In a nationally broadcast address on 17 September 2025, President Bola Tinubu announced that he was lifting the six-month state of emergency in Rivers State. Tinubu had proclaimed the emergency on 18 March 2025, citing a “total paralysis of governance” in the oil-rich state.
At the time, Rivers had a bitter conflict between Governor Siminalayi Fubara and a faction of the State House of Assembly led by Speaker Martins Amaewhule, which left the legislature deadlocked and budget bills unsigned.
As Tinubu noted, the stalemate was so severe that even the Supreme Court ruled “there was no government in Rivers State”. With evidence of pipeline vandalism and political violence mounting, Tinubu invoked Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution to intervene.
Today that emergency ends, but the episode has raised deep questions about the scope of presidential power and the balance of federal-state relations.
Political Crisis in Rivers State
Rivers State, in southern Nigeria, is a key oil-producing region and Nigeria’s second most populous state. In 2024 and early 2025, it became the epicentre of a bitter political crisis. Newly elected Governor Fubara (PDP) and the 32-member State Assembly (many believed to be loyal to former Governor Nyesom Wike, now a federal minister) fell out.
The Assembly split into rival factions – only 4 members backed the Governor while the other 27 backed Speaker Amaewhule. This schism prevented the passage of any appropriation bill, halting the state’s budget and crippling government functions. Simultaneously, Rivers suffered frequent oil pipeline attacks, costing government revenues and undermining security.
In February 2025 the Supreme Court intervened: acting on petitions by both sides, it affirmed that the 27-member group led by Amaewhule was the lawful assembly, and ordered the reinstatement of those legislators to their seats.
However, until a budget was approved with the full house, the court effectively agreed with the parties that “there was no government in Rivers State”. This unprecedented deadlock, with neither the Governor nor the Assembly able to govern, alarmed federal officials and local stakeholders.
As violence simmered and governance ground to a halt, efforts by elders and mediators – including interventions by the President himself – repeatedly failed to resolve the impasse.
In mid-March, the situation appeared to edge towards open disorder: there were threats of mass protests and reports of continued pipeline sabotage.
It was in this context that President Tinubu announced the emergency. The crisis that triggered it – a collision of executive and legislative powers in an oil hub – was thus both political and economic in nature.
Emergency Declaration and Restoration of Civil Rule
On 18 March 2025 President Tinubu issued a proclamation under Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution, declaring a state of emergency in Rivers State. This action suspended the offices of Governor Fubara, Deputy Governor Ngozi Odu, and the entire State House of Assembly for six months.
The President appointed retired Rear Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas as Sole Administrator to run state affairs during this period. As required, Tinubu immediately sent the declaration to the National Assembly for ratification. Two days later (20 March), Parliament approved the emergency measure.
Although enacted by voice vote, commentators noted it was not formally counted to the constitutionally mandated two-thirds majority in the House. In any case, Speaker Femi Gbajabiamila announced that, based on the quorum of 243 members present, the resolution had passed.
During the emergency, the federal administrator took charge of government functions and security in Rivers. Federal troops were deployed to protect pipelines and prevent violence. The sole administrator banned strikes and political rallies in the state, and dissolved local security outfits.
At the same time, Tinubu and national party leaders held meetings with the feuding Rivers factions. By late summer 2025 a series of compromise agreements were brokered. According to the President, intelligence reports indicated a “new spirit of understanding” among Rivers leaders.
Key figures – including Fubara, Amaewhule and even estranged figures like Nyesom Wike – were said to be working toward reconciliation.
On 17 September Tinubu announced that the emergency would end at midnight, exactly six months after its start. He directed that Governor Fubara, Deputy Odu and the legislators should resume their constitutional duties on 18 September. The unusual federal interregnum in Rivers was thus concluded, for now, by executive fiat.
Constitutional Debate
The legal basis of the Rivers emergency has been hotly debated. Section 305 of the Nigerian Constitution authorises the President to declare a state of emergency “when there is actual breakdown of public order and public safety” in any part of the Federation.
Tinubu and his supporters argue that Rivers met this test: a standstill in government and attacks on oil infrastructure constituted an “extraordinary” situation demanding prompt action. The President himself described the emergency power as an “inbuilt constitutional tool” to restore order in such cases.
However, legal experts emphasise that Section 305 is “subject to the provisions of this Constitution”. Other parts of the Constitution explicitly provide for how state officials may be removed or suspended – for example, a governor can only be removed by an impeachment process (Section 188) and legislators by recall procedures (Section 110).
Critically, no provision in the entire 1999 Constitution authorises the President to sack or suspend a governor or state legislature unilaterally. As one analysis noted, if Parliament had intended to allow such suspensions, the emergency clause would have said so explicitly. Instead, it remains silent on dissolving state governments, suggesting that impeachment and recall procedures apply even during emergencies.
Accordingly, critics argue that Tinubu’s removal of Rivers officials exceeds his constitutional mandate. The Policy and Legal Advocacy Centre (PLAC), a respected NGO, warned that “nowhere in section 305 is the President empowered to unilaterally suspend the Governor or members of the House”.
The PLAC memo also invoked Section 11 of the Constitution, which provides that during emergencies the state House of Assembly (or the National Assembly) continues to exercise legislative powers.
In other words, they say, an emergency is meant to deal with security issues, not to disrupt the electoral mandate of state officials. The PLAC paper deemed the Rivers decree a “dangerous precedent” that could be used to undermine democracy.
Supporters of the emergency concede that Section 305 does not spell out a suspension power, but argue that in extreme cases courts have recognised implied authority to neutralise a government that cannot govern. The Supreme Court in Attorney General of the Federation v. Attorney General of Yobe State (2014) held that an emergency declaration “does not automatically dissolve state governments” – implying that continuing the state government was the default.
Tinubu’s backers interpret this to mean that dissolving state officials is also not automatic, but they point out the Rivers situation was not normal governance. As the President noted, the courts had effectively said Rivers had no functional government, so strict adherence to the normal rules might have been impossible.
Ultimately the constitution requires that any emergency proclamation be approved by a two-thirds majority of each house of the National Assembly, which was done. In the Rivers case, the Presidency maintains that all formal steps were observed. But challengers say even with NASS approval, the resulting decree must still pass constitutional muster – and they question whether it did.
Section 11 and later provisions suggest that the state legislature should retain some role, yet all 32 legislators were sidelined. Notably, all previous states of emergency in Nigeria (for insurgency or violence) left the elected governor and assembly intact.
For example, during the Boko Haram insurgency President Jonathan declared emergencies in three North-Eastern states in 2013, but retained the existing state governments. By contrast, the Rivers case is almost unique in that all elected leaders were suspended. This divergence has fuelled the constitutional controversy.
To summarise the legal landscape: Section 305 clearly allows emergency rule when order collapses, but Section 305 says it is “subject to” the rest of the Constitution. Several critical provisions (e.g. Sections 188, 110) limit removal of governors and legislators. The Supreme Court has upheld that emergencies themselves don’t wipe out civilian rule.
Thus many jurists argue that while declaring an emergency in Rivers may have been constitutional, suspending the governor and lawmakers was not explicitly authorised by law. The courts may eventually have to resolve whether Tinubu’s actions were a lawful emergency measure or an overreach.
National Assembly Approval and Legal Challenges
The National Assembly’s quick endorsement of Tinubu’s proclamation carried constitutional importance but also raised questions. Both the Senate and House of Representatives convened emergency sessions in late March to consider the President’s request. By all accounts, neither chamber formally recorded the roll-call of two-thirds majority that Section 305 technically requires. Instead, each house approved by voice vote.
House Speaker Gbajabiamila reported that 243 members were present, implying a majority of over two-thirds, and declared the resolution adopted. Observers noted that this ad hoc procedure could itself be challenged, but at the time no court halt order was obtained. In short, the emergency was ratified by the legislature, enabling it to continue legally.
Nevertheless, the state of emergency immediately spawned numerous court battles. As President Tinubu acknowledged, “over 40 cases” were filed in different courts challenging the declaration. Lawsuits by Rivers politicians and civil society sought to invalidate the emergency decree on grounds of unconstitutionality.
In March 2025 the Ijaw Youths Council (Eastern Zone) – a regional civil society group – took the extraordinary step of suing at the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice, accusing Nigeria of violating international democratic norms.
Twelve complainants (led by Comrade Ibiso Harry) demanded that the ECOWAS court quash the emergency proclamation, reinstate the suspended officials, and award damages for the perceived rights violations.
They argued that tinubu’s decree had ‘forcefully removed popular sovereignty’ from Rivers people. A spokesman warned it was a “test case for democracy” in the region – if ECOWAS upholds the plaintiffs, it would signal that no government can use emergencies as a pretext to suppress elected institutions.
In Nigerian courts too, the lawsuits are pending. Opponents contend that the Rivers emergency was unnecessary and unconstitutional. One youth leader said bluntly: “We voted for our leaders in a free and fair election. The President cannot just sweep them aside … This is a coup in disguise”.
They seek declarations that suspending the governor and assembly was unlawful, and that any actions by the administrator are void. Supporters of the emergency counter that court action was expected in a democracy. The President himself noted that dissenting voices “had every right” to challenge the move in court.
For now, most of the litigation is unresolved or has been stayed. Even after the emergency was lifted, the Ijaw Council’s ECOWAS case remains active as of September 2025, illustrating that legal contention over the intervention will outlast the six months.
Political Reactions and Implications
The end of the Rivers emergency has drawn mixed reactions, reflecting deep political divides. In Rivers itself, prominent figures and community leaders have welcomed peace and called for unity. The Rivers Elders Council, representing traditional rulers, urged Governor Fubara and the legislature to “work together without any distractions” now that democratic rule is restored.
The elders commended President Tinubu and FCT Minister Wike for facilitating reconciliation, saying the federal intervention “averted the disaster that was about to descend on the state”. Former Governor Wike – who originally helped instigate the conflict in an attempt to force Fubara’s removal – acknowledged that emergency was not his preferred solution, but said it ultimately prevented anarchy.
Wike insisted he had wanted Fubara out entirely (“I wanted the outright removal of Governor Fubara”), but conceded that Tinubu’s action “saved” the state from breakdown.
Governor Fubara, for his part, has also publicly praised the federal action as timely. In interviews, he thanked President Tinubu for acting “wisely” and argued the intervention would be remembered as having “salvaged the state from anarchy”arise.tv.
Fubara appealed to his supporters to accept the peace process, pledging that both the executive and legislature would now resume working together. He said the State’s second-year anniversary celebrations could proceed because Tinubu’s intervention had stabilised the polity.
Both Fubara and Wike have called for a forgiving spirit among stakeholders; the governor vowed he and Speaker Amaewhule would reconcile and resume normal governance.
On the national scene, reactions fell largely along partisan lines. The ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) defended Tinubu’s use of emergency powers as constitutionally justified and necessary to protect public safety. APC leaders argue that without federal intervention the standoff in Rivers might have paralyzed the state indefinitely.
By contrast, opposition parties (especially Wike’s People’s Democratic Party in the South) criticised the move as an overreach. They warn it undermines federalism by setting a precedent that the central government can dismiss state executives over political disputes.
Observers note that President Tinubu, an APC leader with a legislative minority in Rivers, had a political stake in restoring order (the oil revenues and security implications extend beyond party lines). Some PDP voices have accused the federal government of acting at the behest of Wike’s faction, effectively prolonging a personal feud within the party.
Officially, the federal Information Minister stressed that the emergency was never meant to be permanent – it would be lifted “once normalcy returns”, which it now has.
Analysts say the Rivers episode will have lasting implications. It has demonstrated that Section 305 is a powerful option for the president, which may influence future governor-legislature stand-offs.
Some legal experts fear it opens the door to executive intrusion: as one wrote, “the deliberate disruption of the democratic order in any part of the national structure” challenges the country’s constitutional authenticity.
Internationally, the ECOWAS challenge could broaden the debate: a ruling there could either constrain or validate how African democracies use emergency powers.
Domestically, state governors will watch closely. The lesson could be that governments cannot leave budgets unfunded and institutions paralysed – the centre may step in if things get too chaotic. On the other hand, some say the narrow application (just one state, one time) means it is unlikely to become routine.
For now, Tinubu’s announcement on 17 September explicitly reminded all governors: a peaceful atmosphere is essential for democracy to deliver “the dividends of democracy”. In that sense, the emergency has been framed by its supporters as a cautionary tale rather than a new normal.
Historical Comparisons
The Rivers emergency joins a short list of such federal interventions in Nigeria’s history. In the Second Republic and early Fourth Republic, presidents have occasionally declared emergencies in troubled states. Under President Olusegun Obasanjo (1999–2007), emergencies were declared in Plateau (2004) and parts of Lagos, Yobe and Kaduna (2002–05) to quell communal violence.
In those cases, however, state executives were not removed – governors remained in office and civilian structures were largely intact. Under President Goodluck Jonathan, emergencies were declared in the Northeastern states (Adamawa, Borno, Yobe in 2013) against Boko Haram insurgents; again, the elected governors stayed in place.
Even Jonathan’s short 2016 emergency in Bayelsa (for election security) involved military aides but kept the state governor. The Rivers case is unusual because all the state’s elected leaders were suspended. As legal scholar Chinaza Eneh has noted, the constitutionality of Obasanjo’s past suspensions themselves has never been judicially settled.
Therefore, past practice offered little clear precedent. In fact, one prominent lawyer remarked that President Jonathan had “correctly interpreted” the Constitution by not purporting to dissolve state governments during emergencies. Rivers 2025 thus stretches beyond established norms.
In summary, the federal government has declared emergencies on at least half a dozen occasions for security crises, but never before to settle a purely political impasse by removing a state’s governor and assembly. This makes the current episode a landmark test.
If upheld, it could embolden future leaders to invoke emergency powers in political disputes. If struck down, it will reinforce that emergencies are meant only for situations like war or natural disasters, not as a tool for managing party infighting.
In conclusion, the closure of the Rivers State emergency marks the end of a dramatic six-month intervention, but not the end of the debate it triggered. President Tinubu maintains that he acted to save democracy from itself, quoting constitutional authority and pointing to the tangible improvements since intervention. Critics maintain he exceeded his mandate and that his decree undermined the will of the electorate.
As Nigeria’s courts and international forums weigh these arguments, one thing is clear: the incident has spotlighted deep ambiguities in the law and the fragility of inter-branch cooperation in our democracy.
For Rivers, the immediate hope is that peace will hold and that Governor Fubara can function with the full complement of legislators. For the country, the emergency has reinforced the lesson repeated by judges and statesmen: democracy can only deliver its promise in “an atmosphere of peace, order and good government”.
Moving forward, both governors and federal officials will be mindful that the next time a state teeters on chaos, the thresholds and limits of Section 305 will likely be scrutinised like never before. The history books will note that in 2025, Nigeria tested the outer edges of its constitution.
Whether this episode ultimately strengthens or weakens the democratic compact remains to be seen, but its full impact on Nigerian federalism and the rule of law will be debated for years to come.
Follow us on our broadcast channels today!
- WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VawZ8TbDDmFT1a1Syg46
- Telegram: https://t.me/atlanticpostchannel
- Facebook: https://www.messenger.com/channel/atlanticpostng
