TRENDING NOW
Suspended Rivers State Governor, Siminalayi Fubara, has pushed back against claims made by President Bola Tinubu in his nationwide address on Tuesday night, countering accusations related to the state’s recent turmoil.
In his speech, Tinubu declared a state of emergency in Rivers, suspending Fubara and members of the state’s House of Assembly for six months. He also appointed retired Vice Admiral Ibokette Ibas as the state’s sole administrator.
Reacting in a statement issued by his Chief Press Secretary, Nelson Chukwudi, Fubara refuted several allegations, particularly regarding the condition of the Rivers State House of Assembly complex.
He asserted that the facility, which was demolished, was already nearing 80% completion and not abandoned as suggested.
The statement reads in full: “Our attention has been drawn to a number of allegations claiming that Governor of Rivers State, His Excellency, Sir Siminalayi Fubara, did nothing to dissuade criminal groups and militants from making good their threats to attack oil installations in the State.
There was also another claim that after demolishing the Hallowed Chambers of the State House of Assembly on Moscow Road in Port Harcourt, the Governor did nothing to rebuild the facility.
Ordinarily, we would have ignored the statements as mere results of lack of adequate information to the Presidency by those tasked with the responsibility of providing same to guide decision-making, but it has become imperative to set the records straight and correct the erroneous impression such narratives are creating in the minds of the Nigerian people.
First, it is important to clarify that Governor Fubara has nothing to do with the threats by militants and also did not in any way “telegraph” the reported attacks on any oil facility in the State.
It is on record that the reaction of stakeholders in the Niger Delta, especially elders, chiefs, women, Ijaw National Congress, its youth wing, IYC, as well as militants, among others, was triggered by remarks by the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Chief Nyesom Wike, in a live media chat, during which he dismissed Ijaws as a minority of the minorities and powerless in the Nigerian polity, saying that Ijaws are not the only ones that are militants and can blow up pipelines; that Ogonis, Ikwerres, and others are also militants and can as well blow up pipelines.
Most of the Ijaw groups and leaders even demanded an apology from the FCT Minister, which he rebuffed.
Available public records show that Governor Fubara, on several occasions and at every forum, including all the project commissioning events as well as the handover of the AW139 Helicopter to the Nigerian Air Force, between March 3 and 13, 2025, made it clear that his administration was committed to the peace, security, and safety of oil facilities in the State.
He often recalled his pivotal role as a member of the Presidential Committee on the Protection of Oil Installations in the Region, and repeatedly emphasized the need to protect oil pipelines and other facilities in the State, urging his supporters and the people of the State to avoid acts capable of destabilizing the State or sabotaging the nation’s economy.
Since inception as the Chief Executive of Rivers State, Governor Fubara has prioritized investment in upscaling the welfare and operational equipment of all personnel and arms of the Armed Forces and security agencies in the State by building livable office and residential accommodation for officers and men and donating vehicles, gunboats, helicopters, and other critical needs of the formations to enhance efficiency and effectiveness in the performance of their duties.
His commitment to total peace and good governance in the State has contributed significantly to increased oil production and revenues for the country since May 29, 2023, as the continuous rise in the accruable revenue from the State into the Federation Account has shown over the months.
On the claim that the Governor acted with impunity to demolish the Hallowed Chambers of the State House of Assembly and did nothing to rebuild the Chambers 14 months after, it is on record that Governor Fubara acted based on professional advice and guidance.
Let it be clarified that the former Governor and now FCT Minister repeatedly criticized the dilapidated and leaking Assembly Complex, and during the commissioning of the Assembly Quarters in August 2022, challenged the lawmakers to take responsibility for the poor state of the edifice, rejecting requests to rebuild it to ensure a conducive legislative environment for the lawmakers.
It must be noted that immediately after the incident of October 29, 2023, and experts’ reports, the Government decided to heed the age-old demands of the lawmakers to rebuild the facility and promptly demolished the dilapidated structure to give way to a state-of-the-art Assembly Complex, which is now nearly 80 percent completed.
It would be recalled that in the wake of the most peaceful and violence-free Local Government election in the State on the 5th October, 2024, the supporters of the FCT Minister violently attacked and razed facilities in some local government council secretariats without any reprisals from Governor Fubara’s supporters.
It is also pertinent to draw the attention of security agencies to the fact that LGAs where those attacks were unleashed are the same places that have repeatedly witnessed violence perpetrated by detractors of the Governor Fubara-led administration.
This is why it is important for the security agencies to focus on the real purveyors of violence, critically evaluate these incidents, and diligently undertake investigations to unravel the elements behind the crimes and bring them to justice without let or hindrance.
It is clearly untrue that somebody who has all the while preached peace and non-violence, even in the face of extreme provocations, would be “telegraphing attacks on oil pipelines” and breaching the peace he has worked so hard to promote and sustain for the good of the people of the State. ”
A comprehensive salary verification exercise to ensure transparency and accountability in salary payments has commenced in Kano State.
The Secretary to the State Government, Umar Ibrahim, led an inspection team to various salary validation centers to assess staff records and address payroll discrepancies.
According to Ibrahim, the initiative is part of the government’s efforts to promote financial discipline and improve efficiency in civil service salary administration.
“This exercise aligns with our commitment to eliminating irregularities and ensuring that only rightful employees receive salaries,” he stated.
During the visit to the Pilgrims Welfare Board, Ibrahim assured civil servants that salaries would be paid on time before Sallah, provided they completed the verification process. He also emphasized that past salary-related challenges had been effectively resolved.
The verification exercise will continue across multiple centers to ensure compliance with payroll integrity standards.
Head of Civil Service, Abdullahi Musa, reiterated the importance of proper salary management in fostering good governance and maintaining an accurate record of civil servants.
The Federal Government has not yet commenced direct allocation of funds to Local Government Areas (LGAs) due to ongoing procedural steps, says Hon. Odunayo Alegbere, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Association of Local Governments of Nigeria (ALGON).
Alegbere revealed that LGAs have been instructed to open accounts with the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) to facilitate the process. While the implementation is still in progress, he praised the Federal Government’s commitment to local government financial autonomy, following a Supreme Court ruling on the matter.
He emphasized that direct allocation would empower local governments financially, allowing them to execute projects independently and tackle poverty at the grassroots level.
Although full financial autonomy has not been achieved, Alegbere noted that significant strides are being made. He criticized the current system where state governments oversee local government elections, arguing that it often leads to appointments rather than democratic selections. However, he expressed confidence that ongoing constitutional amendments by the National Assembly would address this issue.
“We are happy with the president, and though we have not yet reached our goal, we are making steady progress,” he said.
Alegbere highlighted the urgent need to address poverty at the grassroots, stating that direct allocation would play a crucial role in eradicating extreme deprivation.
“If you look at the grassroots level, the level of abject poverty is alarming. But with this new arrangement, we are confident that we will eradicate and stamp out poverty,” he said.
He also advocated for removing the State Independent Electoral Commission (SIEC) from the constitution, proposing that a national body oversee local government elections to ensure fairness.
Linking Nigeria’s security challenges to weaknesses in the local government system, Alegbere called for the restoration of full autonomy and the inclusion of traditional institutions in governance to improve security efforts.
“Unless and until we revisit the older system, addressing insecurity will remain a challenge,” he stressed.
He urged the Federal Government to integrate traditional rulers into the local government structure to enhance grassroots security.
Commenting on the political crisis in Rivers State, Alegbere commended President Bola Ahmed Tinubu for his intervention, stating that the declaration of a state of emergency prevented a potential civil war.
Regarding disputes over ALGON’s leadership, he dismissed claims by a factional group regarding the Secretary-General position, asserting that the organization has a clear leadership structure.
He expressed confidence in the Federal Government’s continued implementation of the Supreme Court’s ruling, reinforcing local government administration.
“We are the umbrella body of the 774 local governments in Nigeria, and we will continue to support the president in ensuring that the local government system functions effectively,” he concluded.
A total of 29 individuals involved in internet fraud have been convicted and sentenced to various prison terms by Justices A.N. Erhabor and W.I. Aziegbemhin of the Edo State High Courts.
The verdicts were delivered in Benin City after the convicts were prosecuted by the Benin Zonal Directorate of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
Among those sentenced were Edeyibo Hope, Igbafe David, Emakhu Bonfrey, Genesis Ndujifor, Okolosie Godstime, Chukwu David, Ebuka Emmanuel, Akhe Akahomhen, Odiniru Vet, Obiora Kelvin, and Stephen Eghosa, among others.
The convicted internet fraudster commonly known ass Yahoo boys faced a one-count charge related to offences such as obtaining by false pretence, advance fee fraud, retention of proceeds of crime, and possession of fraudulent documents. All pleaded guilty.
Justice Erhabor sentenced some of the convicts to two years in prison, with the option of a ₦200,000 fine. Justice Aziegbemhin issued similar sentences, while some individuals were ordered to pay ₦400,000 in fines.
Additionally, the court ruled that a red Mercedes-Benz C300, registered as BEN258CM, along with mobile phones, computers, and cash linked to the fraudulent activities, be forfeited.
The convictions followed an EFCC sting operation based on credible intelligence regarding cybercrime activities.
The trial of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), is set to restart today before a new judge at the Federal High Court in Abuja.
Kanu, who was extradited from Kenya in 2021, has been facing treason-related charges. However, after three years of proceedings, he expressed a lack of confidence in Justice Binta Nyako, who had been handling the case.
Following this development, the case was reassigned to Justice James Omotosho, who scheduled March 21 for fresh proceedings. Hearing notices have reportedly been sent to all parties, and the case file, along with necessary documents, has been transferred to the new court.
Barring any last-minute delays, Kanu is expected to be re-arraigned today on the remaining seven charges brought against him by the Federal Government.
In a December 15, 2023 ruling, the Supreme Court ordered Kanu to stand trial on the remaining charges, overturning the earlier decision of the Court of Appeal that had discharged and acquitted him. The apex court acknowledged that Kanu’s extradition from Kenya was illegal but ruled that this did not strip the Federal High Court of its jurisdiction to proceed with the trial.
Since the Supreme Court’s verdict, little progress had been made as Kanu’s legal team repeatedly requested more time and resources to prepare his defence.
On September 24, 2023, Justice Nyako stepped down from the case after Kanu openly demanded her withdrawal. Although the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, initially rejected her withdrawal and ordered her to continue, he later reassigned the case to Justice Omotosho, setting the stage for today’s proceedings.
The Federal Government has approved the mobilisation of all full-time Higher National Diploma (HND) graduates for the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC), ending years of exclusion from the scheme.
Minister of Education, Dr. Tunji Alausa, announced the decision on Thursday in Abuja, stating that only graduates of full-time HND programs would be eligible for mobilisation. The policy shift follows consultations with the Director-General of the NYSC and is aimed at promoting fairness in the education sector.
“The Federal Ministry of Education remains committed to equity, fairness, and inclusivity in Nigeria’s education system,” Alausa said in a statement released by the ministry’s Director of Press and Public Relations, Folasade Boriowo.
To ensure smooth implementation, the National Board for Technical Education (NBTE) has been directed to compile data on eligible HND graduates. A circular has also been issued to polytechnic rectors, instructing them to upload the necessary graduate records to a newly established HND admission portal, which will serve as the official database for NYSC mobilisation.
However, the minister clarified that part-time HND graduates remain ineligible for the scheme.
“This decision applies strictly to those who completed a full-time HND programme,” Alausa reiterated.
He urged all qualified graduates to take advantage of the opportunity and begin their mobilisation process immediately.
The move is expected to address long-standing concerns among polytechnic graduates and enhance their participation in national development through the NYSC scheme.
The Edo State Government has announced the termination of 10 road contracts as part of efforts to streamline project execution and ensure quality standards.
Commissioner for Information and Communications, Paul Ohonbamu, made the disclosure after a State Executive Council meeting at the Government House in Benin City.
According to Ohonbamu, the decision was taken to maintain uniform standards, prevent project overlaps, and rescope the contracts for quicker completion. He added that the government would assess the level of work done to determine appropriate compensation for contractors.
“This is to defray what they have done and any other payment accruable. The government is not terminating them with punishment. But the quantum of work will be analysed, and what they deserve will be paid.
“This no doubt shows that the governor does not have any oppressive tendency but follows the rules to agree to pay those who are performing,” he said.
Ohonbamu also noted that the state would settle outstanding payments for 10 contractors engaged by the previous administration, ensuring that ongoing projects are not delayed.
Additionally, the state government approved new contracts for road reconstruction in Ovia North East, Esan North East, and Oredo Local Government Areas.
“The State Executive Council also approved the renovation of some dilapidated public schools across the state in line with the government’s commitment to improving the learning environment,” he stated.
He emphasized that Governor Monday Okpebholo’s administration inherited deteriorating school infrastructure and is taking decisive steps to create better conditions for students.
“In four months, the governor has been able to put in place a solid foundation to build upon sustainable infrastructure and human capital development of the people of Edo State,” Ohonbamu added.
The Minister of State for Housing and Urban Development, Abdullahi Ata, has dismissed the recent political coalition involving former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai, and Labour Party’s Peter Obi, stating that their alliance poses no real challenge to President Bola Tinubu ahead of the 2027 elections.
Speaking through his media aide, Seyi Olorunsola, the minister described the coalition as “dead on arrival.”
Ata commended President Tinubu’s leadership, emphasizing that his administration is steering Nigeria toward economic and political stability through key reforms. He argued that these policies are already yielding positive results, strengthening public confidence in the government.
He urged Atiku, Obi, and El-Rufai—whom he described as “three elusive political wanderers”—to acknowledge that Nigerians have embraced Tinubu’s leadership. He insisted that the country has moved past experimental governance and would not rally behind politicians who, in his view, lack a clear ideological direction.
Highlighting Tinubu’s governance style, Ata praised his commitment to the rule of law, democratic values, and transparency in handling national affairs. He pointed to the President’s role in resolving the recent political crisis in Rivers State as an example of his leadership.
The minister further criticized the opposition figures, dismissing Atiku as a “serial contender” repeatedly rejected at the polls, while describing El-Rufai as a “desperate power seeker” whose past political actions have eroded his credibility. On Obi, he accused him of stoking ethnic and religious divisions and argued that such tactics would not help him secure the presidency.
Ata concluded by reaffirming that Tinubu remains a transformative and transparent leader committed to national development. He maintained that the administration is focused on delivering progress and would not be sidetracked by political alliances lacking substance.
The Federal Capital Territory Emergency Management Department (FEMD) has confirmed another accident on Thursday under Karu Bridge along the Abuja-Keffi Expressway.
In a statement issued in Abuja, the department’s Acting Director-General, Mr. Abdulrahman Mohammed, assured that no lives were lost in the incident.
According to Mohammed, the accident occurred when a truck carrying fertilizer collided with a Toyota Hijet truck and a refuse collection truck.
He added that officers from the Federal Road Safety Corps promptly removed the damaged vehicles to prevent traffic congestion.
The D-G urged motorists to adhere to traffic regulations and drive cautiously to ensure their safety.
This incident comes just a day after a tragic crash at the same location, where a truck lost control and crashed into stationary vehicles, triggering a massive explosion. That accident claimed 10 lives and left over 30 people injured, many of whom are still receiving treatment in various hospitals.
Suspended Kogi Central senator, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, has taken her allegations against Senate President Godswill Akpabio to British news network Sky News, claiming she endured over a year of unwanted advances from him.
During the interview on Wednesday, Akpoti-Uduaghan maintained that her suspension from the Senate was not due to misconduct, as officially stated, but a direct consequence of speaking out against Akpabio’s alleged sexual harassment.
She alleged that Akpabio repeatedly told her she must “please him” to fully enjoy her privileges as a senator.
“I made an allegation of sexual harassment against the President of the Nigerian Senate, Senator Godswill Akpabio, on March 5, 2025, and the very next day, I was suspended for six months. I believe my suspension is illegal, unjust, and just a way of silencing me,” she said.
Detailing her experience, she added, “I experienced sexual harassment over the past year at the hands of the Senate President, and because I refused to yield to his demands, it turned into malice whereby my rights and privileges as a senator were deprived.
“I found the courage to speak up; yes, the breaking point was moving me from that seat. I have had to endure a whole lot in silence.”
When asked about the Senate’s claim that she was suspended for gross misconduct, Akpoti-Uduaghan dismissed it as an attempt to suppress her voice.
“Yes, they did mention that I was suspended on grounds of gross misconduct, but can they please provide what the gross misconduct is that amounts to a six-month suspension the day after I submitted a petition? I was suspended because of that petition, not because of any gross misconduct.
“Let’s talk about the gross misconduct that has happened in the Nigerian chambers. I was only told to move, and I refused to move my seat because I deserved to be notified; I deserved to be given a chance to explain why I should retain my seat,” she stated.
She further argued that her suspension highlights double standards in the Senate, as male colleagues involved in more disruptive conduct have not faced similar penalties.
“I have seen in that chamber where men fight, where Senators throw items at each other, curse each other, shout at each other, but they were not suspended. Why? Because they were men. Things got difficult for me; I was always complaining.
“My husband would actually walk up to him because they are friends, saying, ‘My wife has a very important bill, her constituency needs this, why don’t you give her a chance to speak? And he would tell me, ‘Next time.’ So he deliberately kept on denying me this.
“Each time I walked to him he’d tell me, ‘Right here I am the chief presiding officer of the National Assembly, so you have to please me, make me happy to get these privileges.’ And that happened several times. Because I refused, it developed into malice. Which other way was I supposed to make my voice heard?”
Akpoti-Uduaghan’s six-month suspension was announced on March 6 following a heated exchange with the Senate leadership over her seating arrangement. The dispute escalated when she accused Akpabio on Arise TV of targeting her for rejecting his alleged advances.
Her interview with Sky News comes just days after she took her case to an international stage, speaking at the Women in Parliament session of the Inter-Parliamentary Union at the United Nations in New York. There, she called for international scrutiny of the Nigerian Senate’s actions.
She also revealed that, as part of her suspension, she has faced additional sanctions, including the withdrawal of her security detail, salary reductions, and a six-month ban from the National Assembly.
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?
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 one emergency declaration at a time? History will surely judge us all.
President Bola Tinubu on Thursday hailed the National Assembly for its decisive and patriotic ratification of the State of Emergency proclamation in Rivers State.
The President described the move as a a critical step to restoring stability after a protracted political crisis that paralysed governance in the state and endangered national economic security for over 15 months.
A statement signed by Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, on Thursday, said Tinubu specifically commended the National Assembly’s leadership—Senate President Godswill Akpabio, House of Representatives Speaker Tajudeen Abbas, other principal officers and members—for prioritising the security and welfare of Rivers State people above partisan interests and other considerations.
He further acknowledged the lawmakers’ diligent review of classified security briefings, underscoring the urgent need for intervention to prevent further escalation.
“The crisis in Rivers State was at a perilous tipping point, threatening the security of vital oil and gas installations and undermining the national economy and the significant progress we have made in the reforms initiated since our administration commenced in May 2023.
“As I detailed in my address to the nation on 18 March, the near-total collapse of governance, threats to federal economic assets, and the risk of widespread violence left no room for hesitation. This emergency measure is a lifeline to safeguard livelihoods, secure critical infrastructure, and restore democratic accountability,” the statement quoted the President to have said.
The President affirmed that the six-month emergency will empower the newly-appointed Sole Administrator to stabilise Rivers State, address systemic breakdowns, and facilitate dialogue among conflicting parties.
Tinubu also reaffirmed his administration’s commitment to deepening collaboration with the National Assembly to advance peace, economic resilience, and equitable development across Nigeria.
“Today’s decision exemplifies what our nation can achieve when unity of purpose and patriotism guide the action of leaders. We remain steadfast in pursuing a safer, more prosperous Nigeria—one where every citizen’s potential is safeguarded and nurtured,” he said.
The President thanked all Nigerians for their understanding and urged all stakeholders to support the restoration of peace in Rivers State.
The National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) has announced that Corps Members will begin receiving an increased monthly allowance of ₦77,000 starting in March 2025.
NYSC Director General, Brigadier General Olakunle Oluseye Nafiu, made this confirmation during an interactive session with Corps Members at the Wuse and Garki NYSC Zonal Offices in Abuja on Thursday.
Addressing concerns about the delay in implementing the new allowance, Brigadier General Nafiu reassured Corps Members of the Federal Government’s commitment to their welfare.
“With effect from March, you will receive Seventy-Seven Thousand Naira as your monthly allowance. NYSC is efficient in record-keeping, and I assure you that your payments will be made. The nation and the Scheme appreciate you,” he stated.
He urged Corps Members to remain patient and dedicated to their service, highlighting the NYSC’s role in fostering national unity and instilling values such as patriotism and teamwork.
On behalf of her colleagues in the Garki Zone, Corps Member Zaka Deborah Alheri (Call Number: FC/24A/5831) expressed gratitude to the Director General for his efforts in ensuring the allowance increase becomes a reality.
Brigadier General Nafiu also acknowledged the dedication of Corps Members across the country, emphasizing that their contributions are valued by both the NYSC and the nation.