Prof. Pat Utomi, a renowned political economist, has expressed strong concerns over President Bola Tinubu’s decision to impose a state of emergency in Rivers State. In a nationwide broadcast on March 18, 2024, President Tinubu cited militant vandalism of pipelines and political instability as the main reasons for the move, which led to the suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, Prof. Ngozi Odu, and all elected members of the Rivers State House of Assembly. However, Utomi, in an interview on Channels Television, criticized the decision, questioning the president’s rationale for the action.
In his interview, Prof. Utomi argued that the political situation in Rivers State did not warrant such drastic measures. He pointed out that similar challenges, including militant attacks on pipelines, had occurred in the past without the state being placed under emergency rule. Referring to the past administration, he recalled that when militants in Rivers were bombing pipelines regularly, there was no state of emergency declared.
“What is the problem in Rivers State that warranted a state of emergency? Tell me what it is. When pipelines were blowing up like popcorn in Rivers State, was there a state of emergency?” Utomi questioned. His criticism of the declaration was rooted in the perceived inconsistency and lack of fairness in the government’s actions.
The imposition of a state of emergency in a state is a serious move, and Utomi argued that the political crisis in Rivers, which had been ongoing for years, was not unique in terms of the country’s history of political instability. He suggested that the emergency rule might be a political move rather than one rooted in genuine concerns for public safety or governance.
Utomi further questioned why the same action was not taken in Lagos State during a crisis involving the Lagos House of Assembly, where Speaker Mudashiru Obasa and other lawmakers were involved in a serious political tussle. “Why did he not declare a state of emergency in Lagos State when the assembly was running back and forth?” Utomi asked, indicating that the lack of similar action in Lagos raised questions about the motives behind the decision to target Rivers State.
He expressed concern over what he saw as a lack of fairness and equity in the application of the state of emergency rule. According to Utomi, the decision seemed to be politically motivated, especially considering that Lagos, a key state in the political and economic landscape of Nigeria, was not subject to the same scrutiny or intervention. “There’s something about fairness, equity, and pure decency, and I don’t see it here. And I think it’s a shame that they want to rubbish the democracy that we all fought so hard for,” Utomi lamented.
The political situation in Rivers State has been marked by years of tension and instability, often linked to issues surrounding the allocation of resources, local elections, and political control. Rivers, one of Nigeria’s most resource-rich states, has seen intense political rivalry, especially between the two dominant political parties – the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and the All Progressives Congress (APC). The political landscape has often been characterized by disputes over control of state and federal resources, with allegations of electoral manipulation and political violence.
In the wake of President Tinubu’s declaration of emergency rule, the suspension of Governor Fubara and his administration’s officials raised questions about the legality and fairness of the decision. Observers noted that the decision came at a time of heightened political conflict in the state, particularly following the recent gubernatorial elections. These tensions, however, are not new to Rivers State, and many have questioned why the state has been singled out for such a measure.
Utomi did not limit his criticism to the president alone. He also expressed disappointment with the National Assembly for endorsing the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State. According to Utomi, the endorsement by lawmakers was an insult to Nigerians. He argued that the move undermines the principles of democracy and reflects poorly on the legislative body’s commitment to protecting citizens’ rights and freedoms.
“It is an insult to Nigerians. The National Assembly’s endorsement shows a lack of concern for the democratic process and the well-being of the people,” Utomi asserted. His comment points to the growing frustration among some Nigerians who feel that the government’s actions are undermining democratic institutions and principles, which have been hard-won after years of military rule.
In a democracy, the role of the National Assembly is to serve as a check on the executive, ensuring that actions taken by the president align with the rule of law and the interests of the people. By endorsing the emergency rule, critics argue, the National Assembly is signaling a willingness to back a controversial decision that could set a dangerous precedent for the country’s democratic health.
The declaration of a state of emergency in any part of Nigeria carries significant implications. While it is meant to address situations where law and order have broken down, critics argue that it could be seen as a means of consolidating political control in specific regions. The potential for such powers to be abused has raised concerns about the erosion of civil liberties and the weakening of democratic structures.
The case of Rivers State highlights broader issues within Nigerian politics, including the politicization of security and governance decisions. While the government justifies the emergency rule as necessary for restoring peace, critics like Utomi suggest that the move may, in fact, be driven by political interests rather than a genuine desire to address security or governance issues.
The situation in Rivers also raises questions about the effectiveness of emergency rule in resolving underlying political and social issues. History has shown that emergency rule is often a temporary solution that does not address the root causes of instability, such as poor governance, economic inequality, and social unrest. Thus, while the emergency rule may provide a temporary security solution, it does not necessarily pave the way for long-term stability or development.