The Bombshell Announcement
Whether it is tax reform or local government autonomy, no one headline about Nigerian federalism is likely to grab your attention. That is, until now.
Yesterday evening, President Bola Tinubu dropped a bombshell. He invoked emergency powers and suspended the democratically elected Governor of Rivers State, Siminalayi Fubara, a member of the opposition party PDP. This follows a prolonged political battle between Fubara and his former boss, now Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike. Without getting bogged down in the details of their fallout, I want to explain why this development is terrible for the appearance of subnational autonomy and why it threatens the future of Nigerian federalism.
Legal and Historical Background
The President derives the power to declare a state of emergency from Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
• Subsection 1: allows the President to issue a proclamation if they are satisfied that Nigeria or any part of it is in a state of emergency.
• Subsection 3: makes it clear this is not a carte blanche; it lists specific conditions justifying the declaration.
• Subsection 4: requires the President to seek approval from the National Assembly within two days if in session or ten days if not.
Three Nigerian presidents have used this power since 1999. Obasanjo in Plateau (2004) and Ekiti (2006), and Jonathan in Borno, Yobe, Adamawa, and parts of Plateau (2011). Obasanjo, like Tinubu, suspended the elected governors of the affected states. Legal scholars have long debated whether Section 305 grants the President to remove or suspend governors. The Supreme Court has upheld this view, confirming that elected officials cannot be dismissed unilaterally, even under emergency rule.
The undermining of the law is troubling enough, but Tinubu’s justification marks a new low. It offers the flimsiest rationale we’ve seen to date and represents one of the most significant overreaches of presidential power in recent history.
Why This Time is Different
Nigeria adopted federalism deliberately. The country’s deep ethnic, regional, and religious diversity made centralised governance untenable. After the colonial amalgamation of 1914, tensions between major ethnic groups and numerous minorities intensified. Federalism, with its emphasis on subnational autonomy, was seen as a way to preserve self-determination for these varied groups whilst holding the country together.
States and their governors are meant to be the vehicles for self-determination. States have constitutionally protected powers and revenue streams. They can chart their own course, even if the federal government disagrees, provided they stay within the law.
Tinubu’s use of emergency powers signals a shift. The bar for when a President can deem it reasonable to remove a sitting governor is now dangerously low. Nigeria’s federalism is already skewed in favour of the federal government; the power imbalance is not news. Governors who oppose the President know their re-election chances will suffer. But this is different. This signals that a governor’s tenure, not just their electoral prospects, is subject to federal whim. It tilts the balance even further in favour of the centre.
Broader Implications
Federalism is not one-size-fits-all. Nigerian commentators love to debate “true federalism.” There is no such thing. Over the past three years, my research has exposed me to nearly every variant of federalism in existence. Some are centralised, others decentralised. Some promote subnational autonomy; others prefer cooperation. Whether Nigeria leans towards one or the other will depend entirely on political actors and how they choose to cooperate or consolidate power. Even electing governors is not a given. Russia is a federal state where governors are appointed.
What underpins any federal system, though, is public buy-in. The legitimacy of any political structure rests on whether the public believes in its principles. Federalism is meant to signal fairness and independence. Tinubu’s actions shatter that perception, particularly in the Niger Delta, a region that has historically been treated unfairly despite its significant contributions to the national economy.
The perception of unfairness cuts two ways. For Niger Deltans, they have watched emergency powers deployed in northern states under Jonathan and sustained by Buhari, yet governors were never removed. Meanwhile, people in the north who endured the brunt of terrorism, losing family members, livelihoods, places of worship, will question why, despite such violence, their leadership remained intact. Is their suffering less important because their states do not produce oil?
On top of this, Rivers State now has a governor installed on a wholly political pretext, without the electoral consent of the people. In many instances, Nigeria’s electoral consent is already dubious. But at least the perception of it exists. Here, that perception has not even been attempted. It deepens the legitimacy crisis and drives home how little regard is being paid to democratic principles at the state level.
These perceptions will only deepen with every excessive federal intervention, eroding federalism’s capacity to manage ethnic diversity and ease tensions. More troubling, it sets a precedent. Each use of the emergency rule lowers the bar. Future presidents may use it not for genuine security crises but for political control, especially in opposition-led states. It signals that even manageable internal disputes could invite federal takeovers
Conclusion
The 2025 Rivers State emergency declaration is more than just another headline. It is a turning point. It sharpens the already stark imbalance between the federal centre and the states. It undermines constitutional safeguards that should protect state autonomy. It fuels public distrust in the fairness and impartiality of Nigeria’s federal system. And most dangerously, it sets a precedent for future abuse.
There are many who will argue that Tinubu is not the first and therefore should not be criticised. I am inclined to agree, but with the knowledge that a future president may cite his actions today just as he has cited those of his predecessors. The backslide must be highlighted.
The question now is not whether Nigerian federalism is under threat. It is how much longer it can withstand these attacks.
AUTHOR: CHIBUIKEM UGO-NGADI
Articles published in our Graffiti section are strictly the opinion of the writers and do not represent the views of Ripples Nigeria or its editorial stand.
Source: Ripples Nigeria
