By Halima Imam Abubakar
The declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu raises significant concerns about fairness, proportionality, and the preservation of democracy.
In the past, regions like the North-East have endured decades of severe insecurity, including kidnappings and mass killings, yet military rule was not imposed.
Even when former President Buhari attempted such measures in Borno State, they proved ineffective. This prompts the question: how dire is Rivers State’s situation to warrant such drastic action?
The crisis in Rivers is largely political—a power struggle between the incumbent governor, Siminalayi Fubara and his predecessor, Nyesom Ezenwo Wike who is also President Tinubu’s FCT Minister.
Is this sufficient justification for suspending a democratically elected government?
The South-West has also faced grave security challenges, including kidnappings and violent attacks, yet no state of emergency has been declared there.
Notably, even Afenifere leaders recently called for similar action in the region to curb insecurity.
This decision appears to reflect a lack of focus and sensitivity from the federal government. Suspending an elected governor undermines democracy and disrespects the electorate’s mandate.
Are we reverting to authoritarianism under the guise of constitutional provisions?
If Rivers State is embroiled in political vendettas, why not mediate rather than impose military-style governance?
This move suggests a government more concerned with self-interest than public welfare.
The people deserve leadership that prioritizes dialogue and inclusivity over punitive measures. Imam, a social commentator wrote from Abuja
