Siminalayi Fubara

By Hadiza Abdulkadir

Google Trends has released its Year in Search 2025 report, revealing the Nigerians who drew the most online attention throughout the year. Leading the list is Senator Natasha Akpoti, whose political activities and rising national profile kept her at the centre of public conversation.

Natasha Akpoti, the recently reinstated senator, has remained at the centre of national attention following a turbulent political year marked by her suspension after accusations from the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, and an ongoing defamation suit he has filed against her.

Sen. Akpoti’s return to the Senate coincides with a period of renewed visibility at home, where she celebrated her 46th birthday and launched several constituency projects, including a new maternity hospital. In a gesture that drew widespread public reaction, she also gifted houses to some of her aides, further solidifying her image as a polarising yet impactful political figure.

The second most-searched Nigerian is Eberechi Eze, the England-based football star of Nigerian descent, whose impressive performances and debates over his international future fueled widespread interest. Siminalayi Fubara, Governor of Rivers State, ranks third as developments in the state continued to dominate headlines.

In fourth place is Chika Ike, the acclaimed actress and filmmaker whose resurgence in Nollywood and strong social media presence kept her trending. Closing the top five is Mr Eazi, the Afrobeats musician and entrepreneur whose creative and business ventures sustained considerable public curiosity.

The 2025 search trends show Nigerians’ keen engagement with politics, entertainment, and global sports. It also offers insight into the personalities who shaped national discourse over the past year.

Abdulhamid Abdullahi Aliyu

With a single stroke, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has upended Nigeria’s constitutional order, suspending Rivers State Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, and the state legislature under the guise of a state of emergency.

This unprecedented and legally questionable move raises urgent questions: Has Nigeria’s democracy just been hijacked? If a sitting president can summarily remove elected state officials without due process, what stops Abuja from toppling any governor who falls out of favor?

The political crisis in Rivers has been simmering for months, with intense factional battles within the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) leading to threats of impeachment against the governor. But was the situation truly dire enough to warrant a presidential intervention of this magnitude?

Under Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution, a state of emergency can only be declared in cases of war, imminent danger of invasion, total breakdown of public order, or natural disasters. Even then, such a declaration requires National Assembly approval.

More importantly, the Constitution does not grant the President the power to suspend a sitting governor, deputy governor, or members of the state legislature.

By single-handedly ousting a duly elected state government and replacing it with a military figure, Tinubu has overstepped his constitutional bounds, effectively staging what many legal experts are calling a “constitutional coup.”

If this move is allowed to stand, it raises a troubling question: which state is next? Today, it is Rivers; tomorrow, it could be any other state where the President or ruling party faces political opposition. The implications are chilling—no governor, regardless of electoral mandate, would be safe from federal interference.

Would this have happened in Lagos or Kano? Would a northern state be subjected to such federal strong-arming? The answer is clear. Rivers, an oil-rich and politically volatile state, is an attractive target.

But what happens when this dangerous game of executive overreach extends beyond Rivers? If Tinubu can remove Fubara this easily, then Nigeria’s entire federal structure is under threat.

Beyond the political chaos, a more pressing question emerges: Is this really about governance, or is it about controlling Rivers’ oil wealth? History has shown the federal government’s keen interest in oil-producing states—from the militarization of the Niger Delta under past administrations to the strategic placement of federal loyalists in key oil-rich states.

The pattern is all too familiar. Could this move be less about political stability and more about tightening Abuja’s grip on Rivers’ vast economic resources?

With the Constitution clearly violated, all eyes now turn to the judiciary. Will the Supreme Court rise to the occasion and declare this move unconstitutional? Or will the courts bow to political pressure, allowing a dangerous precedent to take root?

The judiciary must recognize that this is not just about Rivers—it is about safeguarding Nigeria’s fragile democracy from the creeping shadows of authoritarianism. If this unconstitutional takeover is not reversed, no state governor in Nigeria will ever govern with full confidence in their electoral mandate again.

Since the return to civil rule in 1999, Governor Siminalayi Fubara is now the third sitting governor to be suspended by a Nigerian President under a democratic setting. In 2004, former President Olusegun Obasanjo suspended Plateau State Governor Joshua Dariye and the State Assembly over ethno-religious violence in Jos and other parts of the state, appointing Maj. Gen. Chris Alli (rtd.) to take charge.

Two years later, Obasanjo removed Ekiti State Governor Ayo Fayose and his deputy over political crises and impeachment controversies, installing Brig. Gen. Tunji Olurin (rtd.) as the new head of the state.

In 2013, President Goodluck Jonathan declared a state of emergency in Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa States in response to Boko Haram’s escalating insurgency. However, unlike his predecessors, Jonathan did not suspend the sitting governors; instead, he allowed state governments to continue operating alongside increased federal military intervention.

Now, in 2025, Tinubu has declared a state of emergency in Rivers State, citing political crisis and governance breakdown. But his move goes even further—suspending Governor Fubara, his deputy, and all members of the House of Assembly for six months.

While past interventions were carried out under Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution, the legality and necessity of removing elected officials have always been controversial. The Constitution outlines a clear procedure for declaring a state of emergency: the President must issue a proclamation, publish it in the official Gazette, and submit it to the National Assembly for approval.

Yet, in Rivers, Tinubu has acted unilaterally, preempting legislative approval and exceeding constitutional limits by removing elected officials.

As these events unfold, one thing is certain—2027 is shaping up to be a defining moment for Nigeria’s democracy. Will the courts uphold the rule of law, or will this be remembered as the moment Nigeria’s democracy took a dangerous turn?

The Nigerian people, civil society, and democratic institutions must resist this unconstitutional move by all legitimate means. If left unchecked, this will mark the moment when the line between democracy and dictatorship in Nigeria blurred beyond recognition.

Abdulhamid Abdullahi Aliyu- an NYSC serving corps member, writes from Center for Crisis Communication (CCC) in Abuja.

By Blaise Emeka Okpara

If recent events in Nigeria’s body politic are anything to go by, then one would be right to conclude that our democracy is headed for the rocks. At no time in our nation’s history has such a calamity of monumental proportions befallen us! What is worse, we are witnessing for the first time an unholy alliance between the three arms of government. What this portends is that the people, who should be the primary concern of governance, are now being relegated to the background.

There is great danger, and from the look of things, it might not get better anytime soon. The current reality in Nigeria, where both the legislature and judiciary have collapsed their structures into that of the executive, has created an atmosphere of distrust and hopelessness among Nigerians. There is a disconnect between the government and the people. This dichotomy exists due to the nonchalance associated with the current crop of political leaders.

Of great concern is the recent declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State, which saw the suspension of a duly elected governor and the appointment of a sole administrator. While it is undeniable that the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, in Section 305, bestows upon the President the power to declare a state of emergency, it does not grant him the power to remove an elected governor. 

More disheartening was the speedy ratification by the Senate through a voice vote. How, on earth, did the Senate determine a two-thirds majority through a voice vote? These and many other questions continue to bug the discerning.

As if that were not enough, the Attorney General of the federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi SAN, was vociferous  in his outburst, threatening that the President would not hesitate to declare more states of emergency in any state if it becomes necessary. In a democracy! Such unguarded utterances should not be encouraged because they go against the principles of democracy. 

Moreover, from all indications,it seems that the days of healthy debates in the national assembly are gone. Today, Nigeria has a  national assembly that functions as an extension of the executive. One wonders what might become of our democracy if President Ahmed Tinubu decides  to prolong his stay in office beyond the constitutionally required terms. With the antecedents of this current national assembly, one might conclude that it is a done deal. 

Sadly, the judiciary is not exempt. At a time when Nigerians look to the judiciary as the bastion of democracy, the institution has been so undermined that it no longer inspires confidence among the populace. Brazen disregard for justice, driven by monetary inducement, has become the norm. This is even more evident in the audacity with which Nigerian politicians now instruct aggrieved individuals to go to court. 

Outcomes of judicial processes can easily be predicted by simply observing those involved. When a nation has a judiciary that takes orders from the executives, where then lies the hope for the common man? One can only find judges hobnobbing with politicians in a compromised judiciary.  

The return to constitutional democracy was met with great expectations and optimism from Nigerians after years of military rule. However, more than two decades later, it seems Nigeria is gradually drifting towards a darker era where only a privileged few individuals manage the affairs with little or no regard for the people.

There is a pervasive feeling of helplessness among Nigerians that those in positions of authority can do and get away with anything. As scary and unsavory as this may sound, it is the truth, given recent occurrences. It reeks of a lack of empathy for a President to declare the removal of the subsidy on the day of his inauguration without considering the impact on the people. To this day, Nigerians are still reeling from the effects of that hasty decision. Needless to say,millions of Nigerians were plunged into poverty as a result. 

Unlike in 2013, when the then-President removed the fuel subsidy and Nigerians had the freedom and courage to take to the streets, the reverse is now true. In fact, during the last “Hunger protest,” most protesters were teargassed by the police, and some were arrested. The criminalization of protests in Nigeria by the current administration has instilled fear among citizens. When citizens are frightened by the government of the day, it’s not a democracy.

The usual refrain by the police that protests would be hijacked is purely a calculated attempt to suppress dissenting voices. This confrontational approach to peaceful protesters is undemocratic because it contradicts citizens’ rights to freedom of expression as enshrined in section 39 of the 1999 constitution (as amended). If citizens’ rights to protest are being trampled upon, then it is correct to conclude that we are gradually sliding back to the despotic years of the military, where speaking truth to power was considered an act of bravery. 

Conclusively, most of those in positions of authority today, like the sitting President, often wax lyrical about their heroics during the NADECO days of the military. President Tinubu was among the major organizers of the “occupy Nigeria” protests, which saw his party, the All Progressive Congress(APC), come to power. If protest was fashionable then,why is it not now? 

Democracy thrives on fundamental principles such as the separation of powers among the three branches of government to ensure checks and balances, fundamental human rights, the rule of law, popular participation, and, most importantly, legitimacy. 

Only the people can bestow this legitimacy through periodic elections. When these core principles are abused,democracy is in danger. Political office holders need to engage in introspection to curtail their high-handedness and save our democracy from imminent collapse. To be forewarned is to be forearmed.

Blaise Emeka Okpara writes from Abuja and can be reached at: emyokparaoo1@gmail.com.

By Anwar Usman 

The Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, hosted suspended Rivers state house of assembly lawmakers in the United Kingdom on Monday.

The Senior Special Assistant to the Minister on Public Communications and Social Media, Lere Olayinka, posted on X.com on Tuesday that the lawmakers, who are in the UK for “legislative capacity building,” were hosted to a dinner by the minister.

He stated that “Yesterday, the FCT Minister, Nyesom Wike, hosted Rivers State House of Assembly members who are in the United Kingdom for Legislative Capacity Building, to a dinner.

Reports have it that on Sunday, the suspended Rivers lawmakers, led by the Speaker, Martins Amaewhule, departed Nigeria for a tour in the United Kingdom.

Amaewhule was said to have declared open the 10th Rivers Assembly Legislative Tour of the United Kingdom on Friday.

He emphasized that the legislative tour would allow the House to learn new things outside Nigeria, which would improve members’ capacity for the tasks ahead.

On March 18th, President Bola Tinubu declared a state of emergency in Rivers State and suspended Governor Siminalayi Fubara, Deputy Governor Prof Ngozi Odu, and members of the state House of Assembly.

By Bilyamin Abdulmumin, PhD

Buhari was largely viewed as reluctant, whereas Tinubu engaged in tit-for-tat responses. Tinubu has demonstrated decisiveness on many occasions. For instance, when there was a public outcry over his Kano ministerial nominee, Maryam Shettima, he swiftly replaced her with Dr. Mariya Mahmoud, who enjoyed greater public approval. Buhari likely would have retained Shettima.

A few months after the ministers assumed office, the Minister of Humanitarian Affairs, a ministry infamous for waywardness—was caught in multiple scandals. In a swift response to public outrage, Tinubu suspended Betta Edu, and from all likelihood, she has gone for good.

No situation highlights the difference between Tinubu and Buhari more than the ongoing political crisis in Rivers State involving Governor Fubara and his former benefactor, Nyesom Wike. While Buhari would have turned a deaf ear to the situation, Tinubu reacted decisively. Those who once criticised Buhari for his passive leadership should now give a standing ovation to Tinubu’s stern control and decisiveness.

Nevertheless, Tinubu’s speech during the emergency declaration was notably one-sided. He sided with his FCT Minister, Nyesom Wike, heaping blame on Fubara for demolishing national assembly structures and failing to address pipeline bombings—while completely ignoring Wike’s role in the crisis. These reinforced accusations of federal government highhandedness in Nigeria’s most populous states.

Some argue that the federal government is involved in the debacles affecting Rivers, Lagos, and Kano due to its fear of losing these key states to the opposition. However, as the APC states, the allegations of internal conflicts in the Lagos government do not hold up. Since the state is governed by the ruling party, it seems to be just another political facade from the federal government.

A major issue for Tinubu’s camp is their position on Fubara and Uba Sani. If they oppose Fubara, they should also oppose Uba Sani. You cannot support Wike in Rivers while opposing El-Rufai in Kaduna. The two scenarios bear a striking resemblance.

Reflecting on how Nigerians criticized Buhari for lacking swiftness and displaying full control as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Nigeria, it is fair to say that Tinubu has now met that expectation.

Bilyamin Abdulmumin, PhD wrote via bilal4riid13@gmail.com.

By Zayyad I. Muhammad

I strongly disapprove of Governor Siminalayi Fubara’s betrayal of his political godfather. Fubara entered the political arena without established structures, financial resources, or widespread recognition; he was relatively unknown. 

Former Governor Nyesom Wike provided him with the platform, support, and influence that ultimately led to his rise as governor. Yet, despite this, Fubara has turned against the very person who paved the way for his political ascent. 

Both sides should share the blame for not shifting grounds. The declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State came at a critical time to address rising insecurity and unrest that threatened to spiral out of control. Left unchecked, the situation could have led to a resurgence of militancy and severely disrupted oil exploration activities, which are vital to both the state and national economy. 

Beyond the economic implications, the deteriorating security situation also risks derailing governance and has somehow ‘assisted’ Governor Fubara in escaping impeachment. President Tinubu may justify his decision—he has access to security intelligence and reports that the general public does not.

However, although addressing security concerns is essential, suspending an elected governor and members of the state assembly is not only unconstitutional but also sets a dangerous precedent for Nigeria’s democracy. This issue goes beyond the 2027 elections; it strikes at the heart of democratic governance and the principle of electoral legitimacy. 

Our democracy has matured to a point where a sitting governor can be removed only through due process, as outlined in Section 188 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). If we are not careful, one day—God forbid—a president or his allies could create chaos in a state simply to justify declaring a state of emergency and unseating an elected governor for political gain. Such actions would undermine democracy and erode public trust in the electoral process. They pose a danger to our future. 

The Rivers state or any political conflicts should be resolved within the framework of the law, not through forceful interventions that threaten democratic stability.

The key actors in Rivers State must set aside their personal and political grievances to prioritize reconciliation. Prolonged instability is unacceptable, as it harms the people, governance, and economic progress. A peaceful resolution is the only path forward.

An elected Governor’s mandate is sacrosanct and must be respected. He is the top citizen in the subnational.

 Zayyad I. Muhammad writes from Abuja via zaymohd@yahoo.com.

By Anwar Usman

Former President of Nigeria, Goodluck Jonathan has stated that the suspension of the elected governor, deputy and members of the house of assembly in Rivers State could tarnish the reputation of the country.

The former president made the statement at the Haske Satumari Foundation Colloquium in Abuja on Saturday.

“These actions by key actors in the executive and legislative arms of government paint the country in a negative light,” he said.

Jonathan, while revealing his stance about the political unrest in Rivers State, said although it is not the norm for former presidents to comment on issues in the polity so as not to heat up the polity, he insisted that the image of the country and how much investments a country attracts is heavily dependent on the actions of the executive, legislature and judiciary of the country.

Jonathan’s comment on the state of emergency came after the Peoples Democratic Party governors contended that the President Bola Tinubu’s actions were unconstitutional and threatened Nigeria’s democratic principles.

He criticized the situation where an individual can dictate to the judiciary, noting that it makes it difficult for anyone to have faith in the judiciary.

By Hadiza Abdulkadir

Following a prolonged silence and social media appeals urging NNPP chieftain and former governor of Kano State, Rabi’u Musa Kwankwaso, to address the ongoing political situation in Nigeria, Kwankwaso issued a statement to the press through his social media accounts.

Kwankwaso strongly criticized President Bola Tinubu’s recent declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State. The proclamation includes the suspension of Governor Similayi Fubara and all elected state legislators, a move Kwankwaso deems unconstitutional and dangerous for Nigeria’s democracy.

Reflecting on past political lessons, he expressed concern over the National Assembly’s rapid ratification of the president’s decision, calling it a deviation from proper legislative procedures. “This 10th Assembly has become more rubberstamp than any of its predecessors,” he stated.

Kwankwaso also condemned the involvement of military leadership in a civilian power structure, warning that such actions could lead to chaos and erode public trust in democratic institutions. He emphasized the risks of permitting military influence over civilian governance, recalling the need to keep military forces away from political power.

As the situation unfolds, the implications for democracy in Rivers State and across Nigeria remain uncertain, highlighting the necessity for political and judicial bodies to uphold the rule of law.

By Hadiza Abdulkadir

The federal government’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State has sparked widespread criticism, with legal experts and political analysts condemning the move as unconstitutional and politically motivated.

Prominent legal practitioner Abba Hikima, Esq. argues that President Bola Tinubu lacks the legal authority to suspend a democratically elected governor, deputy governor, and the members of the State House of Assembly. He insists that both Nigerian law and judicial precedents explicitly prohibit such actions.

“There’s nothing in the law or practice of proclamation of a state of emergency in Nigeria that empowers the president to suspend elected officials. Several judicial precedents outrightly prohibit this, and the president is not unaware,” Hikima said.

He further lamented a growing trend in Nigeria where those in authority deliberately violate the law to weaken their opponents. According to him, victims of such unconstitutional acts are often forced into long and uncertain legal battles, with little hope of enforcing favorable judgments.

State of Emergency Justification Questioned

Hikima also questioned the rationale behind declaring a state of emergency in Rivers, arguing that the conditions required for such a measure have not been met.

“There is no actual breakdown of law and public order in Rivers State that necessitates extraordinary federal intervention. Several states in Northern Nigeria currently face worse security challenges, yet the president has not declared a state of emergency there,” he said.

While clarifying that he is not advocating for emergency rule in any part of the country, Hikima described the Rivers case as unfair, unwarranted, and driven by political motives rather than genuine security concerns.

Violation of Democratic Principles

The lawyer also criticized the appointment of a sole administrator to oversee the state’s affairs, pointing out that the president himself admitted that no government can function without all three arms.

“By appointing a sole administrator who will act as both lawmaker and executor, the president has contradicted his own statement. This move goes against the spirit of Nigeria’s legal and political system,” Hikima added.

Under a state of emergency, the federal government assumes temporary control over certain state functions, which could include deploying security forces, restricting rights such as movement and assembly, imposing curfews, or directing state resources toward security operations. However, Hikima warns that this latest declaration sets a dangerous precedent for Nigeria’s democracy.

National Assembly Urged to Resist Approval

With the National Assembly in session, Hikima has called on lawmakers to reject what he describes as a “brazen constitutional overreach.”

“The National Assembly has the power to prevent this embarrassment. The state of emergency can only come into effect after being approved by both houses with a two-thirds majority. Lawmakers have 48 hours to stand against this unconstitutional action,” he said.

As debate rages over the legality and necessity of the state of emergency in Rivers State, all eyes are now on the National Assembly to determine the next course of action.

By Anwar Usman

President Bola Tinubu has suspended the Governor of Rivers State, Siminalayi Fubara and his deputy, Mrs Ngozi Odu for six months.

The president stated this while addressing the country on the current political crisis in the state.

The president was quoted saying “By this declaration, the Governor of Rivers State, Mr Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, Mrs Ngozi Odu and all elected members of the House of Assembly of Rivers State are hereby suspended for an initial period of six months,” he said in a nationwide broadcast on Tuesday.

Details later…