Rivers crisis and the limit to state capture

BY WEALTH DICKSON OMINABO

President Bola Tinubu declared a state of emergency in Rivers State on Tuesday after months of disagreement between the incumbent governor, Siminalayi Fubara, and his predecessor, Nyesom Wike, the minister of the Federal Capital Territory. In a national broadcast, the president cited the political crisis as the reason for his decision, claiming the failure of the actors involved to arrive at peace. He stated that the political crisis had disrupted democratic governance and deprived the people of Rivers of the benefits of good governance. The main point the president seemed to rely on was the breakdown of law and order. He cited the example of a pipeline explosion in the state and threats by militants as justification for the state of emergency.

For those who have followed the crisis, some of the content appeared contrary to the reality on the ground. It is common knowledge that, even before the ruling of the supreme court, both factions of the Rivers house of assembly had been meeting separately and making their own decisions. Just last week, the governor was seen in the temporary space occupied by the lawmakers, attempting to present the state budget in compliance with the supreme court ruling. Reports indicate that the lawmakers suddenly adjourned the assembly indefinitely, closing channels of engagement with the governor.

For example, the president said he was invoking a state of emergency because his intervention had been rejected, and the intervention of other well-meaning Nigerians had failed. However, only last week, leaders from the south, under the auspices of the Pan Niger Delta Forum (PANDEF), visited the president to discuss the political stalemate in Rivers state with a view to finding a solution. The leaders left the meeting disappointed, as the president had already taken a position with his minister and was not willing to listen to them. Some elders who attended the meeting later expressed frustration over their poor treatment by the president. Some believe the president’s stature as a political godfather has led him to side with Wike, affecting what could have been a transparent and peaceful initiative.

The declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers is shocking because the state was not in a situation of complete breakdown of law and order. Declaring a state of emergency based on the vandalisation of two pipeline installations and threats from militants against national infrastructure falls short of what could be termed a national security threat warranting a declaration of emergency. A threat analysis would reveal that there was no imminent danger capable of overwhelming the state at the time the emergency was declared. The threats in Rivers state were manageable and could have been handled by civil authorities. These threats were political issues within the president’s reach to resolve, as the major actor was his appointee. The emergency action, therefore, defeats every security logic and betrays public trust. Some have argued that the president’s decision was influenced by emotions and politics, which itself is a betrayal of trust and his oath of office.

The position of a president requires circumspection and patriotism. When it comes to national security, the responsibility is even higher. Decisions on national security should not be taken based on politics and emotions. Many commentators have argued that the president and those around him failed to rise above political interests in making their decisions.

If there is one thing that this Rivers crisis has exposed, it is the failure of reason and the challenge of statecraft in today’s Nigeria. Leaders should be dispassionate on issues of national security, and their decisions should be taken in the best interest of the state. The president’s decision to declare a state of emergency trivialises the idea of emergency action as contemplated in the constitution and heralds a challenge to governance and democracy itself.

The implications of the crisis pose a danger to our democracy, as the president can wake up one morning and sack a democratic government that does not do his bidding. The government could also foment trouble and use it as a guise to declare a state of emergency. This state of emergency signals the danger looming over our nation’s democracy, where appointees of the government could insist on capturing a state, and when they fail, they use the instrumentality of the state to sack elected officials. The president’s actions should serve as a wake-up call for vigilance in our nation’s democracy.

It serves as a notice of an impending dictatorial era, where state agencies will be deployed to advance the agenda of a few. One sad impact of the president’s action is that it could open a new wave of frustration and aggression, not just among the people of Rivers state but in the entire Niger Delta. Already, the crisis has been weaponized by both actors, and the president is perceived as unfair and unjust to one side. To many in the Niger Delta, the state of emergency is an open challenge and an act of oppression by Wike and his appointee.

Another significant issue this crisis has highlighted is the growing desire for state capture by those at the helm of affairs. The Rivers state crisis is rooted in state capture. The political quarrels between Governor Fubara and Wike are based on the latter’s attempt to capture the state. The former governor has implicitly alluded to this in his media briefings. He has, on different occasions, stated that his political structure cannot be changed. He is reported to have said in interviews that his problem with his successor is that he tried to tamper with his political structure.

On the other hand, the governor has repeatedly used the analogy of how political rivals are after his red pen, a symbol of administrative authority. He has insisted that the crisis is not about development but about the exercise of the pen. This fight lacks a justifiable cause. Political structures in a democracy are not won and sustained through coercion and threats. It is abhorrent in a democracy for a leader to insist, “If you go after my structure, I will come after you.”

The rift between the two leaders is about state capture, and after a failed attempt, the emergency rule appears to have been invoked to completely seize power. It is, therefore, not surprising that the supreme court judgment attempted to stop the allocation of funds to the governor pending the resolution of the crisis. Shockingly, after declaring a state of emergency, the federal government is now willing to open the Rivers state treasury to a sole administrator who will be answerable to the federal government.

The emergency action signals a new pattern of state capture by the federal government, a hijacking of the sovereignty of Rivers people conferred on their elected leaders. This casts a shadow of gloom on our nation’s democracy, as it could erode the liberal values of plurality, legitimacy, freedom of choice, and political thought. The Nigerian state is already experiencing a serious wave of democratic decline, with the legislature and judiciary perceived to be losing their independence and being captured by the federal executive. There is a general concern that some individuals wield undue influence over the judiciary, possessing the power to procure judgments that suit their political interests.

The president’s actions also send a troubling message regarding his leadership as the chairman of the ECOWAS Authority of Heads of State and Government, a position that confers on him a moral responsibility to defend and safeguard democracy, its norms, and values everywhere and every time. It is contradictory that, while the president once preached democracy and condemned military actions in Niger, he now appears to be undermining it at home. If left unchecked, this trend will erode democracy and plunge the nation into crisis.

Ominabo is a journalist and researcher specialising in governance and security in the West African Sahel.