KEY POINTS

• Civil society groups have condemned the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State, calling it unconstitutional and a threat to democracy.
• The coalition accused the Federal Government of political bias and demanded an impartial investigation, dialogue, and respect for judicial rulings.
• Failure to reverse the declaration could lead to economic disruption, heightened security risks, and increased hardship for residents.

A coalition of civil society organisations (CSOs) in Nigeria has strongly condemned President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State, labeling it as a threat to democracy and an unjustifiable overreach of executive power.

The groups, speaking at a press briefing in Port Harcourt on Thursday, 21 March 2025, called for the immediate reversal of the state of emergency, warning of dire consequences if the decision is not rescinded.

Christian Onyegbule, representing the Civil Liberties Organisation (CLO), read the coalition’s statement, accusing the Federal Government of using the state of emergency as a political tool rather than addressing the root causes of the crisis. “The declaration unfairly punishes the people of Rivers State while emboldening political actors responsible for the unrest,” Onyegbule stated.

The coalition drew parallels to historical precedents, reminding President Tinubu of his past opposition to a similar declaration by former President Goodluck Jonathan in the North-East. “This is a clear case of hypocrisy,” the groups asserted, criticizing the National Assembly for endorsing the state of emergency, what they described as an undemocratic move.

A dangerous precedent

The CSOs warned that the declaration sets a dangerous precedent and violates the Nigerian Constitution. “Given the National Assembly’s endorsement of this unconstitutional act, we call on all Nigerians not to remain silent as history threatens to repeat itself. The slippery slope of emergency rule in the Western Region in 1962 serves as a stark reminder of where unchecked executive overreach can lead,” the statement read.

Channelstv reports that the groups also challenged the Attorney General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi, over his claims linking Rivers State Governor Siminalayi Fubara to alleged security threats.

“These accusations are nothing more than an orchestrated attempt to justify the unconstitutional declaration of emergency rule. We challenge the Attorney General to provide credible evidence of any genuine security threats. Rivers State has remained peaceful under the leadership of the Governor, despite ongoing provocations,” the coalition declared.

Karl Uchegbu, Chairman of the Civil Liberties Organisation for the South-South Zone, echoed these sentiments, criticizing the Federal Government for its one-sided approach to the crisis. “If the Federal Government insists on going ahead with this decision, it leaves room for litigations,” Uchegbu warned.

The declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State has sparked widespread debate across Nigeria. Critics argue that it undermines the principles of federalism and sets a dangerous precedent for executive overreach.

Supporters, however, claim it is necessary to restore order in the oil-rich state, which has been plagued by political instability and security challenges.

Rivers State, a major contributor to Nigeria’s oil revenue, has been at the center of political tensions between Governor Fubara and his predecessor, Nyesom Wike. The crisis has led to protests, pipeline vandalism, and economic disruptions, further complicating the situation.

The coalition’s statement was signed by leaders of several prominent civil society groups, including the Civil Liberties Organisation (CLO), Rivers Coalition for Human Rights (RCHR), Centre for Labour Rights and Development, and Human Rights Africa Network (HURA), among others.

As the debate rages on, the people of Rivers State remain caught in the crossfire, with many calling for a peaceful resolution to the crisis. The coming days will be critical in determining whether the Federal Government heeds the calls for dialogue and constitutional order or doubles down on its controversial decision.