The Nigerian presidency has addressed criticisms from former President Goodluck Jonathan and Nobel Laureate Wole Soyinka regarding the recent suspension of elected officials in Rivers State.
The controversy follows President Bola Tinubu’s decision to declare a state of emergency in the state, a move that has sparked nationwide debate.
Jonathan Condemns Suspension of Elected Officials
Former President Goodluck Jonathan voiced his disapproval of the federal government’s intervention in Rivers State, arguing that the suspension of elected officials could damage Nigeria’s international standing.
Speaking at the Haske Satumari Foundation Colloquium in Abuja on Saturday, Jonathan expressed concerns over the implications of the decision, describing it as harmful to the country’s democratic reputation.
“These actions by key figures in the executive and legislative branches project Nigeria negatively on the global stage,” he stated.
Jonathan underscored the critical role that the three arms of government—the executive, legislature, and judiciary—play in upholding the nation’s image and attracting foreign investment. He further accused them of misusing their powers, which he believes exacerbated the crisis in Rivers State.
Despite the tradition of former presidents refraining from commenting on political disputes to avoid fueling tensions, Jonathan explained that he felt compelled to speak due to mounting pressure from Nigerians, particularly as a leader from the Niger Delta region.
Additionally, he raised concerns about the perceived erosion of judicial independence, noting that a scenario in which individual actors dictate judicial outcomes instead of allowing due process to prevail is troubling.
Soyinka: Declaration Undermines Federalism
Similarly, Nobel Laureate Wole Soyinka criticized the state of emergency declaration, arguing that it contradicts the principles of federalism enshrined in Nigeria’s Constitution.
In an interview with The Africa Report, Soyinka contended that the manner in which the declaration was implemented raises serious constitutional concerns. He pointed out that the 1999 Constitution vests excessive powers in the presidency, an issue he believes requires urgent national discourse.
For Soyinka, the decision reflects a broader challenge of centralized authority, which he sees as a fundamental flaw in Nigeria’s governance structure. He called for a national conversation to reassess the balance of power between the federal and state governments.
Presidency Justifies Tinubu’s Decision
Responding to these criticisms, Temitope Ajayi, the Senior Special Assistant to the President on Media and Publicity, acknowledged the stature of both Jonathan and Soyinka but emphasized that their opinions remain personal perspectives.
Ajayi defended Tinubu’s decision, citing Section 305 of the Nigerian Constitution, which grants the president the authority to declare a state of emergency when necessary. He argued that the president was acting within his constitutional mandate to safeguard national stability.
“Professor Wole Soyinka and former President Goodluck Jonathan are highly respected statesmen. Like many Nigerians, they have expressed their opinions on the President’s decision regarding Rivers State,” Ajayi said.
He further justified the president’s actions, asserting that Tinubu is responsible for maintaining the country’s unity and ensuring that no part of Nigeria descends into disorder.
“The Supreme Court has ruled that Rivers State currently lacks a constitutionally recognized government. President Tinubu has a duty to protect and preserve Nigeria’s stability, and he will not shy away from that responsibility,” he added.
While the controversy surrounding the state of emergency in Rivers State continues to unfold, the debate highlights deeper constitutional and governance issues that may require further legislative and judicial scrutiny.
