Tinubu’s assault on democracy: Rivers now, who’s next?

The festering political crisis which had stalled governance in Rivers State from the later part of 2023 to recently, took a new turn with the imposition of a six months state of emergency on the state by President Bola Tinubu on Tuesday, citing the breakdown of governance and the need to restore order there. As […]

The festering political crisis which had stalled governance in Rivers State from the later part of 2023 to recently, took a new turn with the imposition of a six months state of emergency on the state by President Bola Tinubu on Tuesday, citing the breakdown of governance and the need to restore order there. As part of the state of emergency, the president suspended Governor Siminalayi Fubara, Deputy Governor Ngozi Odu and the Rivers State House of Assembly (RSHA). The president further appointed a former Chief of Naval Staff of the country, Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas as a sole administrator for the duration of the state of emergency. Many had referred to the dispensation as a civilian coup de’tat and a throwback to better forgotten days in the history of the country.

Following the nationwide broadcast that announced the measure was a torrent of sundry reactions – most of which accentuated the inconsistency of that measure with the extant provisions of the country’s constitution. Copious references made to various sections of the constitution have unambiguously defined the constitutional provisions for declaring a state of emergency, along with the incongruity of suspending democratically elected officials as the president has patently done unlawfully.

In all, the central thrust of the messages remains that whereas the president has the power to declare a state of emergency in any part of the country when, and if necessary, such an extreme measure had constitutionally prescribed procedures, which he remains duty-bound to comply with.  This means that the president not only got it wrong this time, but owes the country the duty of reversing any unlawful aspect of his actions.   

A critical aspect of the president’s measures remains his narrative of the causative factors that led to the impasse in governance in the state.  The truth is that not a few Nigerians hold a contrary view to the president’s on the causative factors to the crisis; hence subjecting his take to a credibility crisis.  For while the president weighed heavily on Governor Siminalayi Fubara as the main culprit, facts in the public domain point in a different direction to the disturbing role of the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, who had been in a long-drawn battle with the former, who is actually his successor as governor of Rivers State.

• PDP secretary: Crisis deepens after Supreme Court ruling
• Why FG yet to begin direct payment to LGAs – ALGON

Beyond the constitutional incongruity of the suspension of the governor and others, the incontinence of the president’s blame sharing constitutes another glitch in his case for the state of emergency outing. It is, therefore, the legitimate expectation that the president would adjust his stand, even if it is to lift the suspension of the democratically elected officials, namely the governor, the deputy governor and the RSHA, as a state of emergency can still be administered without suspending them, especially as the constitution does not provide such powers to the president.

However, not many observers of the Bola Tinubu administration nurse such an expectation given the track record of the president with respect to his suspect and democratic persuasions. In several critical instances during his almost two-year tenure – where he was expected to identify with people-friendly disposition – he had adopted the oracular air to dictate and foist his personal idiosyncrasies on the country. Ranging from his role in the shock abrogation of the fuel subsidy at his presidential inauguration on May 29 2023,  to his running tussle with organised labour, and the crackdown on the nationwide hunger-driven protests, it is apparent that he must have come to office with a mindset of squeezing the country into a possibly parochial mould of his identity construct for Nigeria and Nigerians. This obviously explains why his presidential proclivities are at variance with the constitution, even as in any case, he is on oath to defend it.

Against the backdrop of Bola Tinubu’s business with respect to Nigeria’s presidency, at least two motivations seem to be driving him. First is his burning desire to claim the top office as the climax of his political career. That is a legitimate venture for any other Nigerian, and therefore, cannot count as a fault for him. Second is his oracular disposition that only his viewpoint is best for Nigeria. This of course is a fallacy, which as long as he nurses it, makes him often at odds with the country.

In the light of the foregoing, the merit or otherwise of the state of emergency in Rivers State will depend more on the sole administrator having the statutory responsibility of changing the narrative of the state for good. This he has to do by invoking the democratic ethos which had been elusive, even as Nigerians have been aspiring for its play-out since the return of democracy in 1999.

It is expected that all stakeholders in the state would rally round the sole administrator to ensure his success at the job on his shoulders. Already, media reports confirm that he has arrived Port Harcourt, the state capital and has commenced peace building initiatives. This must be the brighter side of the state of emergency.

However, while his intervention in the Rivers State situation may hopefully emerge as a saving grace of sorts, the bigger factor still remains the dangerous precedent set by President Bola Tinubu, whereby he would arbitrarily assume like a conquistador, non-existent powers to suspend democratically elected officers from office at his whims.  Beyond any other consideration is the spread of concern that Rivers State may not be the last of such presidential outings with megalomanic import.  This leads to the question: Who and where is next?