Nigeria is teetering on the brink of a constitutional disaster as President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s decision to suspend Rivers State Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy Ngozi Odu, and the entire House of Assembly for six months sends shockwaves through the nation. This unprecedented move, announced in a nationwide broadcast, is being widely condemned as a dangerous overreach of executive power, with critics branding it a constitutional coup that threatens the country’s federal structure.
Tinubu’s action has thrown Nigeria into uncharted legal territory, with many questioning the constitutional basis for such a drastic move. Section 305 of the Nigerian Constitution empowers the President to declare a state of emergency, but it does not grant him the authority to suspend elected officials. The only legal avenues for removing a governor are through impeachment by the state’s House of Assembly, incapacitation, or voluntary resignation. By bypassing these provisions, Tinubu has waded into a constitutional minefield, raising fears that the executive arm is undermining the very democracy it claims to protect. Legal experts argue that the President’s move sets a troubling precedent—if a governor can be suspended by executive fiat today, then no elected state official is safe from federal interference.
The Supreme Court had ruled in February 2025 that governance in Rivers State was in a state of collapse following Fubara’s demolition of the State House of Assembly complex. But the court did not order his removal—making Tinubu’s decision even more contentious. The judiciary will now be tested, as legal challenges are expected to flood the courts in the coming days. This suspension has sparked accusations that the federal government is overstepping its bounds, interfering in state affairs under the guise of restoring order. Rivers State, being one of Nigeria’s richest oil-producing regions, holds immense economic and political significance. Many believe that beyond concerns about governance and security, there is a deeper struggle for control of the state’s vast resources and political influence.
This move also raises fears about Nigeria’s fragile democracy. The principle of federalism is built on the autonomy of states to govern themselves, yet Tinubu’s decision undermines this structure, making state governors appear subservient to the President rather than accountable to their people. The courts will play a decisive role in determining the legality of Tinubu’s action. If the judiciary upholds the suspension, it could embolden the federal government to take similar actions in other states, effectively eroding the power of elected governors. If overturned, it would deal a major blow to the President’s authority and reinforce constitutional limits on executive power.
Tinubu’s move has already ignited fierce political resistance. Pro-Fubara supporters, opposition parties, and civil rights groups are mobilizing against what they call an “illegal power grab.” Protests and civil unrest could erupt in Rivers State, exacerbating tensions rather than restoring stability. Other governors, particularly those in opposition-controlled states, will view this development with deep suspicion. If the federal government is allowed to sideline a sitting governor under questionable legal grounds, state governments may begin seeking stronger autonomy to shield themselves from similar interference.
Rivers State is a crucial hub for Nigeria’s oil revenue. The political instability could deter foreign investment, disrupt oil production, and exacerbate the country’s economic woes. Multinational oil companies operating in the region may reconsider their commitments amid uncertainty about governance and security. Civil society organizations, activists, and opposition figures are already calling for mass action. With Nigeria’s history of street protests against government overreach, the situation in Rivers could escalate, drawing national and international condemnation.
History has shown that executive overreach, once unchecked, can spiral into authoritarianism. Nigeria has experienced military rule in the past, where governors were dismissed at will. Tinubu’s move eerily mirrors such authoritarian tendencies, raising fears about the erosion of democratic institutions. If allowed to stand, this action could embolden future administrations to use executive orders as political weapons, suspending elected officials under the guise of maintaining order. Today, it is Rivers State; tomorrow, it could be any other state whose leadership does not align with the federal government’s interests.
All eyes are now on the judiciary, civil society, and the political class. Will the courts uphold the constitution, or will they legitimize what many see as an unconstitutional act? Will the people of Rivers accept this decision quietly, or will they rise in defiance? One thing is certain: Nigeria’s democracy is facing one of its biggest tests yet. If unchecked, Tinubu’s move could mark the beginning of a dangerous slide into executive dictatorship. The battle for Rivers is not just about one state—it is a fight for the soul of Nigeria’s democracy.
