The political landscape of Rivers State, Nigeria, was dramatically altered in March 2025 when President Bola Tinubu declared a state of emergency, suspending the democratically elected Governor, Deputy Governor, and House of Assembly members. This move sparked immediate and widespread condemnation, with many prominent figures, including former Senate President Adolphus Wabara, decrying the decision as an unconstitutional assault on democracy. Wabara, in his capacity as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), argued that the President’s actions violated the fundamental tenets of Nigerian law and represented a dangerous regression towards authoritarianism. The core of the contention rested on the premise that the President’s power to declare a state of emergency is constitutionally limited to specific circumstances, such as war or insurrection, which were demonstrably absent in Rivers State.
The President’s justification for the state of emergency centered on the alleged breakdown of order and a deteriorating relationship between Governor Siminalayi Fubara and the state House of Assembly, a situation purportedly exacerbated by the influence of former Governor Nyesom Wike. This justification, however, was widely dismissed by critics, who viewed the move as a politically motivated power grab, rather than a legitimate response to a genuine crisis. The appointment of a former Chief of Naval Staff, Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas (retd.), as sole administrator further fueled the perception of an undemocratic takeover, replacing elected representatives with an unelected appointee. This action, according to Wabara and other critics, fundamentally undermined the principles of representative governance and the right of the people of Rivers State to choose their own leaders.
Wabara’s condemnation was not limited to the President; he also criticized the National Assembly for ratifying the proclamation, urging them to act as a check on executive power rather than a rubber stamp. He called upon the judiciary, civil society, and the international community to intervene and defend the democratic process. The former Senate President drew parallels between the President’s actions and the dark days of military dictatorship, emphasizing the importance of upholding constitutional principles to prevent a slide back into authoritarian rule. He stressed that the situation in Rivers State, while perhaps politically complex, did not warrant such a drastic and legally questionable intervention.
Adding to the mounting legal pressure on the President, the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of the state of emergency declaration and the subsequent appointment of the sole administrator. SERAP’s lawsuit articulated the argument that the suspension of elected officials violated not only the Nigerian Constitution but also international human rights conventions to which Nigeria is a signatory. The suit highlighted the importance of safeguarding the people’s right to participate in their government and upholding the rule of law as essential components of a functioning democracy. It sought the reinstatement of the elected officials and the reversal of the sole administrator’s appointment, seeking a judicial affirmation of the principles of democratic governance.
The SERAP lawsuit, brought on behalf of three members of its Volunteers’ Lawyers Network in Rivers State, underscored the constitutional provisions guaranteeing the right to participate in government and the specific conditions under which a state of emergency could be declared. The plaintiffs argued that none of these conditions were met in the case of Rivers State and that the President’s actions represented an arbitrary and unlawful suspension of democratic processes. By challenging the President’s decision in court, SERAP aimed to establish a legal precedent that would protect against future executive overreach and safeguard the integrity of democratic institutions in Nigeria.
The events in Rivers State brought into sharp focus the tension between executive power and democratic principles. President Tinubu’s decision, while ostensibly aimed at restoring order, sparked a significant backlash and raised concerns about the potential erosion of democratic norms. The legal challenges and widespread condemnation underscored the fragility of democratic institutions and the vital role of citizens, civil society organizations, and the judiciary in holding power accountable and upholding the rule of law. The eventual outcome of the legal proceedings and the broader political fallout would have significant implications for the future of governance in Nigeria.
