Mr. Olufemi Aduwo is the Permanent Representative of the Centre for Convention on Democratic Integrity (CCDI) to ECOSOC/United Nations and chairman of the CSO-African Countries Group of World Bank, Civil Society Policy Forum (CSPF).

In this interview, he speaks on the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers States, allegation of sexual harassment in the Senate and President Bola Tinubu’s administration

Do you think that a state of emergency will address the political crisis in Rivers State?

The political turmoil in Rivers State has provoked intense debate over the necessity, legality, and efficacy of declaring a state of emergency. While some stakeholders contend that such an intervention is imperative to restore order, others caution against setting a precedent that could embolden executive overreach.

President Tinubu’s approach, yet assertive, appears to be the most pragmatic, recognising the constitutional complexities and political sensitivities inherent in such a decision. Nigeria’s 1960 constitutional framework, which informs the 1963, 1979, and 1999 constitutions (as amended), provides for emergency powers but fails to explicitly define their scope and operational mechanisms.

This contrasts with the United Kingdom’s Emergency Powers Act of 1920, which meticulously stated governmental authority during crises, covering natural disasters, armed conflict, and national security threats.

Under the UK’s Emergency Powers Act, the government may enact regulations to ensure the continuity of essential public services, including law enforcement, utilities, and food supply. In contrast, Nigeria’s constitutional provision on emergency powers remains ambiguous. This ambiguity necessitates either judicial clarification by the Supreme Court or a constitutional amendment to preclude future executive misinterpretation.

Some legal scholars cite former President Goodluck Jonathan’s declaration of a state of emergency in Adamawa, Borno, and Yobe states as a precedent for federal intervention without dismantling democratic structures. This aligns with British legal traditions, where emergency legislation permits government action without annulling elected institutions.

However, drawing a direct parallel between Jonathan’s intervention and the current Rivers crisis is flawed. Jonathan’s declaration was a direct response to Boko Haram’s armed insurgency, whereas the Rivers crisis is an internal political conflict involving a breakdown of governance and security.

A more historically analogous case is the 2004 Anambra crisis, where a power struggle between Governor Chris Ngige and political godfather Chris Uba led to orchestrated violence, culminating in the burning of the government house. Similarly, the Western Region emergency of 1962, triggered by the factional battle between Obafemi Awolowo and S.L. Akintola, illustrates how unchecked political turmoil can necessitate federal intervention. Federal intervention should not be reflexively politicised.

During President Obasanjo’s tenure, neither Vice President Atiku Abubakar nor FCT Minister Nasir El-Rufai objected to the controversial removals of Governors Joshua Dariye (Plateau) and Ayo Fayose (Ekiti). It is often misrepresented that the Supreme Court invalidated Joshua Dariye’s suspension; in reality, the case was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, as the appointed administrator, General Chris Alli, had not properly authorised legal proceedings.

The ruling did not, as erroneously claimed, declare the Federal Government’s actions unconstitutional. Nonetheless, the state of emergency in Rivers State must be approached with extreme caution. It must not serve as a pretext for authoritarian encroachment or a tool for partisan advantage. The overriding objective must be the restoration of constitutional governance and security.

What do you make of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s allegations against the President of the Senate, Godswill Akpabio and the legislative integrity in Nigeria?

Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s allegation of sexual harassment against Senator Akpabio has elicited a robust response, prompting legal scrutiny and political debate.

While such allegation demands a thorough investigation, it must be handled within the bounds of due process and institutional fairness.

Tinubu’s economic policies have laid the groundwork for macroeconomic reform, but their ultimate success will depend on tangible improvements in citizens’ economic realities

A critical factor is the temporal gap between the alleged incidents of 2023 and their disclosure in 2025, which raises legitimate questions regarding circumstances, motivations, and evidentiary robustness.

Furthermore, her six-month suspension, though ostensibly within the Senate’s disciplinary prerogative, appears excessive, fuelling suspicions of political retribution rather than procedural justice.

Should the allegations be substantiated, appropriate legal and institutional measures must be pursued without compromise. Conversely, if found baseless, safeguards must be implemented to prevent the exploitation of such claims for political advantage.

What is your assessment of President Tinubu’s administration in the last 22 months?

As President Tinubu’s tenure approaches its two-year milestone, an objective assessment must weigh his bold economic recalibrations against the socio-economic turbulence that threatens public confidence. Among his most far-reaching reforms was the abolition of the fuel subsidy, an economic necessity long deferred due to its political volatility.

However, the anticipated benefits remain elusive, as inflationary pressures erode household incomes. The policy’s success hinges on the effectiveness of palliatives and social safety nets in cushioning the impact on the populace.

Similarly, the exchange rate unification, while essential for fiscal coherence, has induced initial volatility, disproportionately affecting businesses and households. Under Yemi Cardoso as governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), recent measures suggest incipient stabilization, yet inflationary pressures and naira depreciation remain persistent threats.

Tinubu’s economic policies have laid the groundwork for macroeconomic reform, but their ultimate success will depend on tangible improvements in citizens’ economic realities. Should hardship persist without clear dividends, the political repercussions could be severe.

The Dangote Refinery has announced that it will stop the sale of petroleum products in naira, what is the implication of such decision on the country?

Dangote Refinery’s decision to sell petroleum products exclusively in US dollars, coupled with its ongoing legal battle over local content regulations, raises significant concerns for Nigeria’s monetary stability and economic sovereignty.

While its Free Trade Zone (FTZ) status grants it operational latitude, transacting solely in foreign currency could exacerbate forex scarcity, placing immense strain on exchange rate stability.

This move could also set a dangerous precedent, encouraging other industries to bypass naira transactions, thereby intensifying monetary volatility and undermining fiscal policy credibility.

Given that fuel prices dictate broader economic conditions, any sustained surge arising from forex fluctuations would disproportionately burden low-income earners, further eroding purchasing power. The Federal Government must urgently intervene, ensuring a balanced policy framework that protects national economic interests while safeguarding Dangote’s commercial viability.

What do you make of the opposition coalition against Tinubu and the 2027 political landscape of Nigeria?

As Nigeria’s 2027 political landscape takes shape, President Tinubu remains an unassailable force, reinforced by his strategic acumen and the opposition’s chronic disarray. Without a coherent, policy-driven alternative, opposition parties risk irrelevance, as disillusioned voters are unlikely to rally behind a fractured and uninspiring coalition.

I have witnessed the moral contradictions within Nigeria’s political elite. A glaring example is Nasir El-Rufai, whose political opportunism knows no bounds.

He once vilified Atiku Abubakar in his book, “The Accidental Public Servant,” branding him the epitome of corruption, yet now seeks political alignment with the same man.

His ideological inconsistency is staggering were Tinubu to offer him a ministerial position today, he would likely attribute his past denunciations to either a misprint or a fever-induced lapse in judgment. Atiku Abubakar’s political trajectory is defined by relentless betrayal.

He plotted against Obasanjo during their tenure, conspired against Jonathan in 2015, and now wages a calculated offensive against Tinubu. His perfidious nature renders him unfit for leadership, driven by personal ambition rather than national interest. Northern political elites must recognise that the contemporary North is markedly different from the era of Ahmadu Bello.

Their outdated political calculations may prove untenable in a rapidly evolving landscape. In fact, the day Atiku and others walked out of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) convention and merged with the opposition, that day marked the end of Atiku’s political journey