Flashback: How Tinubu Condemned Ex-President, Jonathan For Declaring State Of Emergency

In a nationwide broadcast on Tuesday, President Bola Tinubu declared a state of emergency in Rivers State, citing the ongoing political crisis that has paralyzed the state’s governance.

Naijaonpoint reports that Tinubu stated that the situation in the state had reached a point where it was impossible to ignore any longer, and urgent remedial steps were necessary to restore good governance, peace, and order.

“The latest security reports made available to me show that between yesterday and today there have been disturbing incidents of vandalization of pipelines by some militants without the governor taking any action to curtail them.

“No good and responsible President will standby and allow the grave situation to continue without taking remedial steps prescribed by the Constitution to address the situation in the state,” Tinubu said

Tinubu’s declaration marks is one of the numerous time since Nigeria’s return to democracy in 1999 that a president has invoked Section 305 of the Constitution to declare a state of emergency.

Previous instances include former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s declarations in Plateau (2004) and Ekiti (2006), as well as former President Goodluck Jonathan’s emergency declarations in Adamawa, Yobe, and Borno States in 2013 during the height of insurgency.

Interestingly, Tinubu, who was once a fierce critic of Jonathan’s use of emergency rule, had described such actions as a dangerous trend and warned of their potential to destabilize Nigeria’s democratic process.

Tinubu’s Rejection Of Jonathan’s Approach In 2013

In 2013, Tinubu condemned Jonathan’s state of emergency proclamations, calling them politically motivated and aimed at silencing opposition states ahead of the 2015 elections.

He criticized Jonathan for using security challenges as an excuse to remove state governors and replace them with military control, accusing the president of undermining the federal structure of the country.

Tinubu had also argued that emergency rule under Jonathan led to more violence and alienated the people from the government.

He warned that such measures would only fuel radical ideologies and extremism, ultimately destabilizing the nation rather than restoring order.

Tinubu, at the time, stated, “The body language of the Jonathan administration leads any keen watcher of events with unmistakable conclusion of the existence of a surreptitious but barely disguised intention to muzzle the elected governments of these states for what is clearly a display of unpardonable mediocrity and diabolic partisanship geared towards 2015. Borno and Yobe states have been literally under armies of occupation with the attendant excruciating hardship experienced daily by the indigenes and residents of these areas. This government now wants to use the excuse of the security challenges faced by the Governors to remove them from the states considered hostile to the 2015 PDP/Jonathan project.”

Tinubu had warned that the administration will be setting in motion a chain of events, the end of which, nobody can predict, as experience has shown that actions, such as this one under consideration, often give root to radical ideologies and extremist tendencies, a direct opposite of the intended outcome of unwarranted and unintelligent meddlesomeness.

“The present scenario playing out in the country reminds one of the classical cases of a mediocre craftsman who continually blames the tools of his trade for his serial failure but refuses to look at his pitiable state with a view to adjusting.

“It has become crystal clear, even to the most incurable optimist, that the country is adrift. That the ship of the Nigerian state is rudderless is clearly evident in the consistent and continual attacks ferociously executed by elements often referred to as the insurgents in some northern states of the federation, particularly Borno and Yobe states respectively. Indeed, no part of the country is immune from the virulent but easy attacks, veritable indices of a failing state. No Governor of a state in Nigeria is indeed the Chief Security Officer. Putting the blame on the Governors, who have been effectively emasculated, for the abysmal performance of the government at the centre which controls all these security agencies, smacks of ignorance and mischief.”

“This Government, through acts of omission and commission, has fallen far short of expectation. It actively encourages schisms and all manner of divisive tendencies for parochial expediency. Ethnicity and religion become handy weapons of domination. Things have never been this bad,” he said.

He had said it was evident from the grim experiences in recent times that the Jonathan government had failed, or did not know that it is necessary for it to avail itself of the benefits accruable from exchange of ideas and notes on the latest in terms of technology and human resources among nations of the modern world.

Tinubu opined that the massacres of local communities by unknown elements will further alienate the people who should, ordinarily, partner with the government in securing their immediate environments.

“The President’s pronouncement, which seeks to abridge or has the potential of totally scuttling the constitutional functions of Governors and other elected representatives of the people, will be counterproductive in the long run. A State of Emergency already exists in the states where JTF operates. Residents of these communities live in constant fear. Their rights are violated with impunity under the guise of searching for terrorists in their respective domains.”

“It is a potentially a destructive path to take. If security of a society is about the protection of lives and property of the citizenry, the involvement of the people is a sine qua non to effective intelligence gathering. Any measures put in place which alienate the people, in particular their elected representatives, should be considered as fundamentally defective by every right thinking person in the country,” he added.

Tinubu’s move to declare a state of emergency in Rivers State has raised questions about its constitutionality. Critics argue that the president has no power to remove elected governors and lawmakers, and such actions could be seen as a breach of Nigeria’s federal structure.

The president’s decision to intervene in a state-level political dispute has sparked concerns about the potential for misuse of executive power.

Despite these concerns, Tinubu’s administration has defended the move, stating that the gravity of the situation in Rivers necessitated extraordinary measures to restore peace and governance to the state.

Opposition figures have strongly criticized Tinubu’s decision, with some accusing him of using the state of emergency to suppress political opposition in Rivers State.

They argue that the president’s actions are a response to ongoing political tensions in the state, particularly between Governor Siminalayi Fubara and lawmakers aligned with former Governor Nyesom Wike.

The political crisis in Rivers has intensified in recent weeks, with lawmakers initiating impeachment proceedings against Fubara.