Tinubu’s past vs present: A twist on Jonathan’s emergency rule in 2013

DDM News

In 2013, former President Goodluck Jonathan declared a state of emergency in Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa states.

At the time, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, then an opposition leader, strongly criticized the emergency rule as an abuse of power.

Diaspora digital media (DDM) revealed that Tinubu accused Jonathan of using emergency powers to weaken opposition governors and gain political advantage before the 2015 elections.

He argued that the move was a deliberate attempt to undermine democracy and intimidate elected officials in the affected states.

Tinubu released a personal statement titled “Jonathan Bares His Fangs,” condemning the declaration as an unconstitutional overreach by the federal government.

Despite Jonathan’s decision to allow the governors to remain in office, Tinubu insisted that democracy was under attack.

He described the emergency rule as a plan to “emasculate governors” and subvert democratic institutions in states controlled by the opposition.

According to him, Borno and Yobe had already been under heavy military occupation, leading to severe hardship for residents.

He accused the Jonathan administration of exploiting the security crisis to remove governors seen as threats to the PDP’s 2015 agenda.

Tinubu also warned that military intervention in civilian governance could radicalize citizens and worsen the security situation.

He insisted that no governor in Nigeria was the chief security officer of their state due to federal control of security forces.

Instead of emergency rule, Tinubu argued for stronger intelligence gathering and strategic security interventions to combat insurgency.

He criticized the federal government’s reliance on military force and mass arrests, calling it a “reckless” approach to security.

Tinubu also accused security forces of human rights violations, including extrajudicial killings and harassment of innocent civilians.

He warned that using emergency powers to suppress opposition leaders would set a dangerous precedent for Nigeria’s democracy.

Tinubu declares emergency in Rivers State

Fast forward to 2025, President Bola Tinubu has now declared a state of emergency in Rivers State.

This time, he not only imposed emergency rule but also suspended Governor Siminalayi Fubara, Deputy Governor Ngozi Odu, and state lawmakers.

The decision follows a prolonged political crisis involving Fubara, his predecessor Nyesom Wike, and members of the Rivers State House of Assembly.

Fubara and Wike have been locked in a power struggle that has caused deep divisions within the state’s political structure.

The crisis has led to multiple factions within the assembly, with some lawmakers pledging loyalty to Wike instead of Fubara.

The political turmoil escalated into a constitutional crisis, forcing the federal government to intervene.

Tinubu’s administration claims the emergency rule is necessary to restore peace and prevent total governance collapse in Rivers State.

However, his critics argue that the move contradicts his previous stance on emergency rule in Nigeria.

Many recall his strong opposition to Jonathan’s 2013 emergency declaration, where he warned against federal interference in state governance.

Unlike Jonathan, who allowed governors to stay in office, Tinubu has taken a more drastic approach by suspending elected officials.

This has raised concerns about the selective application of emergency powers and the potential for political manipulation.

Some political analysts argue that Tinubu’s move is aimed at consolidating power rather than genuinely resolving Rivers’ crisis.

Contradiction in Tinubu’s position on emergency rule

Observers have noted the glaring contradiction between Tinubu’s 2013 stance and his current actions as president.

In 2013, he accused Jonathan of “muzzling opposition governors” and undermining constitutional democracy.

Today, he has imposed even stricter emergency measures in Rivers, effectively removing the state’s leadership.

His critics argue that his past condemnation of emergency rule was politically motivated rather than based on democratic principles.

They point out that his administration is now using the same emergency powers he once called a “threat to democracy.”

By suspending elected officials in Rivers, Tinubu has set a precedent that could be used against opposition states in the future.

This raises fears that emergency declarations could become tools for political control rather than responses to genuine crises.

Many Nigerians are questioning whether Tinubu’s administration is prioritizing governance or playing politics with emergency powers.

His defenders argue that the situation in Rivers State is different from the insurgency-driven emergency rule under Jonathan.

They claim the political instability in Rivers justified a more decisive federal intervention to prevent total state collapse.

However, critics insist that democratic institutions should not be suspended simply because of internal political disputes.

They argue that mediation and legal processes should have been used instead of imposing emergency rule.

Tinubu’s opponents believe the Rivers crisis could have been resolved without removing the state’s elected officials.

Historical context of emergency declarations in Nigeria

Nigeria has a history of emergency declarations being used to address political and security crises.

In 2004, President Olusegun Obasanjo declared emergency rule in Plateau State, removing Governor Joshua Dariye over communal violence.

Similarly, in 2006, Ekiti State Governor Ayo Fayose was removed under emergency rule following political instability.

Jonathan’s 2013 emergency declaration was unique because it left the governors in place while deploying military forces to curb insurgency.

Despite this, Tinubu opposed the move, arguing that it violated democratic principles and weakened state governments.

His own decision in 2025, however, goes even further by suspending the Rivers governor and dissolving the state legislature.

This has led to accusations of double standards, with many questioning Tinubu’s commitment to democratic governance.

Implications for Rivers State and Nigerian democracy

The emergency rule in Rivers State is expected to have significant political and governance consequences.

With the suspension of the governor and lawmakers, the federal government will likely appoint an interim administrator.

This could deepen political divisions in the state and fuel further unrest among supporters of the suspended officials.

There are also concerns that emergency rule could be extended indefinitely, preventing the return of democratic governance.

Some analysts warn that this move could set a precedent for future federal takeovers of opposition-controlled states.

The decision has sparked debate over whether Tinubu is strengthening governance or using federal power for political control.

Legal experts argue that emergency rule should only be used as a last resort, not as a tool for settling political disputes.

Some opposition leaders fear that similar interventions could happen in other states, especially those not aligned with Tinubu’s government.

If emergency declarations become politically motivated, it could weaken Nigeria’s democracy and undermine state autonomy.

Conclusion

Tinubu’s decision to impose emergency rule in Rivers State has revived debates about the role of federal power in governance.

His strong opposition to Jonathan’s 2013 emergency declaration now contrasts sharply with his own actions as president.

While his administration justifies the move as necessary for stability, critics see it as an abuse of power.

The situation in Rivers highlights the ongoing tensions between federal authority and state governance in Nigeria.

As events unfold, the long-term impact on democracy and political stability remains uncertain.

However, Tinubu’s handling of the Rivers crisis will likely shape future discussions on emergency rule in Nigeria.

For Diaspora Digital Media Updates click on Whatsapp, or Telegram. For eyewitness accounts/ reports/ articles, write to: citizenreports@diasporadigitalmedia.com. Follow us on X (Fomerly Twitter) or Facebook