Defending Tinubu’s action, the AGF stressed that the President acted at the right time to prevent further deterioration of governance in Rivers State.
“We have about two years into this administration. Now, when do you think the President should have intervened? Should he have waited until everything was destroyed? I don’t think so,” he said.
Fagbemi added that Tinubu had previously attempted to mediate the crisis, giving all parties involved ample time to reconcile their differences before deciding to impose emergency rule.
On Tuesday, Tinubu declared a state of emergency in Rivers State, suspending Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy Ngozi Odu, and all elected members of the state House of Assembly for an initial period of six months.
The declaration followed prolonged political instability in the state, largely attributed to a power struggle between Fubara and his predecessor, Nyesom Wike. The crisis had disrupted governance and raised concerns about security and economic stability in the state.
As part of the emergency measures, Tinubu appointed Vice Admiral Ibok-Étè Ibas (retd.) to oversee Rivers State until normalcy is restored. Ibas previously served as Chief of Naval Staff from 2015 to 2021 under former President Muhammadu Buhari.
In his nationwide address, Tinubu justified his decision by citing constitutional breaches and security threats.
“In the circumstance, having soberly reflected on and evaluated the political situation in Rivers State… it has become inevitably compelling for me to invoke the provision of Section 305 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, to declare a state of emergency in Rivers State with effect from today, March 18, 2025,” Tinubu stated.
He further assured that the judicial arm of the state government would remain functional, emphasizing that the emergency rule only affected the executive and legislative branches.
The decision has sparked mixed reactions from political stakeholders and civil society groups, with some supporting the move as necessary to restore stability, while others view it as an overreach of executive power.