Tinubu’s emergency rule in Rivers is unconstitutional coup against Fubara—Ozekhome

Renowned legal scholar and human rights lawyer, Mike Ozekhome, SAN, has strongly criticized President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of emergency rule in Rivers State, describing it as unconstitutional and a direct violation of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution.

In a statement released on Thursday, Ozekhome asserted that Tinubu’s actions lack any legal foundation, as neither the Constitution, judicial precedents, nor existing laws empower the President to suspend an elected Governor, Deputy Governor, or State House of Assembly.

Ozekhome emphasized that while Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution grants the President the authority to declare a state of emergency, it does not include the power to suspend or remove elected state officials.

He further noted that Section 11(4) explicitly prevents even the National Assembly from dismissing a Governor under emergency rule, making it impossible for the President to claim such authority.

“No constitutional provision, statute, or known legal convention grants the President the imperial and dictatorial authority to single-handedly dissolve the structures of an elected state government,” Ozekhome stated.

According to the constitutional lawyer, emergency powers under Section 305 exist solely to restore order in times of extreme crisis and should not be manipulated as a tool to dismantle a legitimately elected state government.

READ ALSO: Just in: River’s emergency rule: House of Reps backs Tinubu

Ozekhome warned that Tinubu’s declaration of emergency rule in Rivers State amounted to an unconstitutional civilian coup d’état, where executive fiat is used to unlawfully topple elected officials.

He accused Tinubu’s administration of violating the very Supreme Court judgment it claims to be enforcing, particularly in the imposition of a Sole Administrator to manage the state’s finances under Section 162 of the Constitution.

“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,” Ozekhome argued.

Advertisement

Ozekhome expressed grave concerns over the precedent set by Tinubu’s actions, warning that it could lead to widespread abuse of emergency powers.

“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?” he questioned.

He extended this logic further, asking whether a President could hypothetically declare an emergency in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) and assume control of the Senate and House of Representatives.

READ ALSO: High-profile political figures unite against Tinubu

“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 the Federal Republic of Nigeria?” Ozekhome queried.

According to Ozekhome, Tinubu’s administration is attempting to justify its actions by citing emergency regulations that do not exist within Nigeria’s legal framework. He contended that the decision to suspend the Rivers State government was driven more by political maneuvering than by genuine concerns about law and order.

He noted that while Nigeria faces severe crises—including economic hardship, rising insecurity, and political instability—the Federal Government appears to be selectively deploying emergency powers.

“If Rivers State warranted emergency rule, why then have states like Zamfara and Niger, where armed bandits and insurgents have crippled governance, not received the same treatment?” he asked.

“Even the most ardent defenders of Tinubu’s emergency decree must pause and ask: is Rivers State truly the greatest threat to national stability, or is it simply 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?”

Ozekhome stressed that Nigeria remains a constitutional democracy, and as such, the same legal principles must apply uniformly, regardless of political affiliations or the convenience of those in power.

“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,” he warned.

He concluded by urging Nigerians to resist any attempt to undermine democratic governance, emphasizing that the Constitution must remain the supreme guide in all matters of state.

Advertisement