I recently came across a report online claiming that President Bola Tinubu’s allies in the Senate and House of Representatives are struggling to secure enough votes to endorse his unconstitutional move to suspend democracy in Rivers State. Allegedly, he aims to install a retired military officer as a “sole administrator.”
At first glance, this seems far-fetched. After all, many of our lawmakers are known for prioritizing personal gain over principle. However, if this report turns out to be true, it would suggest that some legislators still have the courage to resist executive overreach—even if only occasionally.
While the constitution does grant Tinubu the power to declare a state of emergency, it does not authorize him to unilaterally remove elected governors, deputies, or legislators. The notion of appointing a sole administrator harks back to Nigeria’s darkest days of military dictatorship.
This wouldn’t be the first time a president has taken such steps. In 2006, former President Olusegun Obasanjo used corruption allegations as a pretext to unseat the governor of Ekiti State, despite there being no widespread crisis. Ironically, Obasanjo himself was plagued by corruption accusations at the time.
By contrast, President Goodluck Jonathan declared emergencies in Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa due to the Boko Haram insurgency, yet he left the democratic institutions in those states intact.
Now, Tinubu—who built his political career on opposing military rule—seems to be following in Obasanjo’s authoritarian footsteps. Has irony taken a break, or has hypocrisy become Tinubu’s new ideology?
If Tinubu succeeds in setting this dangerous precedent, democracy in Nigeria will be in jeopardy. Future presidents could easily fabricate crises to dismantle elected governments and install loyalists as sole administrators, effectively ruling by decree.
