I. Constitutional Basis for the State of Emergency
The constitutional authority for declaring a state of emergency in Nigeria is found in Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). Section 305(1) empowers the President to issue a proclamation of emergency when the nation or any part thereof faces threats to public order, security, or economic stability.[1] Subsection (3) outlines specific conditions warranting such an action, which are evidently met in the case of Rivers State.
The March 17, 2025, vandalization of the Trans-Niger Pipeline—a vital economic infrastructure—resulted in an estimated daily loss of $14 million (approximately ₦21.7 billion).[2] This, coupled with the ongoing political crisis between the Governor, Sir Siminalayi Fubara, and 27 state legislators, created a situation of governance paralysis and economic peril.
Crucially, Section 305(6) mandates that any emergency declaration must receive approval from the National Assembly, ensuring democratic oversight.[3] This legislative endorsement, duly obtained, imbues the declaration with constitutional legitimacy.
II. The Doctrine of Necessity: Justifying Extraordinary Measures
The Doctrine of Necessity legitimizes deviations from constitutional norms when essential to preserve national stability. As the Latin maxim states, necessitas non habet legem—necessity knows no law. In Attorney General of the Federation v. Abubakar, the Nigerian Supreme Court recognized the doctrine as a principle that operates within the boundaries of necessity, proportionality, and the absence of viable alternatives.[4]
Conditions Met in Rivers State:
Existence of Emergency: The destruction of national oil infrastructure and legislative disarray constitute a grave emergency.
Proportionality: The temporary suspension of the Governor, Deputy Governor, and State Assembly was a measured response aimed at halting further instability.
Lack of Alternatives: Traditional conflict resolution mechanisms were ineffective due to the entrenched nature of the dispute, necessitating prompt executive intervention.
The Governor's alleged role in the destabilization of the Assembly, as cited in Sahara Reporters,[5] further emphasized the need for an impartial administrative authority—a concept supported by the legal maxim nemo judex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in their own cause).
III. Comparative Constitutional Experiences
The application of the Doctrine of Necessity is not unique to Nigeria. Democracies across the world have employed similar measures during times of crisis:
Pakistan: The Supreme Court upheld the Governor-General's dissolution of the Constituent Assembly in 1954, and General Zia-ul-Haq's 1977 coup was similarly justified under necessity.[6]
India: Indira Gandhi's emergency rule from 1975–1977, though controversial, was grounded in national security imperatives.
Australia: In 1975, Governor-General Sir John Kerr dismissed Prime Minister Gough Whitlam to resolve a constitutional deadlock.
Grenada (1983) and Fiji (2000, 2006): Emergency measures were adopted to restore order after political violence and coups.
These precedents reinforce that extraordinary actions may be warranted under extreme circumstances, provided that proportionality, temporality, and legislative oversight are preserved.
IV. Response to Stakeholders' Concerns
Nigerian Bar Association (NBA):
Objection: The suspension of elected officials is unconstitutional.
Response: While the Constitution does not expressly permit such suspensions, A.G. Federation v. Abubakar supports temporary constitutional deviations when urgently necessary to restore governance.[7]
People's Democratic Party (PDP):
Objection: The emergency is politically motivated.
Response: The economic and security implications of pipeline sabotage justify the intervention, per Section 305(3).[8]
Governor Fubara:
Objection: Rivers State is peaceful.
Response: Security reports and infrastructure sabotage suggest otherwise. Proactive measures were essential to national economic preservation.[9]
Northern Elders Forum (NEF):
Objection: The measure undermines democratic norms.
Response: The temporary nature of the emergency, subject to legislative checks, aligns with democratic accountability.
Former President Goodluck Jonathan:
Objection: The action tarnishes Nigeria's democratic image.
Response: His concerns are valid; however, precedent (Lakanmi v. A.G. Western Region) supports necessary deviations to preserve national integrity.[10]
Musa Kwankwaso and Chief Anabs Sara-Igbe:
Objection: Dangerous precedent and political overreach.
Response: Each case must be judged on its merits. Section 305, with legislative assent, ensures that the action remains within constitutional confines.
V. Recommendations for Peace and Reconciliation
To the people of Rivers State: Uphold the rule of law, remain peaceful, and support efforts toward stabilization.
To political actors: Engage in constructive dialogue and avoid inflammatory rhetoric.
To the Governor and Assembly: Embrace reconciliation and consider neutral mediation.
To the Federal Government: Maintain transparency, ensure proportional measures, and adhere to timelines for restoring democratic governance.
Conclusion
The state of emergency in Rivers State stands on firm constitutional footing and is reinforced by the Doctrine of Necessity. While not without controversy, the declaration was a response to a unique convergence of political, economic, and security crises. Democratic societies must sometimes adopt extraordinary measures to protect national interests, as evidenced by comparative experiences across the globe.
Ultimately, the restoration of peace and democratic normalcy should remain the foremost objective. Through cooperative governance, legal accountability, and civic responsibility, Rivers State—and Nigeria—can emerge from this moment stronger, more stable, and more resilient.
References
1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), s. 305.
2. Arise News, 'Explosion Hits Trans-Niger Pipeline in Rivers State' (18 March 2025).
3. Constitution (n 1), s. 305(6).
4. A.G. Federation v. Abubakar [2007] 10 NWLR (Pt. 1041) 1.
5. Sahara Reporters, 'Governor Fubara Collapsed Rivers Assembly...' (5 March 2025).
6. Wickramaratne J., 'Doctrine of Necessity...', SSRN (12 May 2020).
7. Abubakar (n 4).
8. CFRN 1999, s. 305(3).
9. E. Akinkuotu, 'Pipeline Explosion Threatens Nigerian Oil Exports...' (18 March 2025).
10. Lakanmi v. A.G. Western Region [1971] 1 UILR 201.