Rivers crisis: Political godfatherism, emergency powers, and Nigeria’s democratic struggles

By Lemmy Ughegbe, Ph.D

The declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, leading to the suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara and the appointment of an interim administrator, has sparked a national debate on constitutionalism, democratic governance, and the unchecked influence of political godfathers in Nigeria.

Critics have described the move as an unconstitutional overreach, while supporters argue that it was a necessary measure to restore order and stability in a politically volatile situation.

At the core of this crisis is the deteriorating relationship between Governor Fubara and his erstwhile godfather and predecessor, Barrister Ezenwo Nyesom Wike, the current Minister of the Federal Capital Territory.

Although none of them has officially explained the reason for the rumpus, it is widely speculated that while Wike, who played a pivotal role in Fubara’s emergence as governor, expected absolute loyalty, the godson has been more intent on asserting his independence from his godfather.

This is not an isolated incident in Nigerian politics, where godfather-godson conflicts have frequently destabilised state governance. In Rivers State, however, the conflict has elicited federal intervention through the declaration of emergency rule.

Supporters of President Tinubu’s intervention point to the alarming breakdown of law and order in Rivers State prior to the emergency declaration. They argue that the escalating political violence, threats to lives, and disruption of governance warranted decisive action to prevent a complete collapse of the state’s institutions.

This camp contends that Tinubu’s move was aimed at protecting Rivers residents from potential harm, restoring peace, and ensuring that democratic structures could continue functioning in a stable environment.

Proponents also cite Section 305 of the Nigerian Constitution, which grants the President the power to declare a state of emergency where there is a serious threat to public safety and order.

They argue that the President acted within his constitutional mandate, especially given reports of violent clashes, intimidation of lawmakers, and threats to public security in the state. From this viewpoint, the situation had spiralled beyond the capacity of the state government to manage, necessitating federal intervention.

Historically, they point to precedents such as the emergency declarations by President Olusegun Obasanjo in Plateau and Ekiti States in 2004, due to escalating violence and governance breakdowns.

Supporters of Tinubu’s action argue that, as with those past interventions, the Rivers emergency was essential to prevent further chaos. They believe that critics are underestimating the severity of the situation and ignoring the federal government’s constitutional obligation to protect lives and maintain order.

However, critics assert that the imposition of emergency rule undermines Nigeria’s constitutional democracy. Section 188 of the 1999 Constitution provides clear guidelines for the removal of a governor, stipulating that only the State House of Assembly can initiate impeachment proceedings.

By bypassing this process and suspending both the governor and the legislature, the Federal Government is accused of setting a dangerous precedent that weakens state autonomy and democratic accountability.

This legal concern is further deepened by the reaction of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), which has been particularly vocal in its condemnation. The NBA insists that even if there were legitimate security concerns, the proper course of action would have been to enhance security measures within the state, not dissolve its democratic institutions.

An additional layer of complexity stems from a prior ruling by the Supreme Court, which restrained the Federal Government from releasing Rivers State’s allocation due to the absence of a functional democratic structure in the state.

The apex court directed Governor Fubara to present the state budget to the Martins Amaewhule-led State House of Assembly, recognising it as a necessary step to restore proper governance. However, what followed was a cat-and-mouse political standoff, with Fubara and the 27 lawmakers engaging in evasive manoeuvres and protracted stalemates rather than complying with the court’s directive.

This dysfunction exacerbated perceptions of instability in the state and arguably paved the way for Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency. Yet, what followed raised even more eyebrows.

Upon dissolving all democratic structures in Rivers and appointing an unelected interim administrator, the Federal Government swiftly reversed its earlier stance and authorised the release of the previously withheld funds.

Critics view this as contradictory, both to the Supreme Court’s decision and to democratic principles. A senior legal scholar captured public sentiment aptly: “If the initial concern was the lack of a functioning democratic structure, how does replacing elected officials with an interim appointee resolve that issue?”

This action has reignited debates over the separation of powers and federal overreach. Critics argue that by disregarding judicial directives and constitutional procedures, the Federal Government is setting a precedent that could embolden similar undemocratic interventions in other politically sensitive states. A civil society activist noted, “What we are witnessing is a troubling shift toward centralising power at the expense of Nigeria’s federal and democratic foundations.”

Another significant source of concern is President Tinubu’s declaration that the Executive would take over governance functions in Rivers State. Legal experts and members of the National Assembly have argued that this move unconstitutionally usurps the powers of the legislature, as it is the National Assembly—and not the Presidency—that is empowered to administer a state under emergency rule.

This assumption of legislative authority further fuels arguments that the President has exceeded his constitutional boundaries.

These constitutional and legal breaches were further aggravated by the manner in which the emergency declaration was approved by the National Assembly. While the President’s proclamation was swiftly endorsed through voice votes in both chambers, this procedural approach sparked sharp criticism over its transparency and legality.

Representative Obi Awuocha, who earlier urged that they take a headcount of lawmakers to ascertain their number, but was rebuffed by the speaker, decried the use of voice votes for such a weighty national decision.

On the floor of the House, he argued that a recorded vote would have been more democratic and verifiable. “If we are to uphold the sanctity of the Constitution, let us, at least, have a clear tally of who voted for or against this emergency declaration,” he stated.

Senator Seriake Dickson, a former governor and respected voice in the Senate, also raised alarms over the process. He called for greater scrutiny of the President’s proclamation, warning against a precedent where emergency powers are invoked and approved without rigorous debate or transparent legislative procedures.

“We cannot afford to erode the principles of democracy under the guise of maintaining order. Emergency declarations should be a last resort, not a tool for settling political scores,” he said during Senate deliberations.

These dissenting voices were echoed by other lawmakers from across party lines, who expressed concern over the rushed nature of the approval and the lack of clarity on whether the constitutional requirement of a two-thirds majority had truly been met. Critics argue that the voice vote mechanism allowed the leadership to obscure dissent and bypass the accountability expected in a constitutional democracy.

The Rivers crisis, therefore, has far-reaching implications for Nigeria’s democratic stability. While emergency powers are designed to address real threats to governance and public safety, their misuse could erode the very democratic norms they are meant to protect.

By conflating political disagreements with security threats, the federal government risks turning emergency rule into a political weapon rather than a stabilising tool.

Supporters maintain that in instances where state institutions are paralysed by infighting and violence, the federal government has a duty to step in to avert disaster. They argue that President Tinubu acted out of genuine concern for the safety and welfare of Rivers residents, not out of political expediency.

Nonetheless, the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State has laid bare the deep tensions within Nigeria’s democratic framework, raising fundamental questions about the balance between federal authority and state autonomy. While proponents see it as a necessary step to restore order, critics believe it threatens the nation’s constitutional foundation and could imperil its democratic evolution.

Ultimately, the Rivers crisis serves as a sobering reminder of the persistent challenges confronting Nigeria’s democracy—from the lingering shadows of political godfathers to the increasingly contentious use of emergency powers.

Whether this moment becomes a cautionary tale or a catalyst for reform will depend on how Nigeria chooses to confront the contradictions it now faces. What is clear is that urgent reforms are required—reforms that prioritise transparency, constitutionalism, and the rule of law.

Lemmy Ughegbe, Ph.D writes from Abuja
Email: lemmyughegbeofficial@gmail.com
WhatsApp ONLY: +2348069716645