On May 18, 2004, President Olusegun Obasanjo GCFR suspended the Plateau state governor, Joshua Chibi Dariye (69) from office following religious crisis in that state. He also dissolved the Plateau state House of Assembly. He immediately appointed the former Chief of Army Staff, General (rtd.) Muhammed Chris Alli (25 December, 1944 – 19 November, 2023) as Administrator of Plateau state. The suspension lasted till November 18, 2004.

On the directive of my then boss, the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Chief Ufott Ekaette (1939 -25 September 2019) CFR, I personally handed over in Jos, the letter conveying his resumption to office, on Governor Dariye.

On October 19, 2006, President Olusegun Obasanjo declared state of emergency on Ekiti state for six months. He suspended the then Governor of the state, Chief Peter Ayodele Fayose (64). He equally suspended the State House of Assembly and then appointed Major General (rtd.) Adetunji Idowu Olurin (3 December, 1944 – 20 August 2021) as Administrator of the state. The suspension lasted till 27th April 2007.

On May 14, 2013, President Goodluck Jonathan (67) GCFR, declared a state of emergency in Adamawa, Borno and Yobe states without getting approval from the National Assembly. The President made the declaration during a nationwide broadcast.

In imposing the state of emergency, President Jonathan wielded extra-Ordinary measures by invoking Section 305, Sub section 1 of the 1999 constitution of Nigeria.

However, President Jonathan GCFR, stated that regardless of the state of emergency imposed, the governors in the three states would remain in office.

In his broadcast, the President declared “Since I returned to the country after cutting short my visit to South Africa and aborting a planned state visit to Namibia, I have received detailed briefings from our security agencies. These briefings indicate that what we are facing is not just militancy or criminality, but a rebellion and insurgency by terrorist groups which pose a very serious threat to national unity and territorial integrity. Already, some northern parts of Borno state have been taken over by groups whose allegiance is to different flags and ideologies.

These terrorists and insurgents seem determined to establish control and authority over parts of our beloved nation and to progressively overwhelm the rest of the country. In many places, they have destroyed the Nigerian flag and other symbols of state authority and in their place, hoisted strange flags suggesting the exercise of alternative sovereignty.

They have attacked government buildings and facilities. They have murdered innocent citizens and state officials. They have set houses ablaze, and taken women and children as hostages. These actions amount to a declaration of war and a deliberate attempt to undermine the authority of the Nigerian state and threaten her territorial integrity. As a responsible government, we will not tolerate this. Previously, we adopted a multi-track approach to the resolution of this problem through actions which included persuasion, dialogue and widespread consultation with the political, religious and community leaders in the affected states.

We exercised restraint to allow for all efforts by both State Governors and well-meaning Nigerians to stop the repeated cases of mindless violence. Yet, the insurgents and terrorists seek to prevent government from fulfilling its constitutional obligations to the people as they pursue their fanatical agenda of mayhem, mass murder, division and separatism.

While the efforts at persuasion and dialogue will continue, let me reiterate that we have a sacred duty to ensure the security and well-being of all our people and protect the sovereign integrity of our country. Therefore, we shall, on no account, shy away from doing whatever becomes necessary to provide the fullest possible security for the citizens of this country in any part of the country they choose to reside. We have a duty to stand firm against those who threaten the sovereign integrity of the Nigerian state. Our will is strong, because our faith lies in the indivisibility of Nigeria.

Following recent developments in the affected states, it has become necessary for Government to take extraordinary measures to restore normalcy. After wide consultations, and in exercise of the powers conferred on me by the provisions of Section 305, sub-section 1 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended, I hereby declare a State of Emergency in Borno, Yobe and Adamawa states.

Accordingly, the Chief of Defence Staff has been directed to immediately deploy more troops to these states for more effective internal security operations. The troops and other security agencies involved in these operations have orders to take all necessary action, within the ambit of their rules of engagement, to put an end to the impunity of insurgents and terrorists. This will include the authority to arrest and detain suspects, the taking of possession and control of any building or structure used for terrorist purposes, the lock-down of any area of terrorist operation, the conduct of searches, and the apprehension of persons in illegal possession of weapons”.
On March 18, this year, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu GCFR, declared a state of emergency in oil rich Rivers State and suspended the duly elected governor, Amaopusenibo Siminalayi Fubara (50), before notifying the National Assembly. He then appointed Vice Admiral(rtd.) Ibok-Ete Ekwe Ibas, the sole administrator.

Vice Admiral(rtd.) Ibok-Ete Ekwe Ibas was the 22nd Chief of the Naval Staff (CNS) of the Nigerian Navy from 2015 to 2021. Vice Admiral(rtd.) Ibas was born in Nko, Cross River State, South South Nigeria. He enlisted into the Nigerian Defence Academy as a member of 26 Regular Course on 20 June 1979 and was commissioned sub-lieutenant on 1 January 1983. He began his primary education at Nko Primary School, Nko, in 1966 and completed at Big Qua Primary School, Calabar in 1971. He then proceeded to the Hope Waddell Training Institute, Calabar from 1972 to 1976. Between 1977 and 1979, he attended the School of Basic Studies Ogoja before proceeding to the Nigerian Defence Academy in 1979.

President Tinubu GCFR also dissolved the Rivers State House of Assembly. The President justified his actions with the provisions of the Constitution, by invoking Section 305(5) of the 1999 Constitution as amended.

These actions by the three Nigerian Presidents and many more by Presidents Umaru Yar’adua GCFR (August 16, 1951- May 5, 2010) and Muhammadu Buhari GCFR (17 December 1942 – 13 July 2025), certainly defined the supreme powers of the Nigerian President.

In 1979, we adopted the Presidential System of Government. With the adoption, we created a monster. Although we have seen a President lose an election by accepting his fate. Other future Presidential losers may not ply that route. They may do all within their Presidential powers either to rig to win by all means or remain in power at all costs, especially Presidents who love power.

It is often said that power brings envy and jealousy. The idea is that when someone attains a position of power, it can trigger feelings of envy and jealousy on those who do not have the power or who perceive themselves as deserving it. This is a common human reaction rooted in a sense of competition and social comparison. The supreme powers of the President of Nigeria are bound to bring envy, grudge, mistrust, jealousy and suspicion.

But we must all resolve to check the enormous powers of the Nigerian President. Any future Constitutional amendment must take into account the reduction in the powers of the President.

The saying “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” suggests that those in positions of authority are prone to abuse of power, with absolute power leading to complete moral decay. This idea, famously attributed to Lord Acton, is supported by historical and psychological evidence.

While the saying highlights the potential for corruption within those with power, research also indicates that lack of power can also lead to negative behaviors, such as resentment and a desire to dominate. Additionally, personality traits and relationship orientations play a role in how individuals wield power, with some demonstrating more self-serving behaviors while others exhibit greater generosity.

If we are to go by the Constitution, the Nigeria President is the sole administrator of the country. The President alone by the provisions of the Constitution has the power to appoint Ministers, Judges, ambassadors, board members in the Central Government like Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), National Population Commission (NPC), The Nigerian National Petroleum Company (NNPC) Limited (NNPC) and others. The National Economic Council and the Council of State can only advise the President. He can decide to accept or reject their advice. The powers of the President can be abused as human.

Concentrating power in one person or entity carries significant risks, potentially leading to tyranny, corruption, and a decline in individual liberties. This concentration of power can hinder the effectiveness of checks and balances within a system of governance, allowing for the unchecked exercise of authority and potentially leading to the suppression of dissent.

The framers of our Constitution knew something crucial about human nature: no one is perfect, and even those with good intentions can be tempted by power. With this in mind, they designed a government that protects against any one person—or group—getting too much control. By building a system of checks and balances, they created a structure to keep power balanced and tyranny at bay. This core principle remains vital today for anyone who values liberty and wants to keep power accountable. Our situation is even worse in that we have a rubber stamp National Assembly.

There is the need to refer to the report of the sub-committee on the Executive and Legislature of the Constitution Drafting Committee of 1975. The reports defined on how the powers of the Nigerian President could be operated. The sub-committee was headed by Alhaji F.G. Razak, the father of the present Governor of Kwara state. Other members of the sub-committee were Dr E. Eleazu, Alhaji Sule Gaya, Dr I. Ahmed, Dr Kole Abayomi, Mr. F. Okunnu, Dr G.A. Odenigwe, Mr S.G. Ikoku, Alhaji Shehu Malami and Dr K.O. Mbadiwe.

Their report is as follows—“In the deliberations of the Sub-Committee, what has been uppermost in our minds is how to provide for an effective leadership that expresses our aspirations for national unity without at the same time building up a Leviathan whose power may be difficult to curb. The Executive of a state is not just the single individual who is the head of state, it includes a host of aides and auxiliaries, executive assistants and administrators whose day-to-day tasks result in the many activities of the government. Admittedly, the report of the sub-committee on National Objectives and Public Accountability and the debate on it, have set the tone and affected our own deliberations.

Several papers were presented by members of the sub-committee; we were also able to glean as much as possible from the memoranda submitted to the main Committee in so far as they relate to our terms of reference. By and large, we have been very much influenced by the experience of political leadership in this country—- both civilian and military; the need to de-commercialised politics (or to undecorate politics as one member put it); the need to balance the stakes of politics so that each section of this country will come to feel a sense of belonging to a great nation; the need to develop an approach of consensus to politics and finally the need to accentuate our national inclination towards a bargaining approach to decision- making rather than regarding politics as a game of the winner-take-all. Probably, more than any other aspect of our recommendation, two points need to be touched upon because they relate to one another and go to the whole basis of the exercise of executive authority.

The first is our recommendation for a single Chief Executive who is both the Head of State and Head of Government. The sub-committee compared various models—the Presidential Executive, the Parliamentary Executive and even hybrid types, e.g. the Dual Executive where specified functions are assigned to the President and the Prime Minister separately.

But the sub-committee considered that given the fact that a Chief Executive must perform and be seen as performing the following functions:
That of being a symbol of national unity, honour and prestige; Being a national figure—-a political leader in his own right; and

That of being an able executive—-someone who can give leadership and a sense of direction to the country.It was imperative that Nigeria adopt the single Executive type. We also considered a suggestion that the Vice-President should be equipped to provide a political counterpoise to the President, but felt that this, like the dual executive could create a paralysis in the executive structure itself. The relations of the President of the Republic to that of his Vice-President should be one of pilot and co-pilot, rather than the latter being a counterpoise to the former. The psychological position of the single Chief Executive is stronger in that it gives an image of strength, unity, single-mindedness and clear locus of responsibility:

The second point is that of the Rotational principle embodied in the mode of election of the kind of President recommended. Here again, the question that bordered the sub-committee was how the kind of national figure which we envisaged could emerge. We were very much influenced by the debate on national objectives and public accountability and the need to avoid concentration of power in the hands of a few, or a sectional group; the need to replace ethnic with national politics, etc. In short, it is the intention of the sub-committee that anybody who wants to be a President must strive to become a national figure, and the method of his election is meant to provide him with a means of “nationalising” himself as well as test his standing a national figure”.

The main objective of the President of Nigeria is to bring about the desired National unity and not to display Supreme powers as contained in the Constitution.
Teniola, a former Director at the Presidency wrote from Lagos.