Rivers Crisis: Presidency insists Tinubu’s emergency rule constitutional

The Presidency has justified President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s declaration of emergency rule in Rivers State, stressing that the move was both constitutional and necessary to avert a total collapse of law and order.

The clarification came after the African Democratic Congress (ADC) criticized Tinubu’s decision, branding it autocratic and harmful to the principles of federalism.

In a statement issued on Friday, the President’s Special Adviser on Media and Communication, Sunday Dare, dismissed the ADC’s claims as “baseless lamentations and political grandstanding.” He noted that Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution empowers the President to act in times of crisis.

“The emergency framework was not arbitrary but fully backed by law,” Dare explained. “Contrary to ADC’s propaganda, Rivers officials were never reduced to puppets of the Presidency. They were protected during a volatile period and restored to office immediately stability returned. It is laughable to accuse President Tinubu of eroding federalism; in fact, no living Nigerian has fought more vigorously for state autonomy than Asiwaju Tinubu, a former governor himself.”

According to the Presidency, Tinubu’s intervention ensured peace and the continuation of democratic governance in Rivers State. “ADC is offering Nigerians nothing but nuisance politics,” Dare stated. “What the President has delivered is order, stability, and the restoration of legitimate institutions. History will record that Tinubu acted responsibly and rightly in the face of crisis.”

Tinubu had on September 18 ended the six-month emergency rule first declared on March 18, 2025, directing Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy Ngozi Odu, and members of the State House of Assembly to resume their duties.

But the ADC maintained that Tinubu had exceeded his constitutional authority by suspending and reinstating elected officials. The party argued that legitimacy in a democracy flows from the people, not from presidential decrees, and that only the courts can determine the removal or restraint of governors and legislators.

The opposition further urged the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, to define the scope of presidential emergency powers, cautioning that Tinubu’s actions could establish “a troubling precedent.”

While ADC accused the President of politicizing constitutional provisions, the Presidency countered that the emergency proclamation was a decisive step to prevent violence and secure governance in Rivers State.