When a state of emergency was declared in parts of Nigeria in 2013, Bola Tinubu, then a fiery opposition leader, was apoplectic. He condemned the declaration by former President Goodluck Jonathan as a “ploy to subvert constitutional democracy” and warned it was “a potentially destructive path to take.”
Now, as president, Tinubu’s words have come back to bite him. Hours after the March 18 explosion on the Trans-Niger Pipeline — imperiling the 245,000 barrels of crude oil and condensates it transports daily — in Rivers State, Tinubu declared a state of emergency in the richly endowed “oil capital” of the country. He suspended the governor, his deputy and all lawmakers for six months and installed a retired vice admiral as caretaker of the region. Echoing Tinubu’s words from 12 years ago, the Nigerian Bar Association condemned the declaration as “an assault on democracy” and said it violates Section 305 of the constitution, which outlines strict conditions for emergency rule. Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar said “it reeks of political manipulation and outright bad faith.”
Tinubu’s state of emergency looks like decisive action by a leader keen to stem potential losses — as much as $440 million a month — if there was a long disruption, but it isn’t. Apart from the constitutional crisis it may trigger, a heavy-handed security solution such as a state of emergency in the previously volatile Niger Delta (of which Rivers State is a part) is unlikely to work and may reignite old tensions. Tinubu has chosen a quasi-military solution for a political problem. He may come to regret his action if the peace that was established in the Niger Delta over the past 16 years begins to unravel as militants and oil bandits who had been neutralized by a 2009 peace and amnesty program regroup.
Oil pipeline attacks and vandalism are a long-standing problem in Nigeria, with government officials saying last June the country loses 400,000 barrels of crude oil a day. When production improved to 1.8 million barrels a day in November from 1.3 million barrels a day last March, Nigerian National Petroleum Co. Chief Executive Officer Mele Kyari said the increased output was due to a combination of improved security measures, government efforts and the support of joint venture partners. It wasn’t a state of emergency.
Rivers State is facing a governance crisis due to a fallout between Governor Siminalayi Fubara and his predecessor, Cabinet Minister Nyesom Wike. Wike, who campaigned against his own People’s Democratic Party candidate in the 2023 presidential election, was handsomely rewarded with the sole opposition seat in Tinubu’s executive. He has allegedly meddled in local matters, leading to the formation and growth of an anti-Fubara wing of lawmakers. Chaos ensued: The Rivers State House of Assembly was bombed, factions each elected a separate speaker of the house and the federal government withheld its financial allocation to the state, while militant groups loosely aligned to the politicians threatened to disrupt oil production if the government didn’t intervene in the political crisis.
These clashes have been going on since 2023, and Tinubu has failed to resolve them. Instead, he is seen as supportive of Wike’s meddling in local politics, largely because the former Rivers State governor has vowed to ensure that the president’s All Progressives Congress party wins the state in the 2027 elections. Tinubu’s failure to act in a nonpartisan manner has opened up a governance vacuum that has seen groups like Niger Delta Rescue Movement (led by the aptly named “Commander No Good Advice”) threaten the destruction of critical infrastructure. This vacuum needs political intervention and dialogue, not the deployment of Nigeria’s overstretched and weakening army.
The greater concern, however, is Tinubu’s alleged arrogation of power to himself to fire elected lawmakers in a manner that opponents may consider a threat to the country’s broad constitutional principles. Tinubu should appreciate the irony of that situation more than most, given his past utterances against the 2004 emergency declaration of President Olusegun Obasanjo following Muslim-Christian violence and Jonathan’s 2013 emergency declaration after jihadist attacks.
Nigerians worry about the rise of an “imperial presidency,” just as Tinubu feared back in 2004 and 2013. He is already being called on to take measures in another troubled region, Osun State, in a manner like his actions in Rivers State. He has already intervened in Lagos State to return to power a speaker impeached by the state assembly.
Nigerians can’t be blamed for their vigilance when they see a leader seemingly seize greater power. The country enjoyed only three years of democracy following its independence in 1963 before it was plunged into a 30-year-long series of brutal military dictatorships that only ended in 1999.
It is prudent, therefore, to be like the Tinubu of 2013: What powers will the president arrogate to himself next, and what does that mean for the country?
