Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has sharply criticized President Bola Tinubu’s handling of the Rivers State political crisis, arguing that the lifting of the emergency rule should not be celebrated because the original suspension was unconstitutional.
In a statement posted on his social media platform on Thursday morning, Atiku contended that President Tinubu lacked the legal authority to suspend democratically elected officials, describing the entire episode as evidence of authoritarian tendencies within the current administration.
The former People’s Democratic Party presidential candidate maintained that the suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara and members of the Rivers State House of Assembly was illegal from its inception six months ago and remains unlawful despite its recent reversal. Atiku argued that no president has constitutional power to suspend elected state officials, regardless of the circumstances that might justify such action.
Atiku characterized what he termed the “Rivers shenanigans” as a clear indication of dictatorial governance under the Tinubu administration. His criticism comes one day after President Tinubu announced the end of the six-month state of emergency that had effectively suspended normal democratic governance in the oil-rich state.
The former vice president’s statement directly challenged the constitutional basis for the emergency declaration, questioning the precedent set by federal intervention in state-level political disputes. His criticism suggests that the resolution of the crisis does not validate the original decision to impose emergency rule.
President Tinubu had originally imposed the state of emergency on March 18, 2025, citing a complete breakdown of governance in Rivers State. The crisis centered on an irreconcilable conflict between Governor Fubara and the majority of state lawmakers, who had divided into opposing camps that prevented normal legislative functions.
The emergency declaration came after failed attempts at diplomatic resolution and amid security concerns including vandalism of oil pipeline infrastructure in the Niger Delta region. The federal intervention suspended the offices of the governor, deputy governor, and elected assembly members for six months while federal administrators managed state affairs.
In announcing the end of the emergency on Wednesday, President Tinubu had expressed satisfaction that intelligence reports indicated renewed cooperation between previously conflicting parties in Rivers State. He cited this apparent reconciliation as justification for returning to normal constitutional governance without extending the emergency period.
However, Atiku’s response suggests that opposition politicians view the entire episode as an abuse of presidential power rather than a legitimate constitutional intervention. His criticism implies that the emergency declaration set a dangerous precedent for federal interference in state governance, regardless of whether it achieved its stated objectives.
The former vice president’s statement reflects broader concerns among opposition figures about the expansion of executive power under the current administration. By framing the Rivers intervention as evidence of dictatorship, Atiku is positioning the episode within a narrative of democratic backsliding rather than crisis management.
Atiku’s criticism also highlights ongoing debates about the appropriate limits of presidential emergency powers under Nigeria’s constitution. While Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution does provide for emergency declarations, critics argue that suspending elected officials exceeds the intended scope of such interventions.
