…it is a pity that some political actors, now excluded from power- not being at the power-sharing table at the moment, seem to be calling for a revolution. Nigerians must decide whether to abandon gradual democratic progress for revolutionary upheaval, which could return us to the dark days of dictatorship, or to stick with elections as the means of replacing underperforming governments, as happened with Goodluck Jonathan’s administration in 2015
THE six-month suspension of the democratic system in Rivers State — and Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension from the Senate — shows that freedom is not free. Not in Nigeria, and especially in nascent democracies in Africa and South America.
This commentary focuses primarily on the six-month suspension of democracy in Rivers State under President Bola Tinubu’s state of emergency order of March 18, and secondarily on the suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan on March 6 by the Senate under its President, Godswill Akpabio.
Both suspensions were due to end between September 8 and 18, 2025. While the Rivers State sanction officially ended with President Tinubu’s announcement on September 17, Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension remains in force, apparently due to technicalities.
While other commentators may see these actions as a straightforward abuse of power by the executive and legislative branches, I believe they should be viewed in a wider context — as a stress test of democratic principles. In fact, democracy evolves when its limits are tested. We cannot know whether a president has the power to suspend duly elected officials without cases such as these being tested in court.
Depending on one’s perspective, these events may seem like a blight on democracy — a constriction of freedom. Critics have described the six-month suspension in Rivers State and Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension in the Senate as a “rape of democracy.” Furthermore, they argue that the measures were self-serving, not undertaken in the best interests of democratic governance.
President Tinubu and Senate President Akpabio, however, insist that these tough measures were necessary to rein in behaviour that threatened democratic stability. In their view, suspending governance in Rivers State and disciplining Akpoti-Uduaghan in the Senate were preventive steps to avert anarchy and sustain institutional discipline at the highest levels of Nigeria’s legislature — one of democracy’s three pillars and an embodiment of freedom.
As noted earlier, President Tinubu announced on September 17 the end of emergency rule in Rivers State, effective at midnight that Wednesday. Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension, which should have ended on September 6, remains in force on technical grounds.
These conflicts and their resolutions illustrate the theme of this essay: “Freedom is not free.” This phrase underscores that freedom carries a cost — sacrifice, struggle, and often hard work — as evidenced by Rivers State’s six months of suspended governance. The people of Rivers State, along with Governor Sim Fubara, his deputy Ngozi Odu, Speaker Marthins Amawhule, members of the legislature, and state commissioners all paid the price of curtailed freedom. Freedom cannot be taken for granted; it requires constant effort and sometimes sacrifice to maintain and protect.
In practice, where one person’s or group’s freedom ends, another’s begins. There is no freedom without some form of limitation or control.
Mahatma Gandhi famously said, “Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to err and even to sin.” By that logic, the missteps or alleged misconduct in Rivers State and the Senate are part of democracy’s intrinsic tensions. Nelson Mandela reinforced this view when he said, “To be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”
Clearly, freedom means different things to different people. The Stoic philosopher Epictetus once asked, “Is freedom anything else than the right to live as we wish?” Albert Camus, the French thinker known for existentialism and absurdism, seemed to answer when he wrote, “The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.”
In this light, the actions of Governor Sim Fubara in Rivers State and Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan in the Senate — which triggered heavy sanctions from President Tinubu and Senate President Akpabio — can be seen as expressions of Camus’s vision of freedom: freedom tested at its limits.
Freedom can be interpreted in many ways, including:
1. The struggle for independence or self-governance
2. The sacrifices made by individuals or groups to protect and preserve freedom
3. The importance of being aware of and appreciative of the freedoms we enjoy
4. The ongoing effort and vigilance required to maintain and expand freedom
Incidentally, the political developments in Rivers State and the National Assembly (NASS) reflect all four.
Since returning to multiparty democracy in 1999 — after Nigeria wrested governance from the military following General Sani Abacha’s sudden death in 1998 and the interim administration of General Abdulsalami Abubakar — our constitutional democracy has been tested repeatedly. Over the past 26 years, one crucial aspect of freedom in Nigeria has been maintaining and expanding democratic space.
Doing so requires ongoing effort and vigilance from individuals, communities, and society at large. This involves:
• Protecting rights and liberties: Ensuring freedoms are not eroded or taken away by those in power.
• Promoting equality and justice: Guaranteeing equal access to opportunities and resources.
• Encouraging civic engagement: Participating in the democratic process, staying informed, and holding leaders accountable.
• Fostering a culture of freedom: Promoting tolerance, open-mindedness, and respect for diversity.
By being proactive and vigilant, we can safeguard freedom and build a more just and equitable society for all.
President Tinubu’s announcement ending the six-month emergency rule in Rivers State allowed him to explain and justify his actions to the people of Rivers, Nigerians, and the world.
“I am not unaware that there were a few voices of dissent against the proclamation, which led to their instituting over 40 cases in the courts in Abuja, Port Harcourt, and Yenagoa to invalidate the declaration. That is the way it should be in a democratic setting. Some cases are still pending in the courts as of today. But what needs to be said is that the power to declare a state of emergency is an inbuilt constitutional tool to address situations of actual or threatened breakdown of public order and public safety…
It would have been a colossal failure on my part as President not to have made that proclamation.”
Opposition parties — notably the PDP, ADC, and Labour Party — along with civil society organizations and activists, disagree. Many have taken the matter to court, seeking judicial interpretation of presidential powers. This is the proper path in a democracy with checks and balances, where the three branches of government (executive, legislature, and judiciary), supported by the media and civil society, hold one another accountable.
This scenario contrasts sharply with taking up arms, which would amount to taking freedom beyond its limits — the very danger suspected in Rivers State that prompted the emergency declaration.
As Tinubu argued in his speech on restoring democracy, suspending the democratic process was an extraordinary preventive action to stop the state from sliding into chaos. With the Supreme Court barring the state from receiving local government funds
allocations and the parliament moving to impeach the governor — who had become politically vulnerable — the emergency declaration arguably saved his political neck. Mayhem was averted because his supporters were threatening fire and brimstone if he were to be impeached.
It is telling that the governor did not institute any legal action against his suspension; the decision, though painful, may have had a bittersweet dimension.
However, human rights lawyer and activist Femi Falana counters that Section 305 of the Constitution allows the President to take extraordinary measures for law and order but does not permit suspending elected governors, deputies, or dissolving democratic structures. According to Falana, a governor’s office can only become vacant through death, ill health, resignation, or impeachment, as outlined in the Constitution.
Thus the onus is now on the courts to decide the constitutionality of the emergency rule declaration including suspending elected officers— despite its lifting on September 17 — and to clarify presidential powers under Sections 1(2), 5(2), 11, 176, 180, 188, and 305 of the Constitution.
At the heart of the matter is the unclear interpretation of Section 305. While President Tinubu believes he is empowered to suspend elected officials, cases in the courts dispute this position. For now, the ball is firmly in the judiciary’s court.
Yet there has been what one might call a “silence of the graveyard” from the judiciary — a lethargy that does not augur well for our democracy. In 2010, until the doctrine of necessity was enacted by the Senate to enable Vice President Goodluck Jonathan to act as President when Umaru Yar’Adua was incapacitated, such a mechanism was unthinkable. That legal innovation prevented a leadership vacuum that could have led to chaos. Similarly, clear precedents arising from Rivers State and Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension will strengthen democratic practice in the future because it will be clear after a judicial pronouncement currently being awaited whether a president has the power exercised by Tinubu with respect to Rivers State or not. Ditto for the Senate president who will clarify whether a senator can be suspended for half a year from performing her legislative activities.
In light of the above President Tinubu’s and Senator Akpabio’s actions will deepen democracy after going through court processes. It’s just that both the Rivers people and the political system have been made to bear the brunt. Similarly, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan has become, speaking figuratively, the guinea-pig. Such is the price of freedom.
As a self-appointed democracy advocate, I would argue that freedom in a democracy is like the palm oil with which roasted yams are eaten — apologies to Chinua Achebe for borrowing his famous analogy.
This comparison underscores that freedom is not merely a byproduct of democracy but a vital ingredient. Just as roasted yams without oil are dry and unappetizing, democracy without freedom lacks essence and vitality. Freedom is not a luxury but a necessity for democracy to thrive.
With the suspension of democracy — and thus of freedom — in Rivers State now over, we can see more clearly the crucial role freedom plays in a democracy.
Without a doubt, freedom enables citizens to:
• Participate in the democratic process through freedom of speech, assembly, and association.
• Vote without fear of reprisal or restriction.
• Scrutinize and critique those in power, promoting transparency and accountability.
• Express themselves, innovate, and pursue their passions without undue restriction.
• Amplify diverse perspectives and voices, fostering a more inclusive and equitable society.
Thus in a democracy, freedom is essential for:
• Citizen engagement: empowering participation in governance.
• Good governance: promoting accountability and transparency.
• Social progress: enabling citizens to challenge unjust systems and advocate for positive change.
But democracies without full freedom do exist. Singapore, for example, has regular elections yet restricts freedom of speech, assembly, and the media. Public gatherings require permits, and criticism of government can invite lawsuits or penalties. This has led some to describe Singapore as an “authoritarian” or “illiberal” democracy.
Other countries — such as Malaysia, Turkey, Bangladesh, Nepal, India, and Hong Kong — also mix democratic forms with significant restrictions on individual freedoms. Nigeria, by contrast, enjoys a relatively free press. The last serious gag, Decree No. 4, imposed some four decades ago, ultimately contributed to the regime’s downfall.
These examples highlight the complexity of democracy and freedom, and how they manifest differently worldwide.
Despite its shortcomings, Nigeria is arguably Africa’s leader in press freedom and among the closest to a liberal democracy in the region. We have not seen the “sit-tight” leaders that persist in Cameroon, Uganda or Rwanda. Yet critics contend the 1999 Constitution — drafted under military rule — remains an impediment to true popular sovereignty. Hence democracy in Nigeria remains a work in progress requiring continued effort to deepen it.
Just as Rome was not built in a day, democracy in Africa — and particularly in Nigeria — is evolving rather than revolutionary. This is not necessarily a bad thing especially since the type of democracy currently practiced is alien to us as it was imposed by the colonialists. Africa’s type of democracy before European invasion was by consensus hence African empires of yore thrived and blossomed until they were destroyed by the invaders who had superior war armaments.
Back to the political scenario in Nigeria, it is a pity that some political actors, now excluded from power- not being at the power-sharing table at the moment, seem to be calling for a revolution. Nigerians must decide whether to abandon gradual democratic progress for revolutionary upheaval, which could return us to the dark days of dictatorship, or to stick with elections as the means of replacing underperforming governments, as happened with Goodluck Jonathan’s administration in 2015.
Though slower, the evolutionary path has allowed steady progress in Nigeria’s democratic practice. In my view, the media must continue to hold political leaders accountable, and civil society organizations must remain vigilant to ensure political actors do not go rogue.
Cynics may say it is easier said than done. But democracy — for all its flaws — remains better than dictatorship. All we must continue to do is keep fine-tuning the electoral process in Nigeria until only the best amongst us who are patriotic enough and interested in contesting for elective offices, become our political leaders.
But after the political hurly burly that befell the good people of Rivers state in general and senator Akpoti-Uduaghan and the good people of Kogi state that she represents in NASS in the past 6 months, one reality we must all face which Fubara, governor of Rivers state, his deputy, state legislators, and the entire people of Rivers state, including Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan have now learnt the hard way is that, ultimately freedom is not free.
- Magnus Onyibe, an entrepreneur, public policy analyst, author, democracy advocate, development strategist, and alumnus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Massachusetts, USA, is a Commonwealth Institute scholar and a former commissioner in the Delta State government. He sent this piece from Lagos.