But there is the loose angle to the arrangement that neither of the parties gave thoughts to. That was the fact of Fubara asserting himself after being aided to the office
By Emeka Alex Duru
Certain questions keep surging since President Bola Tinubu declared a state of emergency in Rivers State, on Tuesday, March 18. Among these are; was the situation in Rivers that bad for the President to have embarked on that action that ordinarily should have been a last resort? Is the measure in the interest of the people or in furtherance of obvious partisan interest? Can the President be exonerated from the confusion in the state? Will the action restore peace in Rivers?
Tinubu said he declared the emergency rule to forestall total breakdown of law and order in the state. According to him, the impasse in Rivers, was taking a turn for the unpredictable, hence his intervention. But the question remains; how did the situation become that bad? Who were the main actors involved? President Tinubu, the Minister for Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike and the suspended governor, Siminilayi Fubara, should be in position to know. Each is complicit in many ways.
Some read nemesis and proxy agenda for 2027 politics in the confusion. Others disagree. Both interpretations are plausible. Notwithstanding, the prevailing uncertainties in the state were bound to occur, anyway. They were merely biding for time. Rivers is a case of conspiracy gone awry. There is the saying that there cannot be a perfect conspiracy. Conspirators always turn against one another when there is no common enemy. In that case, the hand or nemesis, is manifesting boldly in the oil-rich state. How Tinubu and Fubara won in the presidential and governorship elections in River, is still fresh in the minds. Despite their dubious declaration by the highly compromised Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and subsequent validation by the Courts, voters in the state knew what happened. The victory was procured. Wike’s appointment as FCT Minister is largely seen as payback for successfully executing the odious task.
But there is the loose angle to the arrangement that neither of the parties gave thoughts to. That was the fact of Fubara asserting himself after being aided to the office. That has been the bone of contention. If you then see it from the point of gangsters falling apart at the point of sharing their booty, you may not be wrong. Similar situation occurred in Anambra in 2003 when the then President, Olusegun Obasanjo and his sidekick, Chris Uba, bent INEC to throw up Chris Ngige as the governor, in clear disregard of Peter Obi, who the electorate gave their votes to. It did not however take time before, Obasanjo, Uba and Ngige fell apart. Rivers is on that path, now.
Then, also is the dimension of the proxy agenda for 2027. Power mongers are never satisfied with marginal wins. Like the Spanish conquistadors of old, they go for the entire entity. In Tinubu, you can see one who is never done with piecemeal triumphs. He does not take prisoners but goes for the kill. He knows in the innermost recesses of his mind that he did not win free and fair in Rivers in 2023. He also has the fears of losing the state in 2027 with Fubara asserting himself. The only way out therefore, is to take away the governor or get him thoroughly weakened to the point that by the time he begs his way back to office, he would be a lame duck, a robot of sort. This is the scorched-earth policy that Sun Tzu, the Chinese military strategist and writer alluded to in his book, The Art of War. For Tinubu, doing away with anticipated obstacles and opponents may clear his road to 2027. But how far can he go with the permutation? There have been reactions on the emergency rule declared by the President. The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has condemned the suspension of the governor and other elected officials of the state by the President, describing it as unconstitutional and an assault on democracy.
According to the NBA President Afam Osigwe, the move violates Section 305 of the Nigerian constitution, which outlines strict conditions for emergency rule. Section 305, he said, grants the president the power to declare a state of emergency but with procedural safeguards to prevent abuses. “The 1999 Constitution does not grant the president the power to remove an elected governor, deputy governor, or members of a state’s legislature under the guise of a state of emergency. Such actions amount to an unconstitutional usurpation of power and a fundamental breach of Nigeria’s federal structure”, he said.
Former Vice President and 2023 Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar described the measure as “political manipulation and outright bad faith”, accusing Tinubu of being a “vested partisan actor” in the political turmoil in the state. Labour Party (LP) flag bearer in 2023, Peter Obi, also lashed out that “The declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State is not just reckless—it is a clear attempt to return us to a state of nature and tighten its grip on power at all costs”.
These are views that cannot be discountenanced. Tinubu’s emergency rule in Rivers, made it the fifth time such measure would be taken in the country since the commencement of the present civilian dispensation in 1999. On May 18, 2004, Obasanjo imposed a state of emergency on Plateau following the cycle of violence in the state. He suspended the elected Governor Joshua Dariye and the State House of Assembly in the process. Obasanjo also declared a state of emergency in Ekiti due to the outbreak of crisis, following the controversial impeachment of former Governor Ayo Fayose and appointed Major GeneralTunji Olurin, a former military governor of Oyo State, as administrator. In both instances, he was heavily criticised for suspending elected governors.
On December 31, 2011, erstwhile President Goodluck Jonathan declared emergency rule in some local governments in Borno and Plateau States to contain the activities of terrorists in the areas. Jonathan took similar action on May 14, 2013, for the entire northeast insurgent-ridden states of Borno, Yobe and Adamawa. In all the incidences, there were obvious instances of disturbances, yet, Jonathan did not suspend any of the state governors.
The situation in Rivers did not get to such troubling points. It was rather an issue of misunderstanding among known actors. Tinubu, acting in good conscience could have fashioned out a political solution to the impasse. But the impression is that he is not innocent of the crisis in the state. In other words, he is an interested party and cannot be in position to champion peaceful and acceptable solution. That is the major problem.
DURU is the Editor, TheNiche Online Newspapers, Lagos (08054103327, nwaukpala@yahoo.com)