norm of the land) embraces three adjuncts of a declaration of a state of emergency:  (1)  Reasons for proclaiming it;  (2)  How it is proclaimed;  (3)  How it can be halted both before and after its proclamation. It also envisages two types of State of Emergency: (i) By Mr. President under Section 305 (3) (a) and (b), when the Federation is at War; or the Federation is in imminent danger of invasion or involvement in a state of war. (ii) The scenario where it is the Governor of a State who personally calls for the state of emergency under situations envisaged in Section 305 (3) (c), (d) and (e). This occurs where the threat does not extend beyond the boundaries of the State.

Section 305 of the 199 Constitution, as altered, provides:

1) “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the President may by instrument published in the Official Gazette of the Government of the Federation issue a Proclamation of a state of emergency in the Federation or any part thereof.

2) The President shall immediately after the publication, transmit copies of the Official Gazette of the Government of the Federation containing the proclamation including the details of the emergency to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, each of whom shall forthwith convene or arrange for a meeting of the House of which he is President or Speaker, as the case may be, to consider the situation and decide whether or not to pass a resolution approving the Proclamation.”

None of the factors envisaged in Section 305 of the Constitution has occurred at all to warrant the steps taken by the president. In present scenario the bi-camera National Assembly had not even first met,discussed and approved the president's emergency proposals before he acted. He did it in advance ( in futuro) in expectation of rubber-stamping by a pliable and malleable NASS.I hereby call on the NASS to show class for once by roundlly rejecting the President’s unconstitutional  act of first declaring a state of emergency before its approval and also for acting altra vires by accompanying it with the suspension of elected democratic structures. This will place them on the right path of history.Otherwise,they should be prepared to be damnified by history. 

I must emphasize that the declaration of a state of emergency does not translate into a dissolution of governance structures within the affected state. Under a state of emergency, the Governor, as the chief executive of the state, remains in office,whilst the institutions of government at the state level continue to function,unless expressly provided otherwise by law.There is no such law in Rivers State or at the national level. 

The framers of the 1999 Constitution were deliberate in ensuring that the power to declare a state of emergency is not an avenue for executive overreach or imperious excursion into the realm of narcissm or ego trip. While the President may take extraordinary measures to maintain peace and order, those measures must align with the provisions of the Constitution. There is no provision howsoever, express or implied, that allowed President Tinubu to remove a sitting Governor and state House of Assembly legislators under the thin  guise of emergency powers. There is no war in Nigeria. There is no threat of external aggression or invasion either across the country or in Rivers State. All that we have seen have been tussle for power between the Governor and the House of Assembly and the courts had already waded in with the Governor declaring he would comply with the Supreme Court's judgement.A mere blow  up of oil pipes in two communities by unidentified persons certainly does not constitute a war or external invasion situation.

 

THE PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION of POWERS AND FEDERALISM 

Nigeria operates a federal system of government, which means that power is divided and shared between the federal, state and Local Government Areas.governments. This structure is designed to prevent excessive concentration of power in any one level of government,for as Lord Acton once explained, "power tends to corrups and absolute power corrupts absolutely". The President’s authority over the states is limited, just as a Governor cannot interfere with presidential functions at the federal level.

Furthermore, the principle of separation of powers, a cornerstone of constitutional democracy as ablly propounded in 1748 by a great French philosopher, Baron de Montesquieu,ensures that no single branch of government has unchecked authority. The removal of a Governor is a matter strictly within the purview of the State House of Assembly, as stipulated under Section 188 of the Constitution. The process is quite detailed, lengthy and rigorous; and requires a legislative super majority to accomplish. It is not a power and prerogative the President can usurp and exercise as did President Tinubu, regardless of the circumstances.

 

CAN THE PRESIDENT SUSPEND OR REMOVE A SITTING GOVERNOR, DEPUTY GOVERNOR, OR HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY EVEN UNDER A STATE OF EMERGENCY?

Nigeria stands at a critical juncture in its democratic evolution. Recent developments in Rivers State, where President Bola Ahmed Tinubu purportedly suspended Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his Deputy, and the entire House of Assembly, call for a meticulous constitutional examination and analysis. At the heart of this matter lies an age-old question: Can the President, under the guise of emergency rule, lawfully suspend or remove a democratically elected Governor, Deputy Governor, or Legislature?

The answer, based on constitutional provisions, legal precedents and the very principles of federalism which we operate, is an unequivocal NO. The 1999  Nigerian Constitution (as amended) does not, under any circumstance, empower the President to remove, suspend, or torpedo duly elected state officials even under Section 305, which governs the declaration of a state of emergency.

 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS OF EMERGENCY POWERS 

In no place does Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution grant the President the power to suspend a Governor, Deputy Governor, or the State House of Assembly. This reality is backed by constitutional jurisprudence and was reaffirmed in Attorney-General of Abia State v. Attorney-General of the Federation (2002) 6 NWLR (Pt. 763) 265, where the Supreme Court clarified that the Constitution is supreme and that no authority including the President can act outside its provisions.

Yet, this is not the first time that Nigeria has witnessed an outright abuse of emergency powers. Former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s 2004 suspension of Plateau State’s Governor Joshua Dariye and the House of Assembly remains a painful reminder of how emergency provisions have been misused to subvert democratic structures.

That unconstitutional precedent, which many Nigerians condemned then as  executive overreach reminiscent of military juntas, appears to have resurfaced in Rivers State where President Tinubu’s action has eerily followed that same better-forgotten pattern, with the Judiciary left untouched as a token concession to constitutionalism. But can democracy survive when two out of the three arms of government are arbitrarily dissolved? I believe not.

 

FEDERALISM, SEPARATION OF POWERS, AND THE ROLE OF STATE GOVERNMENTS 

Nigeria operates a federal system, meaning that power is distributed between the central and state governments, as explicitly outlined in Sections 4, 5, and 11 of the 1999 Constitution. Under this system, a Governor is not an apron string of or mere extension of the Presidency. He is  an independently elected authority answerable to no one but only the people of his state who elected him.

The Constitution does not permit a President to unilaterally whimsically and arbitrarily remove a Governor—not by fiat; not by emergency decree; and certainly not by mere executive pronouncement. The doctrine of separation of powers, a fundamental pillar of democracy, dictates that such removals must be carried out strictly in accordance with constitutional provisions.

This principle was reinforced in Attorney-General of Ogun State & Ors v. Attorney-General of the Federation & Ors (1982) 3 NCLR 583, where the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Government cannot unilaterally impose duties or restrictions on state officials. This means that even if a state of emergency is lawfully declared, the Governor remains in office unless impeached through due process.

The Constitution provides only one legal pathway for the removal of a state Governor, and that is through impeachment, as stipulated in Section 188 of the Constitution. The process is legislative, not executive, requiring a State House of Assembly to initiate and conduct impeachment proceedings as dictated by the Constitution. In any event, the Rivers State House of Assembly ( whether rightly or wrongly) had already commenced one against the Governor. Why truncate the constitutional process through an unconstitutional executive fiat? Why? Why?? Why???

 

THE PUBLIC ORDER ACT AND THE LIMITS OF FEDERAL CONTROL 

Some have sought,in most illogical and unscholarly manner, to justify the President’s emergency intervention in Rivers State under the masquerade and facade of maintaining public safety. They cite the Public Order Act, which grants state Governors powers over public assemblies, meetings, and processions. However, even this statute does not authorize the suspension of an entire government structure.

The irony, of course, is that while Governors are designated as the Chief Security Officers of their states, they lack actual control over security forces. Section 215 of the Constitution subordinates a State Commissioner of Police to the Inspector General of Police and the President, meaning that even if Rivers State were  experiencing insecurity, it was ultimately to the same traducing Federal Governmen it would have turned to.

The absurdity of this power imbalance,even though Rivers State had not gotten there, was noted in Attorney-General of Abia State v. Attorney-General of the Federation (2002) 6 NWLR (Pt. 763) 264, where the Court observed that the Federal Government cannot pass the blame for state security failures to a Governor who lacks the constitutional means to deploy security personnel.

 

THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY: A CONSTITUTIONAL FIREWALL?

Even if the National Assembly, sought to legislate on emergency rule, section 11(4) of the 1999 Constitution explicitly prohibits it from removing a Governor or Deputy Governor. This means that not only does the President lack the power, but even the National Assembly itself is equally barred from such unconstitutional act.

Prof. Ben Nwabueze, one of Nigeria’s foremost constitutional scholars, had long warned that allowing a President to wield unchecked emergency powers would erode democracy and lead to an authoritarian system where Governors served as vassals at the pleasure of the President rather than the electorate.

In line with this reasoning, Chief F.R.A. Williams had condemned the Plateau State emergency declaration as “a contradiction of all known principles of true federation operating in a democratic society.” Are we not now witnessing history repeat itself in Rivers State?

 

THE PRINCIPLE OF EXPRESSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS

One of the most fundamental principles of statutory interpretation is expressio unius est exclusio alterius, meaning that the explicit mention of one thing implies the exclusion of all others. Sections 4 and 5 of the 1999 Constitution donate specific executive and legislative powers; but nowhere do they mention any inherent powers allowing the President to remove Governors undemocratically.

This principle was applied in Attorney-General of Bendel State v. Aideyan (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 118) 187, where the Supreme Court held that powers not expressly granted by the Constitution cannot be assumed. Thus, any claim that the President possesses inherent emergency powers to remove a supposedly erring Governor is legally baseless.The President can not dorn the garb of a Primary School headmaster who has absolute control over and supervises his pupils

 HOW A GOVERNOR MAY BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE 

If Not the President, then who can remove a Governor under emergency rule? The answer remains the State House of Assembly as the only body constitutionally empowered to initiate impeachment proceedings against an erring Governor.

Under Section 188, impeachment is a rigorous and multi-step process, requiring:

a.. A written notice signed by at least one-third of Assembly members;

b. A two-thirds majority vote to proceed further;

c. The formation of an investigative panel by the state Chief Judge;

d. A full blown hearing granting the Governor a right to defence either by himself or through a counsel of his choice;

e. A final two-thirds majority vote for removal after thorough hearing, recommendations, etc.

If a Governor remains in office, it is because the State House of Assembly has not found legal grounds for removal. The President’s personal opinions, political considerations, or security concerns do not change this constitutional scenario. 

 

ANY HISTORICAL PRECEDENT FOR RIVERS STATE?

The declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State and the subsequent suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his Deputy, and the State House of Assembly by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu brings Nigeria into another moment of constitutional crisis and democratic reckoning. While this may appear to be a novel occurrence, history reminds us that this is not the first time a Nigerian President had wielded emergency powers in a manner that undermined the very very essence of democracy.

Emergency rule in Nigeria has precedents, but each instance had always been marred by legal controversy, constitutional breaches and political opportunism. The most striking parallel to Tinubu’s action in Rivers State can be drawn from the 2004 Plateau State emergency declared by former President Olusegun Obasanjo. In that case, Obasanjo had suspended the Governor and the State House of Assembly, replacing them with a Sole Administrator, Major-General Chris Alli (Rtd.). That action was roundly criticized as an overreach of executive power, much like what is unfolding today in Rivers State. I was one of the critics. 

However, even further back in Nigeria’s history, the Western Region crisis of 1962 under the First Republic presents another instructive example. Under the 1960 Independence Constitution, the then Governor-General, Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, acting on the advice of Prime Minister Tafawa Balewa, had declared a state of emergency in the Western Region due to political turmoil. Balewa had removed the Premier, the Governor, all Ministers, and members of the Regional Assembly, installing Dr. Moses Majekodunmi as Sole Administrator.

The striking difference, however, is that this took place under a Westminster parliamentary system, where Parliament held sovereignty. In contrast, Nigeria’s current presidential system operates under constitutional supremacy, not parliamentary supremacy. The framers of the 1999 Constitution deliberately excluded any provision that would allow such sweeping executive powers, particularly those that could enable a President to remove a sitting Governor or dissolve a State House of Assembly under emergency rule.

 

WHY TINUBU ’S EMERGENCY RULE IN RIVERS STATE IS UNPRECEDENTED 

Even within the history of emergency rule declarations, Tinubu’s action in Rivers State is particularly alarming. While previous Presidents who declared emergency rule (Balewa in 1962 and Obasanjo in 2004) did so under questionable legal interpretations, they at least had some statutory backing, however flimsy.

Tinubu, on the other hand, has no legal foundation whatsoever to suspend an elected Governor, Deputy Governor, or the State House of Assembly. There is no enabling law, no precedent under the 1999 Constitution, and no Supreme Court ruling that grants the President such sweeping powers.

The 1999 Constitution, as amended, is as clear as a whistle that section 305 which grants the President powers to declare a state of emergency does not provide for the removal or suspension of an elected Governor.

Section 11(4) explicitly denies even the National Assembly the power to remove a Governor under emergency rule; meaning it certainly cannot authorize the President to do so.

The principle of federalism, which underpins Nigeria’s governance structure, dictates that Governors derive their mandate directly from the people and not from the President.

 

WHAT COULD HAPPEN IF THIS PRECEDENT IS ALLOWED TO STAND?

One of the most dangerous aspects of President Tinubu’s action is the precedent it sets for the future of democracy in Nigeria. If a President can wake up one morning and, under the guise of an emergency, remove a Governor and dissolve the State Legislature, what prevents the same President or future Presidents from doing the same in other states?

In fact, if the logic of this unconstitutional action is stretched further, it raises an even more disturbing possibility:

What if a President wakes up tomorrow and declares an emergency in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT)? The Constitution recognizes the FCT as a state.

Could the President then suspend the Senate and the House of Representatives that supervise the FCT and appoint himself as Sole Administrator of the FCT and Federal Republic of Nigeria?

These hypothetical scenarios, once dismissed as absurd,l in my earlier  research have now become real threats when constitutional violations are left unchallenged and unchecked.

 

 

PRESIDENT TINUBU ’S ATTEMPT TO RELY ON NONEXISTENT EMERGENCY LAWS 

To compound the legal crisis, Tinubu’s government seeks to justify its actions by invoking emergency regulations that do not exist in Nigeria’s current legal framework. The 1961 Emergency Powers Act, which was made pursuant to Section 65(1) of the 1960 Constitution, is no longer in force. That law had allowed the Governor-General to make sweeping regulations, including appointing an Administrator, restricting fundamental rights, and even suspending state governments.

However, this law ceased to have effect long ago. When Nigeria transitioned from the Westminster system to the presidential system in 1979, the framers of the Constitution deliberately omitted any provision that could allow such broad emergency powers.

The Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990,provide a clear confirmation: the 1961 Emergency Powers Act is described as “omitted; spent”. This means that it has since been consigned to the vehicle of historical oblivion  and cannot be resurrected to justify Tinubu’s current unconstitutional acts.

 

A CLOSING CAVEAT: THE PERILOUS PRECEDENT OF TINUBU’S EMERGENCY RULE IN RIVERS STATE

Not a few Nigerians have argued quite plausibly, too, that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s recent declaration of emergency rule in Rivers State and the suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his Deputy, and the State House of Assembly was not purely a matter of law and order, but an act driven by political expediency and personal indignation.

The President finds himself presiding over a nation teetering on the brink economic hardship, rising insecurity, public angst,and deep-seated political fractures. Yet, rather than confront these crises headlong with statesmanship, his administration appears to be flexing emergency powers in a manner that raises more questions than it answers. If Rivers State warranted emergency rule, why then have states like Zamfara and Niger where armed bandits and insurgents have reduced governance to an afterthought not received the same treatment?

Even the most ardent defenders of Tinubu’s emergency Decree ( for a Decree it is in reality) must pause and ask: Is Rivers State the greatest threat to national stability, or is it merely the most convenient political battleground? If emergency rule in Rivers was truly about law and order, why was a hand-picked Administrator imposed while duly elected officials were unceremoniously suspended from office? Is this about democratic governance, or is it about power and control?

If Nigeria remains a constitutional democracy, then the same Constitution must apply to all, irrespective of political affiliation or convenience. If Tinubu’s draconian action in Rivers State is allowed to stand, it sets a dangerous precedent where emergency powers become a tool for political suppression and repression rather than a last resort for genuine intractable crises.

So, the question remains: Is this the Nigeria we want or deserve? Or shall we, in our studied silence, watch democracy dismantled piecemeal with onevemergency declaration at a time? History will surely judge us all.

State of Emergency in Rivers State: Do not participate, support any action, decision, or vote that compromises integrity of our democracy, Peter Obi tells LP Legislators

The Labour Party Presidential flag bearer in the 2023 general elections Mr Peter Obi has called on the members of the national assembly who are of the Labour Party not participate in or support any action, decision, or vote that compromises the integrity of our democracy, undermines the interests of the people of Rivers State, or contradicts our core values of fairness, equity, and transparency.

It should be recalled that President Bola Hamed Tinubu yesterday declared a state of emergency in Rivers State, suspended the elected governor of the state Sim Fabura, his deputy and all the members of the state assembly of Rivers State.

The political crises in Rivers State was fueled by the Tinubu led APC presidency.

Meanwhile, despite the declaration of state of emergency in Rivers State, absolute two third majority of the legislative members in both the Senate and house of representatives are still required by the constitution to enable it passed. Obi has therefore asked members of the national who won their seats on the platform of the Labour Party to refrain from voting in favour or support the state of emergency declared by president Bola Tinubu.

Peter Obi via his verified social media handles wrote:

My dear brothers and sisters,

Members of the Labour Party in the National Assembly,

Since your inauguration as Distinguished, and Honorable members of the National Assembly, I have refrained from interfering in your legislative affairs out of respect for your independence and to allow you to focus on alleviating the suffering of the Nigerian people.

However, at this critical juncture — following 26 years of a deteriorating democratic process marked by disregard for educational qualifications for electoral positions, massive rigging, and now the unconstitutional removal of elected officeholders — I find it necessary to address you. These unconstitutional actions have far-reaching negative implications for our democracy and the will of the people.

I urge you to stand as true defenders of justice. Do not participate in or support any action, decision, or vote that compromises the integrity of our democracy, undermines the interests of the people of Rivers State, or contradicts our core values of fairness, equity, and transparency.

We must not allow ourselves to become instruments of injustice or contribute to the betrayal of the people's mandate. At this moment, we must prioritize what is right over what is wrong or convenient, remaining steadfast in defending the well-being of the people of Rivers State.

Together, let us stand firm in our resolve — because a new Nigeria is possible!

- PO

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 are a cross-section of leaders and political stakeholders from across the country. We 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 democratically elected Governor, Deputy Governor, and the State House of Assembly. 

This action is not only unlawful but also a clear subversion of democracy and imposition of autocratic 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 the constitution of our country and the institutions of our democracy. 

Mr President’s illegal and unconstitutional proclamation was presumably driven by the protracted insidious political crisis in Rivers State, which culminated in the recent ruling of the Supreme Court. Naturally, we expected all parties to the dispute to follow laid-down procedures, and in good faith, to promptly implement the judgment of the highest court of the land. We note that despite provocative statements and belligerent attitude of his opponents, Governor Fubara had demonstrated goodwill and appeared disposed to the implementation of the ruling of the Supreme Court. 

However, rather than rise above the fray, the president yielded to petty favouritism and betrayed the oath that he solemnly swore to before God and man, which was to “do right to all manner of people, according to law, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.” If president Tinubu had conveniently disguised his true intentions in the past, his broadcast to the nation on 18th March 2025 betrayed his bias and fell far below the standard of comportment expected from his exalted office. 

The Constitutional Violations

1. Illegal Removal of a Governor and State Assembly

Without any doubts, 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 or arbitrary pronouncement.

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 he has brazenly done.

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 declaration.

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 grabbing and control. 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 obviously premeditated and brazenly cynical unconstitutional action. We find the federal government’s excuse of pipeline vandalism quite untenable and even laughable. The security of national infrastructure falls squarely under the responsibilities of federal security agencies and privately contracted security firms. If this issue has to do with breach of security in whatever form, the question that should naturally be asked are: 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 stand on the right side of history and not allow itself to 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. We recall that even when a previous administration had declared a state of emergency in parts of the country bedevilled by insurgency and acts of terrorism, the governors of the concerned states were not removed from office as this administration has done. This action, by President Tinubu therefore represents a new low for our country. 

Conclusion

The historical unrest in the Niger Delta should not be forgotten so soon. Past administrations had made great efforts and sacrifices to restore peace and stability to the Niger Delta, which is critical to the economic health and stability of Nigeria itself. This federal government should not manufacture political crises that could disrupt the fragile stability and return the country to the past that we have all prayed to leave behind for good.

We must never allow personal political interests and the desire to hold on to power at all costs to throw the country into unavoidable chaos through brazen subversion of 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.

Thursday, 20th March, 2025

The Tinubu-led Federal Government should restore elected officials in Rivers State - Mallam Nasir El-Rufai

Former Governor of Kaduna State Mallam Nasir El-Rufai has called on the Bola Hamed Tinubu led APC federal government to restore elected officials in Rivers State.

According to the SDP Chieftain, there are things that are so clearly wrong that the justifications summoned in their defence fall flat. The decision of Mr. President to suspend the elected officials of the Rivers State Government is one of those.

El-Rufai said, our country’s Constitution does not support it precisely because it is dangerous to our system of democratic federalism for an elected president to assume and exercise powers to suspend elected officials at the State level. The responsibilities of a president are heavy and extensive, but they are constrained by the Constitution and the law and certainly do not include firing persons who were elected.

The security issues cited in the President’s speech surely deserve the most serious attention and sustained efforts to contain the threats and preserve vital national infrastructure. That is a duty that we ought to vigorously support the security agencies to successfully discharge. A state of emergency could surely have been proclaimed to grant the relevant security agencies the extraordinary powers and necessary resources to enable them to address the problem. Extending the provisions of such an emergency regime to include the dismantling of democratic structures is a wanton aggression against democratic tenets and the rule of law. The Supreme Court has conclusively declared the suspension of elected officials unlawful in the Dariye vs.Attorney General of the Federation. 

It is my view that Mr. President should review this decision and return to the path of constitutionalism and the rule of law. As an opposition figure, Senator Bola Tinubu had made his voice heard against the decision of then President Goodluck Jonathan to declare a state of emergency in the North-East, even when that decision did not extend to the suspension of elected officials and institutions. A similar reconsideration is warranted in this case to contain the damage done to the people of Rivers State, and restore the Federal Government to compliance with the Constitution.

Let us not keep silent while the slippery slope of replicating the events of emergency rule in the old Western Region in 1962 unfold before our very eyes. I appeal to all patriots and voices of reason to join in calling an end to this gross violation of the Constitution and disrespect for the rule of law. He said.

State of Emergency in Rivers, Tinubu Led Presidency behind Pipeline Vandalism

There's full blown terrorism in the middle belt, zamfara, katsina, sokoto, the North East yet no state of emergency but as soon as two pipelines where blown up Tinubu imposed State of emergency in Rivers State. 

The speed with which they moved to make the declaration when they have not considered the same thing in states facing real security threats is obvious that this move was pre-meditated. 

How come Wike the trouble maker didn't get suspended or sacked but only the governor who's only crime is refusing to be a puppet. 

And as soon as Tinubu illegally suspended the governor he appoints Wike & Akpabio's friend as administrator. 

Are you still wondering who actually blew up those pipelines? 

Okay ask yourself who benefits the most from all these madness. BAT & Wike of course. 

Wike gets to do whatever he wants in Rivers State with the administrator and may yet force Fubara to cower to him. 

Tinubu gets to make more money by Nigeria depending more on his Malta refinery driving up the price of petrol and sabotaging Dangote's refinery in Nigeria and causing more hardship for Nigerian's.

Also this will please his Western masters who see Dangote's refinery as a threat to their operations in the Nigerian oil industry.

Now you should know who was behind the bombing of those pipelines. Yes it's the same people who imposed the state of emergency in Rivers State. 

They don't even care about the security and economic implications of all these which may yet backfire on them. We have security challenges and our armed forces are spread thing already now they want to open a new war front in the Niger Delta which they know very well they can't handle and when Nigerian's decide to revolt they'll not be enough military men to protect them. 

Only a generational change in leadership will end the country's woes 

Source: Social media

PRESS RELEASE: SPEECH FROM FUBARA AFTER THE DECLARATION

 

My dear Rivers People,

I address you today with a deep sense of responsibility and calm, as we navigate this unfortunate moment in our state’s political history. 

Since assuming office as your Governor, all my actions and decisions have been guided by my constitutional oath of office and a great sense of duty.

We prioritized the protection of lives and property and ensured the continuous progress of our dear State. 

Even in the face of the political impasse, we have remained committed to constitutional order and the rule of law, putting the interest of our people above all else.

This was why, immediately after Mr. President’s intervention to broker peace, we did not hesitate to implement the agreed terms in good faith, including welcoming back commissioners who had previously resigned on their own volition. 

Furthermore, we moved swiftly to comply with the Supreme Court's judgement immediately we received the certified true copy of the judgement to return the state to normalcy. 

These steps were taken not for personal gains but to foster peace, unity and stability in our dear State.

Unfortunately, at every turn, members of the Rivers State House of Assembly frustrated our efforts, thus making genuine peace and progress difficult.

Our priorities remained the security of lives and property and advancing the well-being and prosperity of Rivers people. 

Yes, we have political disagreements, but good governance had continued, salaries have been paid, and great projects were being executed to move the State forward. Above all, Rivers State is safe, secure and peaceful under our watch.

At this critical time, I urge all Rivers people to remain peaceful and law-abiding. We will engage with all relevant institutions to ensure that our democracy remains strong and that Rivers State continues to thrive.

We have always been a resilient people, and we will face this situation with wisdom, patience, and unwavering faith in the democratic process.

God bless Rivers State. 

God bless the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Sir Siminalayi Fubara, GSSRS

Suspension Of Elected Officials In Rivers State, An Aberration, Slap On The Constitution

 

By Dr. Farah Dagogo 

The Declaration of a State of Emergency in Rivers State by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu raises serious constitutional questions under the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) 

1. Power to Declare a State of Emergency: Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution

Section 305 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) outlines the conditions under which the President may declare a state of emergency. Specifically: Section 305(1) The President may, by instrument published in the Official Gazette issue a proclamation of a state of emergency in the Federation or any part thereof

Section 305(3) states that the President may only declare a state of emergency in a state if:  

(a) The Governor of the state, with a resolution supported by two-thirds majority of the House of Assembly, requests the President to do so; or  

 (b)There is actual breakdown of public order and public safety requiring extraordinary measures; or  

 (c)There is a clear and present danger of an actual breakdown of public order and public safety in the Federation or any part thereof; or  

 (d) There is an occurrence or imminent danger of invasion, war, or insurrection; or

  

 (e)There is a natural disaster or public health emergency; or  

 (f)There is any other danger threatening the existence of the Federation.  

Since President Tinubu admits that the Governor and Deputy Governor did not request the proclamation (as required under Section 305(5), the legal basis for this declaration rests on whether public order and public safety have truly broken down, justifying the invocation of emergency powers.

2. Legality of the Suspension of the Governor, Deputy Governor, and State House of Assembly. 

One of the most controversial aspects of the declaration is the suspension of the Governor, Deputy Governor, and State House of Assembly Under the 1999 Constitution:  

The only legal way to remove a Governor or Deputy Governor is through impeachment by the State House of Assembly under Section 188.

- The Constitution does not grant the President the power to suspend or remove a Governor or Deputy Governor outside the impeachment process or a valid resignation.  

Section 11(4) and (5) states that only the National Assembly can take over legislative functions of a State House of Assembly in cases where it cannot function. It does not allow for the suspension of elected lawmakers.  

Given these constitutional provisions, President Tinubu’s suspension of elected officials is unconstitutional, as there is no provision in the 1999 Constitution granting such powers. Even during a state of emergency, the Governor and Deputy Governor remain in office, unless removed in accordance with constitutional procedures.

3. Appointment of an Administrator: Constitutional Implications

The appointment of Vice Admiral Ibokette Ibas (Rtd) as the Administrator to govern Rivers State raises another constitutional issue. The 1999 Constitution does not recognize the office of an "Administrator" in place of an elected Governor, The Constitution only provides for:  

A Governor elected by the people (Section 176(1)). A Deputy Governor elected alongside the Governor (Section 186)

The only situation where an unelected official can assume control of a state is under military rule, which is not applicable under a democratic system governed by the 1999 Constitution.

4. Role of the National Assembly in Approving the State of Emergency

Under Section 305(2) and (6), the President must transmit the emergency proclamation to the National Assembly for approval within two days. If the National Assembly does not approve it within 10 days, the proclamation ceases to have effect. 

Thus, for this declaration to be valid, it must receive the backing of the National Assembly. If the National Assembly does not approve it, the state of emergency becomes null and void. 

5. Judicial Interpretation and Possible Legal Challenges. 

Given the constitutional breaches in the proclamation, there are strong grounds for legal challenges in court. The Supreme Court’s pronouncement in A.G. Federation v. A.G. Lagos State (2013) LPELR-20974(SC) reaffirms the principle that the President must act within constitutional limits, even in extraordinary situations.

The affected officials—Governor Fubara, his Deputy, and the State Assembly members—can challenge the suspension in court, arguing that:  

- The Constitution does not empower the President to suspend elected officials 

- The appointment of an unelected Administrator violates democratic principles.  

- The National Assembly must approve the state of emergency before it takes effect. 

Conclusion: Is the State of Emergency Constitutional?

While the President has the power to declare a state of emergency under Section 305, the suspension of elected officials and appointment of an Administrator exceed constitutional limits. Any action outside the scope of the 1999 Constitution is illegal and could be overturned by the courts.