Emergency rule: Tinubu saved Rivers from anarchy, bloodshed — Lawyer

Mr Princewill Dike, a legal practitioner in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, has described the state of emergency in Rivers State declared by President Bola Tinubu as a proactive step that averted looming anarchy capable of leading to bloodshed.

Unlike many who have criticised the President on the constitutionality of the emergency rule, particularly regarding the suspension of democratic institutions, Dike stated that Tinubu’s action was pursuant to Section 305 of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution (as amended).

According to him, Section 14, Subsection 2 of the constitution stipulates that the primary function of the government is to protect lives and property, which is precisely what the President had done in Rivers State.

Speaking to journalists in Port Harcourt on Wednesday, the legal practitioner stressed that the lives and property of members of the public were under threat should Governor Siminalayi Fubara be impeached by the House of Assembly.

Dike noted several threats by individuals and groups from a particular ethnic nationality concerning the safety of non-indigenes in Rivers State and federal government critical assets in and around the state. He described these comments as serious security threats not only to Rivers State but to the entire country, as such threats could have spill-over effects on other states.

He expressed concern that, in the face of these threats, the state governor failed to publicly condemn them or direct security agencies to apprehend the masterminds. He found it troubling that the governor, at an event following the Supreme Court judgement, told youths not to be perturbed and that he would advise them at the appropriate time.

Dike said: “The declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is in tune with Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).

“In addition to the foregoing, Section 14, subsection 2 of the same grundnorm declares that the primary function of government is the protection of lives and property.

“Now, the question is: were lives and property threatened in Rivers State prior to the declaration of the state of emergency? The answer is in the affirmative!

“The suspended Governor Siminalayi Fubara, the leadership of the Ijaw National Congress, and some militants had threatened violence should Fubara be impeached. Shortly after, some oil facilities were blown up.

“Furthermore, Governor Fubara’s reluctance to present the 2025 Appropriation Bill to the Amaewhule-led House of Assembly, as adjudicated by the Supreme Court, heightened tension across the state.

“So, Mr President acted proactively to forestall a total breakdown of law and order in the state and didn’t behave like Emperor Nero, who fiddled while Rome burned.”

The lawyer noted that President Tinubu was not the first president to declare a state of emergency in Nigeria and questioned why Rivers’ case should be given a tribal interpretation.

He continued: “And don’t forget, President Obasanjo set the precedent by declaring a state of emergency in Plateau State (2004) and Ekiti State (2006).

“Goodluck Jonathan also did so in the following states: Adamawa, Borno, and Yobe (2013–2015). So, what is the hullabaloo about Rivers State?”

ALSO READ FROM NIGERIAN TRIBUNE