A chieftain of the All Progressives Congress (APC) and former lawmaker representing Ekiti North Senatorial District, Senator Ayo Arise, has declared that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu acted in line with the Constitution in his decision to suspend Governor Siminalayi Fubara of Rivers State amid the political crisis in the state.
Arise explained that Tinubu followed due process before proclaiming a state of emergency in Rivers, insisting that the President did not violate any constitutional provisions in his efforts to restore peace and order in the troubled state.
The former senator made the comments during a television interview while reacting to Vice President Kashim Shettima’s remarks at the launch of former Attorney General of the Federation, Mohammed Adoke’s book “OPL 245: Inside Story of the $1.3 Billion Nigerian Oil Block.”
At the event, Shettima had praised Adoke for protecting him from removal as Governor of Borno State under former President Goodluck Jonathan during the height of the Boko Haram insurgency, a statement that sparked speculation he was subtly criticizing Tinubu’s actions in the Rivers crisis.
Arise, however, dismissed such interpretations, saying the two situations were entirely different and that Shettima’s remarks were merely an expression of gratitude to Adoke, not an attack on Tinubu.
“I believe what the Vice President did was simply to thank someone who had helped him in the past, it was a personal gesture of appreciation,” Arise said.
“There’s no way Boko Haram could have taken over almost 14 local governments, and a President would not consider declaring a state of emergency to protect the people and save the governor. Adoke’s advice to then-President Jonathan that he couldn’t remove Shettima was based on his interpretation of the law, but it is not the same situation as in Rivers.”
Arise further argued that President Tinubu acted in the best interest of the state and the country, emphasizing that a timely intervention was needed to prevent the Rivers crisis from escalating.
“In Fubara’s case, there was no removal. What we saw was progress toward resolving the impasse and reabsorbing him into office.
“The crisis between the governor and his predecessor could have spiraled into complete breakdown of law and order, and the President stepped in. In my view, he exercised leadership and acted constitutionally in declaring a state of emergency.”
The former lawmaker pointed out that many constitutional provisions are not explicitly clear, and sometimes doctrine of necessity becomes relevant.
“Our Constitution, like that of the United States, is not perfect. Some situations demand leadership judgment. When fuel stations are bombed, and national infrastructure is under threat, must a President wait days for formalities before acting?” he asked.
Arise concluded by stating that critics who say the President has no power to remove a governor are missing the point.
“If I were President and I saw imminent danger threatening both the governor and the people, I would act swiftly, even if that means installing a military administrator temporarily.
“Adoke didn’t do Nigeria or any governor a particular favor; he acted based on his interpretation at the time. Tinubu, on the other hand, acted to avert further crisis. The two scenarios are completely different,” he stressed.
