Tinubu Ends Rivers Emergency, But Precedent Raises Fears for Nigeria’s Democracy

President Bola Tinubu has lifted the controversial six-month state of emergency imposed on Rivers State, declaring that Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, Ngozi Nma Odu, and the members of the State House of Assembly can return to office from Thursday, September 18, 2025.

The Presidency, in a statement on Wednesday, said the emergency proclamation of March 18, 2025, was necessary to halt what Tinubu described as the “total paralysis of governance” in Rivers. “The Governor, His Excellency Siminalayi Fubara, the Deputy Governor, Her Excellency Ngozi Nma Odu, and members of the Rivers State House of Assembly and the Speaker, Martins Amaewhule, will resume work in their offices from 18 September 2025,” Tinubu said.

At the time, Rivers was engulfed in a political crisis. A bitter feud between Governor Fubara and 27 lawmakers loyal to Speaker Amaewhule had effectively crippled governance. Tinubu cited Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) to suspend the governor, his deputy, and the entire legislature, appointing Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ekwe Ibas (retd.) as sole administrator.

Despite over 40 lawsuits challenging the legality of the move, Tinubu insisted it was justified, warning that inaction would have been a “colossal failure.”

A Dangerous Normalization of Presidential Overreach

While the President has now restored democratic institutions in Rivers, the broader implications are deeply troubling. By  unilaterally suspending elected officials and replacing them with an unelected administrator, Tinubu has set a precedent that risks hollowing out Nigeria’s federalism. The move effectively communicated that a president can, with the backing of the National Assembly, dissolve a state government whenever a political crisis arises.

This is not the first time emergency powers have been invoked in Nigeria, but the Rivers case stands out for its arbitrariness. Unlike past declarations tied to armed insurgency or widespread violence, this was triggered by a political quarrel between a governor and his legislators, an issue that, in a functioning democracy, should have been resolved through negotiation, judicial interpretation, or fresh elections, not by suspending an entire state government.

The Thin Line Between Order and Authoritarianism

Tinubu hailed the end of the emergency as evidence of “a new spirit of understanding” among Rivers politicians. Yet, critics argue that the suspension itself weakened democratic accountability and stripped millions of Rivers residents of their right to be governed by their elected leaders for half a year.

More worrying is the precedent. Future presidents may feel emboldened to declare states of emergency in opposition-controlled states under the pretext of restoring order. What prevents emergency powers from being weaponized against dissent?

Nigeria’s fragile democratic institutions face a stern test. The National Assembly’s readiness to endorse the state of emergency raised questions about its independence. The courts, too, appeared unable to provide a clear check on executive power. While Tinubu insists the step was constitutionally valid, the spirit of federalism enshrined in the constitution was undoubtedly undermined.

As Rivers State resumes democratic governance, the lingering question is not whether peace has been restored in Port Harcourt, but whether Nigeria has taken one more step toward normalizing presidential overreach, and he has opened a dangerous door for successive leaders to walk through.