Former Anambra State Governor and 2023 Labour Party presidential candidate, Peter Obi, has strongly criticized President Bola Tinubu’s recent declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State, labeling the move as “unconstitutional and reckless.” Obi expressed his concerns in a statement posted on his X (formerly Twitter) handle on Wednesday, March 19, 2025.
In his statement, Obi argued that the President’s unilateral decision to suspend Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, and all members of the Rivers State House of Assembly for six months has plunged Nigeria back into a state of lawlessness, undermining the progress made over 26 years of democratic governance. He accused President Tinubu of disregarding the rule of law and exhibiting a dangerous willingness to trample on democratic principles.
Obi further contended that the political situation in Rivers State does not justify such an extreme measure, describing the declaration as a biased interpretation of Section 305(1) of the 1999 Constitution. He emphasized that a state of emergency does not grant the President the authority to unilaterally remove an elected governor, stating that this action contradicts democratic norms and good governance.
Highlighting the potential dangers of this precedent, Obi warned that it sets an unconstitutional overreach that threatens democracy, the rule of law, and the separation of powers. He expressed concerns that, if left unchecked, such actions could foster a culture of impunity. Obi also noted that Nigeria has already been grappling with issues like electoral irregularities and massive rigging, and that the arbitrary removal of elected officials could push the nation towards anarchy.
In light of these concerns, Obi appealed to the National Assembly and all stakeholders to intervene and prevent this development from standing, asserting that allowing it would deepen the culture of impunity and brigandage already threatening Nigeria’s democracy.
President Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State has been met with various reactions, with some political leaders, civil society groups, and legal experts debating its implications for governance and constitutional democracy.
