Tinubu's Decision To Declare State Of Emergency In Rivers: A Controversial Move

Chief Anabs Sara-Igbe Slams Tinubu’s State of Emergency Decision

Naija News reported an explosive reaction from Chief Anabs Sara-Igbe, the former National Publicity Secretary of the Pan Niger Delta Forum (PANDEF), who condemned President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State. Sara-Igbe didn’t mince words, calling out what he perceives as overreach by the president.

In a bold move on Tuesday, President Tinubu suspended Governor Siminalayi Fubara, the governor’s deputy, and members of the House of Assembly. This action sent shockwaves across the political landscape, leading to widespread debate and criticism. Sara-Igbe, speaking in an interview with News Central on Wednesday, accused President Tinubu of stepping beyond his constitutional authority.

He argued that Tinubu lacked the legal power to remove Governor Fubara, pointing to what he views as a clear bias against the governor. According to Sara-Igbe, this bias has been evident since the beginning of the crisis. He explained that President Tinubu initially pushed Governor Fubara to implement a controversial agreement, which Fubara followed through on. Meanwhile, Nyesom Wike, a former governor with vested interests in the matter, refused to adhere to the same directive.

Read also:

Famous Dutch Lawyers From Spotlight To Controversy

Supreme Court Ruling: Favoring Wike Over Fubara

Sara-Igbe went on to say that the Supreme Court’s decision favored Nyesom Wike because Fubara had withdrawn his legal case at the president’s urging, while Wike chose not to do the same. This strategic difference, he believes, gave Wike an unfair advantage in the ongoing conflict.

“It’s crystal clear from the get-go that the president has been biased against the governor of Rivers State,” Sara-Igbe stated firmly. “The president forced Governor Fubara to implement a lopsided agreement, and Fubara followed through, unlike Nyesom Wike, who outrightly refused. Because of this, Fubara withdrew all his court cases, but Wike didn’t. That decision ultimately worked against Fubara in the Supreme Court ruling.”

Sara-Igbe also criticized the president for not acting decisively against Wike, who remains a member of Tinubu’s cabinet. He questioned why Tinubu chose to suspend Fubara, an elected official, instead of Wike, whom the president has the authority to remove. “If you’re genuinely seeking peace, you would’ve suspended Nyesom Wike, not Fubara,” he emphasized.

Section 305: Misuse of Power?

Chief Sara-Igbe questioned the legitimacy of using Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution to declare a state of emergency when, in his view, there was no genuine crisis in Rivers State to warrant such an action. He pointed out that this section does not grant the president the authority to remove an elected governor or even a local councilor.

“Declaring a state of emergency under Section 305 when there’s no actual problem in Rivers State is a misuse of power,” Sara-Igbe stated. “This section of the constitution does not empower the president to sack a governor or even a councillor. What Tinubu has done is to overstep his authority, all in an effort to please Nyesom Wike.”

Furthermore, Sara-Igbe raised concerns about the appointment of the sole administrator, alleging that the individual chosen is a known ally of Wike. He described this as another example of Tinubu showing favoritism and undermining the rule of law.

Read also:

Flirtcom The Ultimate Spot For Casual Connections

“Last week, the president encouraged Wike to bring the army, police, navy, and air force into Rivers State, hoping to provoke a reaction that would justify declaring a state of emergency. When that didn’t happen, they simply decided to declare it anyway. They then appointed someone who has publicly aligned with Wike as the sole administrator. It’s a clear sign of bias and misuse of power,” Sara-Igbe concluded.

As the situation continues to unfold, it’s clear that the decision to declare a state of emergency in Rivers State has sparked intense debate and scrutiny. The question remains: Is this a genuine effort to restore peace and stability, or a politically motivated move to settle scores?