Fledgling democracy is a description that was used for a long time to ascribe to our peculiar democratisation process and system. This is because, when compared to Britain or the USA, whereby we borrowed both the parliamentary and the presidential system of government, Nigeria’s kind of democratic practice is very young just like a tender and young bird that just got the capacity to fly.
The reason for this unique identity is to indicate that as a young political form of government, there could be rooms for amendments and corrections of errors when they are made by those the voters have given the mandate to govern the nation and the component parts which are the states of the Federation.
But with over 30 years of post transition from military dictatorship to civilian governance, Nigerian politicians couldn’t be liberally describing Nigeria as a fledgling democracy since we have practiced unbroken democracy for over three decades.
Even at that, we can very well still allow for some mistakes of the head and not of the heart as we navigate through the ongoing democratisation process.
What is shocking is that even after such a fairly long period of experimentation with democracy as a form of government, the political class are guilty of carrying out certain malpractices that are not in tune with how modern democracy should be.
Whenever political office holders make blunders and misrule the country or a part thereof, some of their media spin doctors often sell the propaganda that Nigeria is just a fledgling democracy and then they start comparing Nigeria with the USA or Great Britain and then tell us that those two great democracies spent a pretty long periods of time and therefore have garnered good enough experiences.
These misbehaving politicians and their propaganda machines would now demand that the citizens should be tolerant of these errors even when some of these blunders are that of the hearts and not of the head or rather, these so-called errors in leadership are such that can be rated as well planned in advance and meant to achieve partisan and selective objective that promotes political agenda.
So we can as well categorise the mistake of leadership made by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu in hastily proclaiming a state of emergency in Rivers state as that of the heart and not of the head because it is a calculated and targeted political agendum tailored towards achieving the illicit attempt at power grab and is a plot by the most beloved minister of the current president who supervises the ministry of the Federal Capital Territory known as Mr. Nyesom Wike who is embroiled in open, brazen and very sinister political battle of wit in which the minister’s plot is to remove the Rivers state governor Mr. Siminilayi Fubara who used to be his political godson.
Siminalayi Fubara as we now know revolted to regain his independence and sanity from the clutches and the oppressive dictatorship of his estranged political godfather who incidentally is the immediate past governor of Rivers State.
President Tinubu had tried all he could to mask his intention for declaration of the state of emergency by asserting that it was done for the public good and to safeguard political stability away from an imminent threat of insecurity in Rivers state.
However, tried as much as he could, everyone knows that the reason for the Proclamation is anything but altruistic but a political gambit against the Rivers state governor which was why the President purportedly suspended the sitting governor which is strictly and massively unconstitutional.
The president does not have the constitutional powers to suspend a governor just as he lacks the constitutional power to suspend himself from office. The Nigerian Constitution has made it abundantly clear and unambiguous that a governor, President or Deputy Governor, Vice president can only be removed by resignation or impeachment and not by presidential suspension which is not in the Constitution.
Going through section 305 of the Constitution which grants the President the power to declare emergency, there is no mention of any kind of discretionary or original powers to suspend a sitting governor. This is a constitutional aberration.
The respected senior lawyer Mr. Femi Falana has also openly carpeted President Bola Ahmed Tinubu for intentionally committing a constitutional harakiri by suspending a sitting governor. Falana also gave us the constitutionally permitted ways of removing a sitting governor which we will adopt for the purposes of our argument in this reflection, made it abundantly clear that suspending an sitting governor by the President is unknown to law.
The reverred senior Advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana, has described as illegal the decision of President Bola Tinubu to suspend Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, Ngozi Odu, and all elected members of the Rivers State House of Assembly for six months.
In a statement made available to the media, the senior lawyer said the President’s decision cannot be justified under any of the provisions of the 320 sections of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended.
While recognizing that Section 305 of the Constitution empowers the President to take extraordinary measures to restore law and order if there is an actual breakdown of public order and public safety in the Federation, Falana argued that the extraordinary measures which may be adopted by the President to restore peace and security do not include the suspension of an elected Governor, an elected Deputy Governor, and the dissolution of other democratic structures.
He, therefore, called on the President to follow the path of constitutionalism without any delay and to proceed to reinstate the suspended Governor Fubara and Deputy Governor Odu and restore all democratic structures in Rivers State.
The learned silk said, “This call is without prejudice to the duty imposed on the President to adopt extraordinary measures to restore law and order in Rivers State under Governor Fubara in strict compliance with the provisions of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended.”
The decision of President Bola Tinubu to suspend Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, Mrs Ngozi Odu, and all elected members of the Rivers State House of Assembly for six months is illegal as it cannot be justified under any of the provisions of the 320 sections of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended.
No doubt, Section 305 of the Constitution empowers the President to take extraordinary measures to restore law and order if, among other reasons, there is actual breakdown of public order and public safety in the Federation or any part thereof to such extent as to require extraordinary measures to restore peace and security or there is a clear and present danger of an actual breakdown of public order and public safety in the Federation or any part thereof requiring extraordinary measures to avert such danger.
But, the extraordinary measures which may be adopted by the President to restore peace and security in the Federation or in any particular State does not include the suspension of an elected Governor, an elected Deputy Governor and the dissolution of other democratic structures.
For the avoidance of doubt, section 45(3) of the Constitution provides that a ‘period of emergency’ means “any period during which there is in force a Proclamation of a state of emergency declared by the President in exercise of the powers conferred on him under section 305 of this Constitution.”
Thus, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Nigerian Constitution, the office of an elected governor can only become vacant upon death, ill health, resignation, or impeachment. Even where the office of the Governor becomes vacant for any reason whatsoever, the Deputy Governor shall be sworn in as the Governor.
Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed as conferring on the National Assembly power to remove the Governor or the Deputy Governor of the State from office.”
In 2004 and 2006, we condemned the illegal dissolution of democratic structures when President Olusegun Obasanjo imposed emergency rules on Plateau State and Ekiti State, respectively. Regrettably, on both occasions, the Supreme Court refused to determine the constitutional validity of the dissolution of democratic structures on the ground that the suit were procedurally incompetent because they were instituted during the six-month emergency period by the suspended legislators in the name of Plateau State without the authorization of the Sole Administration of the state!
However, in 2013, when a state of emergency was declared in Adamawa, Borno and Yobe States by former Presidents Goodluck Jonathan, we urged him to reject the pressure mounted on by anti democratic forces to remove the elected Governors and dissolve democratic structures in the affected States. President Jonathan followed the path of constitutionalism.
In 2021, the then Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr. Abubakar Malami SAN announced the plan of the federal government to declare a state of emergency in Anambra State over insecurity and threat to a complete breakdown of law and order in that part of the Federation We advised President Buhari not to demolish democratic structures even if emergency rule was imposed on the state. President Buhari followed the path of constituionalism.
The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has also issued a strong rebuke of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State, describing the suspension of democratically elected officials as unconstitutional and a dangerous precedent for Nigeria’s democracy.
In a comprehensive statement released Tuesday night, NBA President Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN, responded to the President’s national address of March 18, 2025, in which Tinubu cited “prevailing political tension” and “vandalization of pipelines” as justification for the emergency declaration.
“The NBA is gravely concerned about the purported suspension by the President of the Governor of Rivers State, the Deputy Governor, and the Members of the Rivers State House of Assembly for six months,” the statement reads. “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.”
The association emphasized that while Section 305 of the Constitution does empower the President to declare emergencies, it includes strict conditions and procedural safeguards that must be followed. The NBA questioned whether the situation in Rivers State meets any of the six constitutional thresholds for such a declaration, which include war, external aggression, breakdown of public order beyond conventional legal remedies, threats to national existence, or natural disasters.
“Political disagreements, legislative conflicts, or executive-legislative tensions do not constitute a justification for emergency rule,” the statement asserts.
The NBA had scheduled its 2025 General conference for Rivers state but had to cancel it and take it to Enugu as a form of protest against the illegality of the suspension of the Rivers state governor.
Good enough, about eleven Governors of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) have approached the Supreme Court challenging what powers the president has to suspend the democratically elected Governor of Rivers State, Siminalayi Fubara.
The suit filed by the governors also challenged the declaration of Emergency rule in Rivers State.
While the media previously reported that the suit had been filed before the Supreme Court, the governors’ suit was only filed before the apex court on Tuesday.
The plaintiffs in the suit are – Adamawa, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Bauchi, Akwa Ibom, Plateau, Delta, Taraba, Zamfara, and Bayelsa states.
The plaintiffs, who filed the suit through their state Attorney Generals, predicated the summons on Eight grounds. They urged the apex court to determine if the president has the power to suspend a democratically elected structure of a state.
The plaintiffs also asked the court to determine if the way and manner President Bola Tinubu pronounced the state of emergency declaration in Rivers State is not in contravention of the 1999 constitution.
They further prayed the court to determine the following: “Whether upon a proper construction and interpretation of the provisions of Sections 1(2), 5(2), 176, 180, 188 and 305 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria can lawfully suspend or in any manner whatsoever interfere with the offices of a Governor and the Deputy Governor of any of the component 36 States of the Federation of Nigeria and replace same with his own unelected nominee as a Sole Administrator, under the guise of, or pursuant to, a Proclamation of a State of Emergency in any of the State of the Federation, particularly in any of the Plaintiffs States?
“Whether upon a proper construction and interpretation of the provisions of Sections 1(2), 4(6), 11(4) & (5), 90, 105 and 305 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria can lawfully suspend the House of Assembly of any of the component 36 States of the Federation of Nigeria, under the guise of, or pursuant to, a Proclamation of a State of Emergency in any of such States, particularly in any of the Plaintiffs States?
“Whether the consequent threat by the first Defendant acting on behalf of the President to the States of the Federation, including the Plaintiffs’ States, to the effect that the offices of the Governor and Deputy Governor of the States can be suspended by the President by virtue of a Proclamation of a State of Emergency, is not in contravention of the provisions of Sections 1(2), 4(6), 5(2), 11(2) and (3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and inconsistent with the principles of constitutional federalism?”
Meanwhile, the respondents in the suit are to within 14 days after the service of the Summons on them inclusive of the day of such service, cause an appearance to be entered for them.
Most Nigerians have lost trust and confidence in the integrity and credibility of the Supreme Court given their predisposition to always favour the president and the FCT minister in virtually everyone of the major cases instituted either by the duo or against the duo.
This favouritism heightened since the past one year when the minister of FCT on the permission of the president gifted some of the choicest housing assets in Abuja to justices of Appeal court, Federal High court and the Supreme Court justices openly fraternises with the FCT minister who is a major protagonist in the political imbroglio in Rivers state.
So most Nigerians aren’t upbeat in terms of their expectation of what the judgment of the Supreme Court would be.
But this is the last chance for the Supreme Court of Nigeria to demonstrate to Nigerians whether the justices are effectively in the pockets of president Tinubu and his rich minister of FCT or not.
It is a notorious fact that SUSPENSION OF A SITTING GOVERNOR IS A MASSIVE CONSTITUTIONAL ABERRATION. THERE IS NO HOW THESE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES COULD CONVINCE ANYONE AS OTHERWISE.
*Emmanuel Onwubiko is the founder of the HUMAN RIGHTS WRITERS ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIA (HURIWA) and was NATIONAL COMMISSIONER OF THE NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION OF NIGERIA.
