Throwback: How Tinubu condemned Jonathan’s state of emergency rule in 2013

President Bola Tinubu on Tuesday, declared a state of emergency in Rivers State, citing the prolonged political crisis that has destabilized governance in the oil-rich state.

In a nationwide broadcast, Tinubu justified his decision, stating, “No good and responsible President will stand by and allow the grave situation to continue without taking remedial steps prescribed by the Constitution to address the situation in the state.”

He explained that previous attempts to restore peace had been frustrated by those involved in the crisis, necessitating extraordinary measures to ensure good governance, security, and order.

Tinubu’s decision marks the third time a Nigerian president has invoked Section 305 of the Constitution since the return to democracy in 1999. Former President Olusegun Obasanjo declared a state of emergency in Plateau (2004) and Ekiti (2006) due to political and security crises. Similarly, ex-President Goodluck Jonathan took the same step in 2013 in Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa States at the height of the Boko Haram insurgency.

However, Tinubu, who was then the National Leader of the defunct Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), had strongly criticized Jonathan’s action, calling it a dangerous precedent in governance.

At the time, Tinubu argued that Jonathan’s decision was politically motivated, aimed at suppressing states controlled by the opposition ahead of the 2015 general election. He warned that such actions could fuel radical ideologies and worsen the country’s security challenges.

“The body language of the Jonathan administration leads any keen observer to the unmistakable conclusion that there is a covert agenda to weaken the elected governments of these states,” Tinubu had said. “Borno and Yobe have been under military occupation, causing untold hardship for residents. Now, this government wants to use security challenges as an excuse to remove governors in states considered hostile to the PDP/Jonathan re-election project.”

He cautioned that using security issues to undermine elected state governments could lead to unpredictable consequences, saying, “Experience has shown that such actions often breed extremism, the very opposite of what they are intended to achieve.”

Tinubu also criticized the Jonathan administration’s handling of national security, arguing that governors had been stripped of their constitutional role as Chief Security Officers, leaving them powerless in the face of escalating attacks.

“The ship of the Nigerian state is rudderless,” he had stated. “Governors, who have been effectively sidelined, are being blamed for the failures of a federal government that controls all security agencies. This is a clear case of ignorance and mischief.”

He further accused the administration of fostering ethnic and religious divisions for political gain, warning that its approach to security was alienating citizens instead of engaging them in intelligence gathering.

“The massacres of local communities by unknown elements will only further alienate the people who should be government’s partners in securing their environment,” Tinubu had argued.

He insisted that the presence of the Joint Task Force (JTF) in the affected states had already created a de facto state of emergency, with residents living under constant fear and rights violations.

“A policy that disregards the constitutional roles of elected representatives and alienates the people is fundamentally defective,” he had concluded.

Now, as President, Tinubu’s decision to declare emergency rule in Rivers State echoes the very concerns he once raised, raising questions about the shifting dynamics of power and governance in Nigeria.