Moving forward, it is imperative that this crisis is swiftly de-escalated through strategic intervention, ensuring that political disagreements do not morph into national security and economic threats. The lessons from past conflicts should serve as a guide for resolving the current situation before it causes irreparable damage.
Managing the Rivers State crisis: A path to stability
President Bola Tinubu’s efforts to mediate between the warring factions in Rivers State—Nyesom Wike, the godfather, and Siminalayi Fubara, the godson—have been evident. His most recent attempt came on March 14, when he publicly urged Fubara to adopt a conciliatory approach while hosting Rivers State elders and leaders at Aso Rock. It is likely that he also privately counseled Wike, the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, to de-escalate tensions and avoid plunging the volatile Niger Delta into chaos—a warning that appears to have gone unheeded, given the recent attacks on oil pipelines following Fubara’s looming impeachment.
The failure of both parties to heed the president’s advice ultimately led to the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State. Tinubu justified his intervention by stating that the state—and the Niger Delta as a whole—was on the brink of widespread unrest, particularly with critical oil infrastructure coming under attack. While regrettable, this drastic step may still be remedied through a well-coordinated response from all three branches of government—the executive, legislature, and judiciary—in the broader interest of Rivers State, the Niger Delta, and Nigeria as a whole.
Balancing crisis management and democracy
Given Nigeria’s democratic trajectory, now approaching 25 consecutive years of practice since 1999, strict legal interpretations should not override pragmatic solutions that serve the national interest. Instead of an extended emergency rule, a more balanced approach could involve reducing the suspension of democratic governance in Rivers State from six months to just one month. During this period, all parties should be brought to the negotiating table for a binding resolution, facilitated by representatives from the three arms of government and crisis management experts.
The reality of the situation is that neither the executive nor the legislature benefits from the state of emergency. Both the governor and state lawmakers have been stripped of their mandates, effectively sidelining the democratic institutions in Rivers State. More concerning is that the people of Rivers State have been deprived of their civic rights, effectively rendering them disenfranchised. This situation is further complicated by a Supreme Court ruling halting funding to the state, which, in legal terms, suggests that Rivers State currently lacks a legitimate government.
Without the emergency rule declared by President Tinubu, the Supreme Court’s decision would have resulted in a financial paralysis for Rivers State, with no funds available to pay civil servants, legislators, and public officials. In a state with a population exceeding five million, such a scenario would have been catastrophic. However, with a sole administrator now in place—enabled by the state of emergency—Rivers State will still receive its allocation from the Federation Account at the end of the month, ensuring that salaries and government operations continue uninterrupted.
A strategic political move?
President Tinubu’s declaration of emergency rule, though unexpected, may have been a strategic move aimed at shocking both factions in the conflict into a resolution. A shock therapy of sorts. The abrupt suspension of democratic governance sends a strong message that continued political infighting comes at a high cost. This drastic step could force the feuding parties to prioritise peace and stability over personal rivalries. In light of this, it is imperative for Tinubu to further leverage his political acumen as an adept strategist to swiftly end this power struggle and prevent further destabilisation of the Niger Delta, which remains Nigeria’s economic lifeline.
The military factor in emergency rule
One striking pattern in Nigeria’s political history is the recurring appointment of retired military officers as administrators during periods of emergency rule. Since the first state of emergency was declared under Prime Minister Tafawa Balewa, successive leaders—including Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo, Goodluck Jonathan, and now Tinubu—have continued this trend. The appointment of retired Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas as the emergency administrator in Rivers State follows this precedent.
This raises an important question: Why do Nigerian leaders instinctively turn to ex-military officers in times of political crises? Does this suggest a lack of trust in politicians or accomplished leaders from other sectors? Notably, when military rulers have had to step aside, they have sometimes chosen private sector leaders instead of fellow military officers. For instance, when General Ibrahim Babangida relinquished power in 1993, he appointed Chief Ernest Shonekan—a corporate executive—as head of the Interim National Government.
If military rulers have shown a willingness to transition power to civilian business leaders, why do democratic governments hesitate to appoint competent individuals from outside the military during emergency situations? This long-standing pattern deserves scrutiny, especially in a maturing democracy like Nigeria’s.
Ultimately, one hopes that with wise counsel and decisive leadership, the current crisis in Rivers State will not spiral further, and Nigeria’s economic recovery—marked by declining inflation and a stabilising naira—will not be derailed. More importantly, Nigeria should strive to ensure that no unelected military officer is ever again called upon to replace a democratically elected leader, either at the state or national level.
Concluded.
Onyibe is an entrepreneur, public policy analyst, author and democracy advocate. He can be reached via: www.magnum.ng.
