STATE OF EMERGENCY IN NIGERIA: CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS VS. POLITICAL MANEUVERING
By Esther Dodo
Executive Director
Aza Gbagyo Foundation
estherdodo96@gmail.com
On the evening of Tuesday, 18th March 2025, the President of Nigeria, His Excellency Bola Ahmed Tinubu declared a state of emergency in Rivers State and further suspended its governor, Sir Amaopusenibo Siminalayi Fubara, and the State House of Assembly. This act has sparked widespread controversies, debates, and legal questions lingering in the hearts of the masses without any definite answers, such as:
Has the suspension of the Rivers State executive and legislative government come to stay?
What does the law say about it?
Will justice prevail, or will political purge have its course?
In any democratic system of government, the separation of power is essential for maintaining checks and balances and to enable the curtailment of excess powers being wielded by any arm or organ of government. The key question here is whether the President has the legal authority to suspend a democratically elected governor as well as declare a state of emergency independently, strikes at the heart of this principle, raising concerns about abuse of power and the sanctity of electoral mandates.
Historical Context of State of Emergency in Nigeria
The first and second instance of a state of emergency in Nigeria were declared by former President Olusegun Obasanjo:
May 18th 2004 – Plateau State: Declared due to violent killings in Yelwa.
2006 – Ekiti State: Declared when Governor Ayo Fayose, was suspended for six months.
The third instance occurred in 2013 when former President Goodluck Jonathan declared a state of emergency in Adamawa, Yobe, and Borno states due to escalating Boko Haram terrorist attacks. President Tinubu’s declaration in Rivers State marks the fourth time a state of emergency has been declared in Nigeria’s history.
Understanding the Legal Framework
According to the Oxford Dictionary, a state of emergency is “a situation of national danger or disaster in which a government suspends normal constitutional procedures in order to regain control over state affairs.”
The Nigerian Constitution grants the President the power to declare a state of emergency, however, certain stringent conditions must be fulfilled for such a declaration of a state of emergency to be valid and binding. Such conditions, as stated under Section 305 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (As Amended), provides as follows:
War external aggression against Nigeria.
Imminent danger of invasion or war.
A breakdown of public order and safety to such an extent that ordinary legal measures are insufficient.
A clear danger to Nigerian’s existence.
Occurrence of any disaster or natural calamity affecting a state or a part of it.
Such other public danger that constitutes a threat to the federation.
Subsection (2) of Section 305 of the Nigerian Constitution further provides that:
A Proclamation issued by the president under this section shall cease to have effect where-
If it is not approved by a resolution of the National Assembly within two days when the National Assembly is in session or
If the National Assembly is not in session, within ten (10) days after it reconvenes.
A close reading of Subsection (2) and (3) of Section 305 of the Nigerian Constitution brings to bear the legal effect of the acts of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu suspending the Rivers State government as unconstitutional, as in the circumstances of this case, none of the conditions warranting a state of emergency appear to be present in Rivers State. Additionally, such a declaration by the president must receive legislative ratification within the constitutionally defined timeframe otherwise, the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State remains constitutionally invalid and ineffective.
Judicial Precedents and Legal Implications
Ultimately, the court will have the final say on the legality of this declaration. However, it is eminent to bring to the limelight previous landmark cases of AG Federation V. AG Lagos State (2004) 12 SCNJ 1 and AG Federation V. AG Plateau State, 3 NWLR (Pt. 967)363 Where the Supreme Court held that a president does not possess the constitutional authority to remove or suspend a democratically elected governor. These decisions reaffirm that governance at the state level is vested in the people through their elected representatives. Any attempt by the executive to override this mandate undermines democratic legitimacy.
The Supreme Court’s ruling also clarifies that even under political crises, the President cannot interfere with the autonomy of state governments unless all constitutional conditions for a state of emergency are met. Any necessary intervention must strictly adhere to the conditions set out in the constitution.
The Danger of Political Maneuvering
If the suspension of elected officials under emergency rule is use as a tool for political purge rather than genuine crisis management, it sets a terrifying precedent that could permanently damage Nigerian Democracy.
The constitution is the supreme law in Nigeria, and every attempt to go against its provisions must not be condoned. Furthermore, Section (1)(3) of the Nigerian Constitution states to the effect that any Law or Act of the National Assembly which is inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution is null and void.
Thus, any legal justification the President has relies upon to justified his decision must be consistent with the provisions of the constitution, otherwise, it is void ab initio (invalid from the beginning).
Conclusion
Protecting the sanctity of democracy should be the ultimate goal of every government. Therefore, all relevant authorities must act in accordance with the law and uphold the best interest of the country.
Any attempt to circumvent constitutional provisions in the name of emergency rule threatens the democratic stability of Nigeria and should be resisted through legal and democratic means.
