Nigeria's Federalism In Peril: Tinubu's Suspension Of Rivers State Governor Raises Alarms

When Federalism Hits a Rough Patch: Tinubu's Bold Move Sparks Debate

Here's the thing: Nigerian federalism usually doesn't make headlines that grab your attention. But let me tell you, yesterday evening, President Bola Tinubu dropped a bomb that’s impossible to ignore. He invoked emergency powers and suspended Rivers State's democratically elected governor, Siminalayi Fubara, who happens to be a member of the opposition PDP party. This move comes after a long and heated political feud between Fubara and his former boss, now Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike. Now, I don’t want to get bogged down in the details of their spat, but I want to explain why this situation is troubling for subnational autonomy and why it could harm Nigeria's federal structure moving forward.

Let’s Talk Legalities and History

The president has the power to declare a state of emergency thanks to Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). Here's how it breaks down:

• Subsection 1: The president can issue a proclamation if they believe Nigeria or any part of it is experiencing an emergency situation.
• Subsection 3: This isn’t a free-for-all; it lists specific conditions that justify such a declaration.
• Subsection 4: The president must get approval from the National Assembly within two days if they’re in session or ten days if they’re not.

Since 1999, three Nigerian presidents have exercised this power. Obasanjo did it in Plateau (2004) and Ekiti (2006), and Jonathan followed suit in Borno, Yobe, Adamawa, and parts of Plateau (2011). Obasanjo, much like Tinubu, suspended the elected governors of the affected states. Legal experts have long debated whether Section 305 gives the president the authority to remove or suspend governors. The Supreme Court has weighed in, confirming that elected officials cannot be dismissed unilaterally, even under emergency rule.

Read also:

Andrew Niccols Net Worth In 2024 A Look Into His Film Success And Financial Insights

Newspaper headline of former President Obasanjo exercising emergency powers, suspending a Governor

What makes this situation even more concerning is the justification Tinubu has provided. It’s the weakest rationale we’ve seen so far, representing one of the most significant overreaches of presidential power in recent history. This isn’t just a legal issue; it’s a threat to the principles that underpin Nigeria’s federal structure.

Why This Moment Matters

Nigeria didn’t just stumble into federalism—it was a deliberate choice. Given the country’s deep ethnic, regional, and religious diversity, centralized governance just wasn’t going to cut it. After the colonial amalgamation of 1914, tensions between major ethnic groups and smaller minorities only grew. Federalism was seen as a way to allow self-determination for these diverse groups while keeping the country together.

States and their governors play a crucial role in this system. They have constitutionally protected powers and revenue streams, giving them the ability to chart their own course, even if the federal government doesn’t agree, as long as they stay within legal boundaries.

Tinubu’s use of emergency powers signals a worrying shift. The bar for when a president can decide to remove a sitting governor is now dangerously low. Nigeria’s federal system already leans heavily toward the federal government, and this imbalance is nothing new. But this move is different. It suggests that a governor’s term isn’t just about electoral chances—it’s now subject to federal whims. This tilts the balance even further in favor of the center, creating a precarious situation for state autonomy.

Bigger Picture Implications

Tinubu’s appointed administrator, former military official Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ikwe, pictured with Minister Wike (when he was a governor).

Read also:

Brittany Cartwrights Journey To Success Net Worth Career And Lifestyle

Here’s the deal: federalism isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution. Nigerian commentators love to talk about "true federalism," but the reality is that there’s no single blueprint. Over the past few years, my research has shown me nearly every variant of federalism out there. Some systems are highly centralized, while others lean toward decentralization. Some promote state autonomy, while others focus on cooperation. Even electing governors isn’t a given everywhere. Take Russia, for example, where governors are appointed.

But one thing is universal in any federal system: public buy-in. The legitimacy of any political structure depends on whether the public believes in its principles. Federalism is supposed to signal fairness and independence. Tinubu’s actions undermine that perception, especially in the Niger Delta, a region that has historically been treated unfairly despite its significant contributions to the national economy.

This perception of unfairness works both ways. Niger Deltans have seen emergency powers used in northern states under Jonathan and sustained by Buhari, but governors weren’t removed. Meanwhile, people in the north who’ve suffered from terrorism, losing family members, livelihoods, and places of worship, might question why their leadership remained intact despite such violence. Is their suffering less important because their states don’t produce oil?

Now, Rivers State has a governor appointed on purely political grounds, without the consent of its people. Even when Nigeria’s electoral process is flawed, at least the perception of consent exists. Here, that perception hasn’t even been attempted. This deepens the legitimacy crisis and highlights how little regard is being paid to democratic principles at the state level.

As federal interventions become more excessive, these perceptions will only worsen, eroding federalism’s ability to manage ethnic diversity and ease tensions. More troubling, it sets a dangerous precedent. Each use of emergency powers lowers the bar, and future presidents might use it not for genuine security crises but for political control, especially in opposition-led states. It signals that even manageable internal disputes could invite federal takeovers.

Final Thoughts

The 2025 Rivers State emergency declaration isn’t just another headline—it’s a turning point. It exacerbates the already stark imbalance between the federal center and the states. It undermines constitutional safeguards meant to protect state autonomy. It fuels public distrust in the fairness and impartiality of Nigeria’s federal system. And most dangerously, it sets a precedent for future abuse.

Some will argue that Tinubu isn’t the first to do this and therefore shouldn’t be criticized. I get that, but we have to acknowledge that a future president may cite his actions today just as he has cited those of his predecessors. The backslide must be highlighted.

The real question now isn’t whether Nigerian federalism is under threat—it’s how much longer it can withstand these attacks. Let’s hope that this moment serves as a wake-up call for all stakeholders to protect the principles that keep Nigeria’s federal system intact.