Rivers State: Criticizing Tinubu’s state of emergency, way forward

Rivers State, a vital oil-producing region in Nigeria, has experienced yet another pipeline explosion, intensifying an ongoing crisis marked by political instability, economic sabotage, and social unrest. This incident follows President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency on March 18, 2025, which suspended Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, and the state assembly for six months, replacing them with a military administrator, Vice Admiral Ibokette Ibas (Retd.). Tinubu justified this move under Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution, citing pipeline vandalism and a political uprising due to Fubara’s differences with his predecessor, Nyesom Wike, now Tinubu’s key ally and Federal Capital Territory Minister.

However, with the latest explosion occurring just few days into emergency rule, this piece is set to explore whether Tinubu’s approach is fueling chaos rather than resolving it and could reinstating civilian governance be a better solution.

Why Tinubu’s state of emergency is a mistake

Tinubu’s strategy is portrayed as a misstep with significant flaws. Most prominent are legal practitioners, especially the Nigerian Bar Association, who have argued insistently that Section 305 doesn’t clearly support suspending elected officials for issues like the one in Rivers state, unlike insurgency-ravaged states like Borno, suggesting the President’s political bias in order to seemingly maintain the party relationship with Wike. In addition, The order ignored the Wike-Fubara feud and the Niger Delta’s underdevelopment, treating symptoms (vandalism, political uprising) rather than the underlying elite rivalry and local grievances fueling unrest.

Instituting a state of emergency and suspending civilian administration has always not been a right step in maintaining the law order in the state. Most often, it has increased insecurity rapidly and the latest pipeline attack under military rule shows more claims that securing infrastructure, with historical militarization in the Niger Delta always escalate militancy, risking a repeat of past oil productivity decrease. Moreover, replacing civilian governance with military force further reveals Nigeria’s military past, drawing “civilian coup” warnings from critics like Atiku Abubakar.

In my argument, that emergency rule may be a self-fulfilling prophecy, accelerating disorder. The military presence has alienated residents, as seen in youth protests, while opposition figures like Peter Obi and groups like PANDEF decry it as “state capture” and a pretextual power grab. With security forces failing to prevent today’s attack, Rivers risks fragmenting into militant chaos and political defiance, threatening Nigeria’s oil-driven economy and forex stability.

READ ALSO

Rivers state: Is Tinubu’s state of emergency the right call?

Tinubu’s Emergency Declaration in Rivers: Supporters, Opponents, and National Assembly’s Decision

Things to Know About Ibok-Ete Ibas, the Newly Appointed Administrator of Rivers State

How civilian administration is a solution

It is not enough to throw weight against Tinubu’s state of emergency rule in Rivers state owing to the fact that many waters are still flowing through this crack in the affairs of the state. However, I suggest that reinstating civilian rule is proposed as a corrective measure to this growing anarchy. While many may say that the oil pipeline vandalism is nothing new in Rivers state and has happened repeatedly before the suspension of civilian governance and the introduction of state of emergency, let me state that history has not recorded significant harmony between militant groups and the Nigerian military but dialogue between the diverse parties and the federal government have proven effective in time past, so why use the military now? Give it a food for thought.

Furthermore, the situation in Rivers state is not one like insurgency in the North-east that cannot be addressed on the altar of peace and dialogue, rather returning Fubara and members of the state’s house of assembly, backed by the Supreme Court’s recognition of defected lawmakers, restores democratic credibility over an imposed military administrator. Yet again, instead of Tinubu’s state of emergency rule, a resolution of the root cause is a proven better probable outcome. Civilian leadership could address the Wike-Fubara rift through Tinubu-led mediation with neutral parties like PANDEF, alongside economic initiatives to curb militancy. In addition, Wike’s influence and legislative dysfunction pose risks, but these are political issues better handled democratically, with National Assembly oversight ensuring a smooth transition.

Conclusion

Tinubu’s emergency order miscalculated Rivers’ crisis as a security problem rather than a governance failure, a view reinforced by today’s explosion. Continuing it risks disaster, while aborting it and restoring civilian rule offers a chance to reduce tensions and rebuild trust, despite recent difference amongst the state’s political elites. The piece urges Tinubu to choose democracy and dialogue over force, warning that Rivers’ oil-fueled stakes are too risky for Nigeria to a mistake.