By Sylvester Udemezue

A major reason I have hardly said anything since the state of emergency was declared on Rivers State on 18 March 2025, is because I feel time has come for one to take these discussions to the next level. Stay tuned for my book, “Road To State Of Emergency In The State of Rivers: Actors, Factors And Lessons”, coming soon. Meanwhile, below is a summary of my initial legal opinion on the ugly brouhaha:

1. Considering the state of affairs (as they appeared) as of 18 March 2025, the overall interest of indigenes and residents of Rivers State who had already been enveloped by fear and trepidation, the duty of Mr President Tinubu to maintain order and security in Rivers State, and the purpose and purport of the provisions of Section 305 of the Constitution, it appears to me that the State of Emergency declared on Rivers State on 18/03/2025, was constitutionally justifiable; all the ingredients to reasonably justify a State of Emergency (SoE) in line with the provisions of Section 305 of the Constitution appeared present as of 18/March/2025. In my opinion, the President did not need to wait until there was actual breakdown of law and order in Rivers State. I respectfully submit that imminent danger of total breakdown of law and order as we saw, based on the actions of the principal actors, had provided the needed constitutional justification. Hence, I agree with the following statement by the Hon Attorney-General of the Federation, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN: “…when do you think he (President Tinubu) should have come in? Is it when everything has been destroyed? I don’t think so…If the President had waited a day longer, only God knows what would have followed….. The law envisages that you intervene when there is imminent danger to the security of lives and property. People were killing themselves. Those who live there are living in fear”.

2. Was the tension in Rivers State (after the Supreme Court judgment) leading to the SoE a manufactured, artificial tension, a mere smokescreen intentionally created or exaggerated to manipulate the scenario towards achieving a specific outcome or goal or to create an atmosphere that justified the imposition of a SoE? Put differently, was it all a situation where some people had created confusions in order to conceal their true intentions or actions? In my opinion, it appears that most of the ingredients that could be said to have necessitated the declaration of a SoE in Rivers State were premeditated – as in carefully, slyly, and deliberately created with a view to ensuring there were sufficient factors to justify what later followed. As an example, after the Supreme Court Judgment of 28 February 2025, the group of 27 legislators had immediately begun making impractical demands on Governor Fubara, issuing unreasonable, unparliamentary ultimatums and engaging in actions calculated to practically frustrate Governor Fubara’s demonstrated genuine efforts to implement the judgment of the Supreme Court. The House had locked the Governor out of the Assembly complex, and seeing that the Governor was nevertheless genuinely undeterred in his resolve to present the 2025 budget to the House, the House suddenly adjourned sine die even after due receipt of Governor Fubara’s third letter indicating the Governor’s decision to appear before the House to represent the budget on 19 March 2025. Then suddenly thereafter appeared a Notice of Impeachment realing out a number of impeachment grounds, all calculated to create the level of impasse and tension that could be said to be necessary to justify the imposition of a SoE on Rivers State. The next thing was news of alleged attacks on oil pipelines in Port Harcourt which the Federal Government then saw as the last straw that broke the camel’s back. Unfortunately, who the attackers are and who the sponsors are, have yet to be announced even after two “suspects” have reportedly been arrested in connection with the alleged “attacks”. The Federal Government has said that it’s either Fubara teleguided the attack or didn’t distance himself therefrom and didn’t alert the FG of the alleged attacks. Unfortunately, in making these claims, FG forgot that the State of Emergency was declared on the same day as news of the alleged attacks. Meanwhile, one may ask whether the suspects reportedly arrested over the incident have not been interrogated? What is in their statement? Did they say Fubara was behind them? Why not the Police make their statements public to clear all doubts?

3. Are Reported Explosions Mere False Narratives? Were the explosion stories mere underhanded or deceptive schemes intentionally created to manipulate public opinion or perception? A news report on 18/03/2025 had it that “An explosion has rocked Nigeria’s major crude oil pipeline, the Trans-Niger Pipeline at Bodo, Gokana Local Government Area of Rivers State. The explosion reportedly occurred Monday night, triggering a fire along a critical section of the pipeline that exports crude oil to the Bonny Terminal. It is currently unknown whether the incident was an act of sabotage….” (see Nairametrics; 18 March 2025). A later report on the same 18 March 2025 claimed that the Rivers State Police Command had arrested two persons over the Trans-Niger Pipeline Explosion In Rivers State. Explaining that the arrested persons had been taken in for questioning, the spokesperson of the Rivers State Police Command, Grace Iringe-Iroko, said on 18 March 2025: “The Rivers State Police Command has commenced a thorough investigation to determine the cause of the fire. In connection with this, two individuals have been taken in for questioning as part of efforts to uncover any potential act of sabotage.” (See: “Police Arrest Two Over Trans-Niger Pipeline Explosion In Rivers”; ChannelsTV; 18 February 2025). However, insisting that there was no blast or explosion on their facility, and affirming that the pipeline had been tested and it passed the integrity test, the spokesperson of Renaissance Africa Energy Holdings, owners of the Trans Niger Pipeline in Bodo Community, Gokana Local Government Area of Rivers State said, “The pipeline is back in operation. First of all, we had no blasts or explosions in our facilities. We had an unauthorised entry from the operations. Then we sent a team there. The team saw that the site had been accessed. We got a call, and a team went out and saw that there were attempts at excavation and arson. But of course, the fire had burnt out. They did an inspection, and there was an adjacent pipeline. They tested that and it passed the integrity test. I think the operations went through that adjacent pipeline. Operations are ongoing as we speak.” (See: “Operations resume at Trans Niger Pipeline in Rivers”; Punch; 20 March 2025).

4. If we should accept the suggestion that the SoE was declared partly because pipelines were reportedly “blown up”, then right-thinking bystanders might begin to ask, how many SoE were declared when, during Yar’ardua’s administration, hundreds of pipelines were being blown up DAILY, human beings kidnapped and killed while other government facilities were being destroyed by militants in the Niger Delta, then agitating for either resource control or a Niger Delta state? Thereafter, under Buhari’s watch, Niger Delta (ND) militants (under the umbrella of the “Niger Delta Avengers”) had revived their agitation and immediately started blowing up pipelines in the ND, whose effect reduced Nigeria’s oil production from 2.5 million barrels per day to about 400,000 barrels. Nigerian economy had as a result slid into a recession, forcing VP Osinbajo to relocate to the ND in an effort to bring back peace. How many SoE’s were declared then? Even as we write, many LGA’s in parts of the Northeast, Northwest and Nortcentral are not only being terrorized by Boko Haram, Bandits and other terrorists, but are under active control of some of these terrorists, with Nigerian military personnel engaged in relentless campaigns to rid the areas of terrorists. How many SoE’s have been declared?

5. Is Governor Fubara’s Temporary Removal Unlawful? In my opinion, with due respect, the suspension of elected officials in Rivers State is unlawful, unconstitutional and reasonably unjustifiable. Besides, such a suspension was absolutely unnecessary in the present circumstances. The declaration of a SoE can coexist peacefully, seamlessly and effectively with all elected and democractic institutions and officials in Rivers State functioning. Further, with due respect, it’s a lame argument for anyone to argue that Governor Fubara hasn’t really been removed from office. With due respect. suspension amounts to a “temporary removal”, and is therefore a form of removal. I thus agree with the President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN, that “When you are suspended, your occupancy of that office for that moment is terminated. You cannot perform your duties – it is, in essence, a removal. It may be short-lived, but it remains a removal. For anyone to argue otherwise is to stand logic on its head.”

6. Is Governor Fubara To Blame For The “Crisis” In Rivers State, Leading To A SoE? I respectfully disagree with any opinion that Gov Sim Fubara, by his words or actions or otherwise, had instigated any violence or terrorism or otherwise preached or promised or supported violence or terrorism or other destruction (if any) of public facilities in any part of Rivers State. Blaming him in this wise amounts to giving a man a bad name in order to justify injustice against him. I have seen some people saying Governor Fubara had earlier at a public event promised the youths that at the appropriate time, he (Fubara) would give them instructions or tell them what to do. This, some people say, is evidence of instigation of violence. I disagree. Questions Arising: (1) What was the context in which the Governor made the alleged statement? (2) What is the appropriate interpretation to be given to the expression “instruction” or “I will tell you what to do”? (3) Isn’t it hasty, unfounded, and accordingly unjust, unfair for anyone to jump into the conclusion that the instruction the Governor had in mind was to instigate violence? In my opinion, the suggestion in some quarters, that Governor Fubara was behind alleged “attacks” (if any) on oil facilities on 18/03/2025, is hollow; no reasonable or rational or legally supportable evidence to sustain that allegation. Besides, why didn’t FG contact the Governor after the alleged “explosions”, to hear from him? Why the hasty conclusion that Fubara was the instigator? For the avoidance of doubts, I am not saying there were or there weren’t explosions or that Fubara was or wasn’t the instigator. What I am saying is that up to this moment, there has been no iota of credible evidence linking the Governor to the alleged attack or attacks. I thus disagree with suggestions, that the Governor had “teleguided” militants to blow up oil pipelines. I disagree also with the suggestion that “The governor failed to make a request to the president to intervene in saving the oil installations”. The State of Emergency was declared on the same date the explosions allegedly occurred. How could it be validly argued that the Governor had already failed to alert the FG? By the way, assuming the governor was culpable, which aspect of our law authorizes an elected President to remove or suspend an elected Governor under any circumstances whatsoever? Couldn’t threat of insecurity or actual insecurity in Rivers State be taken care of without suspending the Governor? Has the Governor been suspended in all the State currently under heavy and worsening insecurity – Boko Haram, Bandits, ISWAP, etc?

7. Suspending Fubara And Leaving Wike Unfair? This is not to suggest that any legal justification exists for the suspension of the Governor and other elected officials, but since Mr President in his wisdom chose to suspend Governor Fubara, Mr President should have equally suspended Nyesome Wike who is obviously the principal actor and Fubara’s main rival in the entire imbroglio. With due respect, suspension of Gov Fubara for six months without suspending Wike as the FCT Minister for the same period of six months is unfair, unjustifiable, inequitable and could be viewed as capable of placing Wike as a judge in his own case, which is a violation of an aspect of natural justice. Nyesome Wike is a principal party in the Rivers State imbroglio. Now, during the next six months, Wike will continue to sit as a principal member of the Federal Executive Council that has the responsibility to direct and supervise the affairs of the Sole Administrator in Rivers State. Does this not give Wike an undue advantage and also making him a judge in his own case?

8. Did Governor Fubara Disrespect President Tinubu’s Deal? I answer no! In my opinion, Governor Fubara and his camp had obeyed the Peace Deal brokered by President Tinubu in December 2023 to end the friction in Rivers State. The other side had evidently frustrated the deal, making the deal look (I’m not saying it’s) in the eyes of reasonable bystanders as a mere ploy designed to hoodwink Governor Fubara into taking steps that would ultimately confer on the other side an undue advantage in court, as we later saw in Governor Fubara’s withdrawal of the Counter Affidavit containing his own story/case and defence. That singular action was capitalized on by the other party to get favourable judgments against Fubara, up to the highest court.

9. Besides, after the Supreme Court judgment of 28 February 2025, it was the other side (not Governor Fubara) that frustrated all efforts to ease the tension and bring back peace in Rivers State. In response to the unparliamentary ultimatum issued by the House to Governor Fubara on presentation of the 2025 budget, Governor Fubara had written the House inviting them to a parley whereat was to be discussed issues including budget presentation, to promote reconciliation. The House, of course teleguided by their boss, turned down the invitation. Governor Fubara then wrote to inform them he was coming on a certain date to present the budget. The letter was duly served, but upon his arrival at the House for the proposed budget presentation, Governor Fubara was deliberately locked out by the House. Governor Fubara went back and wrote and served on the House, yet another letter informing the House that he would come again on 19 March 2025 for the budget presentation. The House responded with an indefinite adjournment followed by a 19-ground impeachment notice served on the Governor. The next thing were reported “attacks” on oil facilities in the morning of 18 March 2025 followed on the same day by the imposition of a SoE on the State accompanied by the temporary removal of the Governor, the Deputy Governor, and members of the House in place of whom a Sole Administrator was appointed to oversee the affairs of the State for an initial period of six months.

10. Did Governor Fubara commit any impeachable offence(s)? The grounds of impeachment contained in the Impeachment Notice issued by the House to the Governor are in my opinion legally baseless, unfounded. Besides, the Impeachment Notice in my opinion was part of the scheme to create tension and thereby set the tone for what later happened on 18 March 2025. I am not saying Governor Fubara is infallible. I have identified one or two mistakes on his part, to be discussed in full in the main work.

11. With due respect, looking at the manner of the Supreme Court judgment on Rivers State, and generally the manner the judiciary handled the Rivers State imbroglio, it may appear difficult and indeed would take long for the Nigerian judiciary to regain its pride of place as “the temple of justice, the last hope of the common man, a bastion of hope for the sustenance of true democracy, rule of law and due administration of justice, the impartial arbiter”. Besides, it is doubtful if “public belief and confidence in the disposition and ability of the courts to dispense justice with utmost impartiality, notwithstanding whose ox is gored and ensure that in all cases, justice is not only done, but is seen clearly to be done” is still in tact. I once wrote that “Judicial and other officers involved in the administration of justice must therefore engage and be seen to engage only in conduct and pronouncements that inspire, promote and sustain- rather than retard- public confidence and respect”. The question however is whether the Nigerian judiciary takes this suggestion seriously. Moreover, it appears that Hon Justice Oputa’s assurance in the case of Military Governor of Lagos State v Odumewgu-Ojukwu, that “the law is no respecter of persons, powers and principalities” is no longer tenable or viable in Nigeria. Furthermore, the belief that in Nigeria, there are no powerful institutions but only powerful persons appears to be real after all. Lastly, it’s now clearer that lawyers and the judiciary are the major stumbling blocks to achieving progress, prosperity, and civilization for Nigerian. To put it aptly, lawyers and the Nigerian judiciary have constituted themselves a grave threat to effective operation of democracy and constitutionalism in Nigeria.Legal document templates

12. Please stay tuned for the major work, wherein no stone is left untouched about the factors and actors, takeaways and lessons on the road to the state of emergency in the state of Rivers State. The primary research methodology is sociolegal with a multidimensional blend of several research objectives, techniques and approaches, including the Descriptive, Explanatory, Evaluative, Observatory, Analytical, Critical, Qualitative, Quantitative, and Predictive or Prognostic.

Respectfully,
§¢µð𝓮̂𝓶𝓮̂𝔃µ𝓮̂
Sylvester Udemezue (udems).

Legal Practitioner; Law Teacher; Public-Interest Law Advocate; Public Counselor; Rule of Law and Good Governance Promoter; Public Speaker; Legal Affairs Commentator; and the Proctor of The Reality Ministry of Truth, Law and Justice (TRM) [A Nonaligned, Nonprofit Public Interest Law Advocacy Group]
08021365545
[email protected]
(02 April 2025)

________________________