Olu Allen
In Nigeria’s democratic journey, few figures embody the paradox of power like Bola Ahmed Tinubu. Once celebrated as a frontline NADECO activist who risked life and liberty to resist military autocracy, Tinubu now faces a burgeoning critique: that in the pursuit of “order,” he is dismantling the very democratic scaffolding he once helped erect.
The contrast between the Tinubu of 1993 and the President of 2025 is no longer a matter of subtle political evolution; it is a stark inversion of identity.
The Rivers Precedent: A Return to the Imperial Presidency
In March 2025, citing a breakdown of law and order and the specter of economic sabotage in the oil-rich region, the presidency declared a state of emergency in Rivers State.
The result was the suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, and the elected House of Assembly—a seismic shift in Nigeria’s federalist experiment. By appointing a sole administrator (retired Vice Admiral Ibokette Ibas), the Presidency effectively nullified the ballots of millions, replacing a sub-national mandate with federal fiat.
While Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution provides a legal veneer for emergency rule, democracy thrives in the space between what is legal and what is legitimate.
Tinubu’s intervention mirrors the “Imperial Presidency” of the Olusegun Obasanjo era, specifically the controversial suspensions of governors in Plateau (2004) and Ekiti (2006), actions also condemned at the time as politically motivated power grabs draped in constitutional language.
By choosing displacement over mediation or judicial recourse, the administration has engaged in what political scientists call “Constitutional Hardball”, using the letter of the law to defeat its spirit.
Even during the height of the 2013 insurgency, President Goodluck Jonathan maintained the distinction of powers, allowing elected governors to remain in office.
Tinubu’s departure from this restraint signals a preference for hyper-centralization over institutional balance. If this becomes the new normal, what stops a future president from suspending any opposition governor under the guise of “insecurity”?
The Legislative Echo Chamber
The National Assembly’s rapid ratification of the emergency declaration raises a fundamental question: does the separation of powers still exist, or has it been replaced by legislative rubber-stamping?
The speed of the approval suggests either a profound political alignment, or a legislature cowed by an executive that controls the levers of its members’ political survival.
In a mature republic, emergency powers are treated with surgical caution. When the legislature acts as an executive echo chamber rather than a check, the “Federal” in the Federal Republic of Nigeria becomes a decorative title.
From NADECO Resistance to the “Lagos Model”
Tinubu’s original political capital was forged in the fire of the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO). Following the annulment of the 12 June 1993 election, he was a vocal champion of “True Federalism,” arguing that Nigeria’s survival depended on the autonomy of its constituent parts.
As an opposition leader, he was the chief architect of resistance against central overreach, positioning himself as the ultimate guardian of the “People’s Will.”
Today, however, the “Lagos Model” of politics, characterized by a tightly controlled, centralized political machine, has been exported to the national stage.
The activist who once fled the centralist tyranny of Sani Abacha now presides over a system that treats state autonomy as an inconvenience to be managed, rather than a right to be protected.
The man who once demanded that power be devolved to the people now wields that same centralized power to overrule them.
A Global Pattern of Backsliding
To understand why the Rivers intervention is an alarm bell, one must look at the global phenomenon of democratic backsliding:
The United States: Even during the existential threats of the Civil War or the modern chaos of the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government never dissolved state leadership.
India: The 1975–1977 “Emergency” under Indira Gandhi remains a dark stain precisely because it used constitutional provisions to bypass democratic mandates and crush political opposition. a parallel that should chill every Nigerian democrat.
South Africa: Post-apartheid governance has prioritized “cooperative governance,” ensuring security crises do not become excuses for executive land-grabs.
The Cost of Stability
Supporters argue that the suspension was a surgical necessity to protect oil infrastructure and national security.
These arguments satisfy the requirements of statism, but they are the same arguments made by every executive, from Abacha to Indira Gandhi, to justify the suspension of democratic rights.
Democratic legitimacy is built on the pillars of proportionality and restraint.
A legally valid action becomes a tool of erosion if it establishes a precedent where any state-level friction can be “solved” by federal erasure. History warns us that the greatest threat to a republic often comes from its former defenders who have become convinced that total control is the only path to stability.
Conclusion: The Turning Point
The question for Nigerians is no longer whether the President has the power to act, but whether his exercise of that power is suffocating the democratic culture he once helped restore.
If democracy is measured by the independence of its institutions and the sanctity of the vote, the Rivers precedent is not a footnote; it is the moment the hegemonic impulse finally eclipsed the democratic ideal.
The “Jagaban” has finally become the Establishment, and in doing so, he has discarded the very tools of resistance that made his rise possible.
Allen writes from Kano, he writes on public affairs and promote good governance.
