(DDM) – Public affairs analyst Lekan Ojo-Jackson has faulted President Bola Tinubu’s decision to declare a state of emergency in Rivers State.
DDM gathered that Ojo-Jackson made the remarks during an interview on Symfoni TV, where he questioned the consistency of federal interventions across the country.
He argued that the emergency declaration in Rivers was less about security and more about political gain.
According to him, the government’s selective application of emergency powers exposes double standards in the handling of crises nationwide.
Ojo-Jackson stressed that in states like Borno, Plateau, and Benue, where hundreds of Nigerians are killed regularly, no emergency was declared.
He noted that despite widespread bloodshed in those states, the presidency avoided invoking the same drastic measures.
He described Tinubu’s move in Rivers as “a serious act of lawlessness,” claiming it was politically motivated.
The analyst accused the government of ignoring regions plagued by mass killings while choosing to clamp down on Rivers for partisan reasons.
He said the reaction from Rivers residents was initially heated but later cooled after key political figures made public statements.
Ojo-Jackson explained that even the political figure whom supporters claimed to defend distanced himself from protests.
He noted that the person at the centre of the crisis openly told the public that no one should protest on his behalf.
According to him, this shift in position silenced critics and weakened public opposition to the emergency declaration.
He also recalled that Governor Siminalayi Fubara eventually urged Rivers people to appreciate the president’s decision.
The governor reportedly argued that without the emergency declaration, the state could have faced deeper instability.
Fubara’s position, Ojo-Jackson said, signalled that the leadership in Rivers had effectively accepted Tinubu’s intervention.
He then posed a rhetorical question: “How can you be crying more than the bereaved?”
The analyst’s remarks underscore the growing debate about the federal government’s uneven response to security crises.
Critics believe the declaration in Rivers reveals that political considerations often override urgent national security concerns.
They argue that Nigeria’s leaders use constitutional powers selectively, depending on whether a situation benefits or threatens their political interests.
The controversy has fueled fresh discussions about federal overreach and the balance of power between Abuja and state governments.
Observers warn that failure to address insecurity consistently will further deepen distrust in the government’s ability to protect all citizens equally.
Many Nigerians remain skeptical that Tinubu’s administration can separate politics from national security in practice.
The Rivers case, they argue, highlights exactly why the public doubts the sincerity of government actions.
