The political crisis in Rivers State has escalated significantly, culminating in President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in the oil-rich region. This decision has sparked intense debate, with supporters arguing it is necessary to restore stability, while critics call it unconstitutional and politically motivated.
But what does the law say about this? Does the federal government have the authority to impose emergency rule in Rivers State? This article examines Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution, the legal basis for a state of emergency, and whether the current situation aligns with constitutional requirements.
A state of emergency is an extraordinary measure that allows the government to temporarily suspend normal governance and impose strict control in response to a major crisis. When declared, the government assumes special powers to restore law and order, often overriding elected institutions.
However, such a declaration must follow strict constitutional guidelines to prevent abuse.
What Section 305 of the Constitution Says
Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) grants the President the power to declare a state of emergency under specific conditions, including War or Imminent War (If Nigeria is at war or faces an external threat), breakdown of public order and safety (if there is an actual breakdown of law and order requiring extraordinary intervention), clear and present danger (If public disorder is about to spiral out of control, natural disaster or public danger (If an event like a natural disaster threatens public safety), failure of a State Government (If a Governor fails to address a crisis, and the President determines that emergency intervention is necessary).
Even when the President issues a proclamation, it is not final. The National Assembly must approve it within two days (if in session) or ten days (if not). If the National Assembly rejects it, the state of emergency ceases to have effect.
The Rivers State Declaration: Legal or Political?
Background of the Crisis; Rivers State(Rivers), one of Nigeria’s most important oil-producing regions, has been plagued by political instability within the People’s Democratic Party (PDP). The conflict between Governor Siminalayi Fubara and the State House of Assembly led to attempted impeachments, legal disputes, and allegations of unconstitutional actions.
Additionally, pipeline vandalism and security threats in the state contributed to the federal government’s justification for emergency rule.
Federal Government’s Action
On March 18, 2025, President Bola Tinubu declared a state of emergency in Rivers State, citing the breakdown of public order and the need to protect oil infrastructure. This declaration resulted in suspension of the elected government, appointment of retired Vice Admiral Ibokette Ibas as the Military Administrator, restriction of political activities in the state.
The Senate and House of Representatives quickly ratified the declaration, although legal experts have questioned whether the required two-thirds majority was achieved in the Senate.
DOES THE RIVERS CRISIS MEET THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR A STATE OF EMERGENCY?
Given the constitutional guidelines, does the Rivers situation justify an emergency declaration and has there been an actual breakdown of public order? While the political conflict is severe, Rivers State has not descended into complete lawlessness or an armed rebellion, Section 305(3)(c) requires a total collapse of law and order, not just political disputes.
Has the Governor failed to act? Governor Fubara was still governing before the declaration.
Section 305(3)(g) only allows emergency rule if the state government has completely failed to function, which remains debatable.
Did the National Assembly follow due process? Reports suggest the Senate may not have obtained the two-thirds majority required to approve the declaration.
If true, this raises serious legal concerns about the legitimacy of the emergency rule.
The declaration has sparked strong opposition:
- The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has labeled it unconstitutional, arguing that a stateof emergency does not justify removing an elected Governor.
- Civil rights organizations have called for a judicial review, insisting that the courts mustdetermine whether Tinubu’s action aligns with the Constitution.
- Some lawmakers claim the National Assembly’s approval process was flawed, making the declaration null and void.
- Meanwhile, the federal government maintains that the move is necessary to protect national security and ensure stability.The state of emergency in Rivers State raises critical constitutional and democratic questions. While the federal government argues it is essential for security, opponents warn that it sets a dangerous precedent for removing elected officials under the guise of emergency rule.
The next phase will likely involve: - Legal challenges in court
- Political negotiations between the federal and state governments
- Continued scrutiny of the National Assembly’s approval processFor now, Nigerians must stay informed, demand transparency, and uphold the rule of law to ensure that constitutional democracy is not undermined.
