By Farooq A. Kperogi

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s demonstrably unconstitutional suspension of the elected leaders of Rivers State and his illegal imposition of a retired military lickspittle as sole administrator in the exercise of his otherwise constitutional privilege to declare a state of emergency in any part of the country is the latest addition in a long list of instances of his embrace of the very things he once resented and fought against when he was outside the reins of federal power.

For example, he was brutally censorious of Goodluck Jonathan’s withdrawal of fuel subsidies in 2012. He expressed sentiments in writing and in speeches that resonated with the angst of the masses. He even helped finance a nationwide mass protest that so convulsed the country that Jonathan was compelled to back off his plans.

Yet, one of the first acts Tinubu did as a president in May 2023 was to announce an economically and socially disruptive withdrawal of fuel subsidies that has deepened poverty, annihilated the middle class, and ruptured the very fabric of Nigerian society.

Again, when Olusegun Obasanjo unconstitutionally suspended Plateau State’s Governor Joshua Dariye—along with state legislators— in May 2004 and appointed General Chris Ali as the state’s sole administrator, then Governor Bola Ahmed Tinubu of Lagos rightly called the act “illegal.”

“It is unfortunate and illegal,” he said. “This has to be discouraged. It is a bad precedent. What the president of the country has done, I pray it doesn’t stand.”

In fact, when Goodluck Jonathan declared states of emergency in the three northeastern states of Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa without suspending the elected leaders of the states, which I commended in a May 25, 2013, column titled “The Malcolm Xian Logic in Jonathan’s Praiseworthy Boko Haram Offensive,” Tinubu condemned it as unacceptable federal overreach.

“No governor of a state in Nigeria is the chief security officer,” he said. “Putting the blame on the governors, who have been effectively emasculated, for the abysmal performance of the government at the centre which controls all these security agencies, smacks of ignorance and mischief.”

He contended that Jonathan’s action “seeks to abridge or has the potential of totally scuttling the constitutional functions of governors and other elected representatives of the people” and that it would be “counterproductive in the long run.”

Given an opportunity to give materiality to the principles he espoused when he had no access to federal power, he has become indistinguishable from, and in many cases worse than, the objects of his erstwhile censure.

Tinubu now implements the same policies he once condemned and has become the same personality he once reviled. He exemplifies the aphoristic wisdom (often attributed to historian Ariel Durant or her husband Will Durant) that says, “Today’s rebel is tomorrow’s tyrant.” In Tinubu’s case, he was yesterday’s rebel and today’s tyrant.

Why do most people who initially invested symbolic and political capital in fighting against authority or oppression eventually become the very oppressors they once resisted? Why do firebrands and idealists often morph into the very thing they once denounced after assuming power?

The evidence of history shows us that resistance to tyranny can, and often does, end in new tyrannies. Critics of war or corruption frequently adopt those same practices when they find themselves in the circles of power.

So, this is beyond Tinubu as a person, who probably never really had any principles to begin with, whose resistance to past oppressive policies was probably mere calculative opportunism.

But why do previously genuinely adversarial people become the very things they once opposed with such regularity? Observers from psychology, philosophy, and political theory have long studied this phenomenon.

A previous column I wrote (and republished twice) on the psychology of power pointed out that “people under the influence of power are neurologically similar to people who suffer traumatic brain injury” and posited that situational, power-induced brain damage may be responsible for this.

Philosophers have also grappled with the paradox of noble ideals curdling into oppression. Friedrich Nietzsche, for example, famously warned of the moral danger that comes with fighting evil too intensely. “He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster,” Nietzsche wrote, adding, “if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”

Nietzsche’s metaphor speaks to how the struggle for power or justice can warp people’s souls. Revolutionaries and reformers, in attempting to vanquish a “monster” (e.g. a tyrant or an unjust system), may take on the very methods and mindset of that monster.y

His concept of the “will to power” also suggests that the drive to attain power can override other moral constraints, so that once the will to power is unleashed, individuals rationalize actions that serve dominance.

French theorist Michel Foucault provides another lens through which we can make sense of the phenomenon of people taking on the very methods and mindset of the beasts of power they once fought.

He said, “Power is everywhere; not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere.” By that, he means no one is ever truly outside power relations; even the most vicious critics of the most monstrous regimes operate within a field of power. Once the critics take control, he said, they often reproduce the very power dynamics they once criticized, even if their rhetoric changes.

The line between oppressor and liberator can blur: the roles may switch, but the play remains the same. Foucault’s insight is that systems of power tend to self-perpetuate, regardless of who is at the helm, unless conscious effort is made to dismantle those underlying structures.

In other words, a change in leadership without a change in what Foucault calls the “microphysics of power” is likely to yield similar repressive outcomes. The new boss becomes “same as the old boss,” because the circuitry of power channels them into that role.

That’s why the sadly familiar pattern of “condemning in opposition, then doing in government” is so widespread that it almost seems like a political law of gravity. It’s good to bear this in mind as we read and listen to the pronouncements of current “opposition” politicians who seem like they identify with popular causes and sentiments.

Like Tinubu, today’s opponents of executive overreach may extend their own executive powers once they have the opportunity.

Like Tinubu, they will have a story to tell themselves and the public to justify their U-turn: the situation is different, their actions are for the greater good, their previous stance was based on incomplete information, etc. And indeed, sometimes circumstances do legitimately change.

But when the dust settles, the outcome looks awfully familiar. Pro-democracy activists become a congress of tyrants and justifiers of tyranny; the fierce social critic and human rights activist who once decried abuses now defends them; the liberator who once raged against oppressors now only liberates his stomach. As the Roman philosopher-politician Cicero once wrote, “It is easier to criticize than to do better.”

Fortunately, this cycle is not inevitable. Many thinkers advocate checks and balances, institutional limits, and personal integrity as antidotes, although even those seem to be insufficient.

Nigeria’s National Assembly, as we have seen in the last few years, particularly in the last few days, can neither check nor balance the excesses of the executive. It’s a slavish extension of Aso Rock. The voices of the few honest, conscientious ones among them are drowned out by the cacophony that the rapacious, unprincipled, mercenary self-seekers among them, who constitute the majority, emit. The judiciary is even worse.

It is easy to be disillusioned and to surrender amid this reality. To be frank, I have found myself in that state many times. But power must be continually guarded and checked. Philosopher Hannah Arendt observed that only constant vigilance and a commitment to plurality and law prevent rebels from calcifying into tyrants.

We must all do our part to hold people in power to account, even if we’re not sure we would do better ourselves.

At this point, the only check and balance against creeping tyranny is the democratic rebellion of the people.

By Dr. Tonye Clinton Jaja

In an article entitled: “The Hypocrisy of Power and Sim Fubara and The Illusion of Political Innocence” by Kay Lord, 19th March 2025, the writer castigated Governor Fubara, “I have no sympathy for Fubara”.

In a nutshell, the summary of his postulations is that politics in Nigeria, is a game that ought to be devoid of emotions, morality and any compliance with the dictates of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.

So as not to misquote the said writer, below are his exact words:

“It’s easy to quote the constitution (of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999), shout emotionally, and wail from now till eternity, but it won’t move a needle where wisdom, tact, and strategy are lacking in consolidating power. I wrote here a few days ago that many Nigerians love to deny the obvious and feign ignorance of the political reality in Nigeria. I repeat: there is hardly any governor in Nigeria who has come into office without the validation of a godfather since 1999. Quote me!”

He is not alone in this line of reasoning, there are many Nigerians who share the same view (that politics is devoid of emotions, morality and adherence to the rules of this brand of politics supersedes any adherence to any other set of Rules including the provisions of the Nigerian Constitution)

One of those Nigerians is Senator Neda Bernards Imasuen, he is a lawyer (in Nigeria, not the USA), and currently serves as the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions.

Yesterday, I received a WhatsApp message from Senator Neda Bernards Imasuen.

So as not to misquote Senator Neda, below is a reproduction of :

“If you don’t want to know who dated your mum (mother) before she married your father, do not join politics-Late Lamidi Adedibu, Oyo State Politician (1927 to 2008).

“Lesson talks&Learn. from Late Baba ADEDIBU Of Ibadan. Oyo state. Politics is very sweet but sometimes very Dirty. All Ones needs is PATIENCE, PATIENCE, PATIENCE. Never Let Words get Part of U or else Emotions will come to Play.Just a Piece of Advice to all who have interest n Politics.It’s for Very Matured Mind😜🙌🏾”

There is a common thread that runs through the two foregoing writings (both Kay Lord’s article about Fubara and Adedibu’s exhortation) it can be summarised as follows:

“To survive and thrive, in this brand of politics that Senator Neda Bernards Imasuen (and many other Nigerians) subscribe to: “Do not let words get to you, or emotions to rule you, politics is crazy and adherence to the principles of the Rule of Law as spelt out in the Nigerian Constitution is not the most important thing, the most important thing is to pay your dues to the godfather that helped you win the election”!!!

The foregoing is exactly one of the rules in the 48 Laws of Power which is like the Bible or Koran of adherents of this brand of politics.

“Never outshine the master” is the first law in Robert Greene’s The 48 Laws of Power, emphasizing the importance of making those above you feel superior and avoiding actions that could make them feel insecure or threatened.”

Another, authoritative writer for adherents of this brand of politics (devoid of emotions, morality and adherence to the Rule of Law as spelt out in the Nigerian Constitution) is the Italian writer, named
Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli (3 May 1469 – 21 June 1527).

“He is best known for his political treatise The Prince (Il Principe), written around 1513 but not published until 1532, five years after his death. He has often been called the father of modern political philosophy and political science.

The Prince.He claimed that his experience and reading of history showed him that politics has always involved deception, treachery, and crime.

He advised rulers to engage in evil when political necessity requires it, and argued specifically that successful reformers of states should not be blamed for killing other leaders who could block change.

Machiavelli’s Prince has been surrounded by controversy since it was published.

Some consider it to be a straightforward description of political reality.

Others view The Prince as a manual, teaching would-be tyrants how they should seize and maintain power.

Even in recent times, some scholars, such as Leo Strauss, have restated the traditional opinion that Machiavelli was a ” teacher of evil.”

There are two problems with adherents and Nigerians who seek to practice this brand of politics as espoused by both Machiavelli and the 48 Laws of Power:

1. Even in Italy, the country of origin of Machiavelli, that brand of politics of politics devoid of morality is not practised or practicable. For example, one of the foremost Italian politicians named Silvio Berlusconi, who was Prime Minister of Italy for nine (9) years was once put on trial and even convicted for both patronising a prostitute and throwing sex parties and tax fraud!!! The legal system of Italy did not take the view that his patronage of prostitutes and his private sex parties were aspects of his private personal life that has nothing to do with his political career or life!!!
2. Section 1 of the Nigerian Constitution states categorically that the provisions of the said Nigerian Constitution are superior to the provisions of any other written law books and other non-law books such as the book of Machiavelli and the 48 Laws of Power.

Senator Neda Bernards Imasuen’s career as a senator is a cautionary tale of the negative consequence of following this brand of politics devoid of emotions, morality and adherence to the Nigerian Constitution!!!

I knew him before his election as a senator, he was a Senior Legislative Aide to a former Senator and he during the period that I worked as a lawyer and author writing a book on the legal procedures of the Tribunal of the Senate Public Accounts Committee (PAC), Senator Neda Bernards Imasuen provided very brilliant, useful and insightful guidance to me and the said publication.

In contrast, the recent public statement of Senator Aminu Tambuwal represents the brand of politics that puts adherence to the Nigerian Constitution above other interests!!!

It represents how politics ought to be played considering that the adherence to the provisions of the Nigerian Constitution should be paramount above any other political interests!!!

Senator Aminu Tambuwal (also a lawyer) recently stated that on 20th March 2025, the Senate while conducting the voting for the Proclamation of the State of Emergency in Rivers State, that the Senate failed to comply with the two-thirds majority votes (73 out of the 109) senators as required under Section 305 of the Nigerian Constitution.

His statement has definitely put him at the risk of ostracism and retribution from the leadership of the Senate because he must have violated several Rules of the 48 Laws of Power!!!

However, it is the brand of politics that the majority of right-thinking Nigerians expect from legislators whom they elected to represent their own interests and not the interests of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and a few others.

We still do not know exactly for sure how Senator Aminu Tambuwal happened to find the courage to speak up at this time!!!

It comes as an epiphany because Senator Aminu Tambuwal who was a former Speaker of the House of Representatives, National Assembly and former Governor of Sokoto State is usually a reticent person who is often accused of betrayal of his former political associates such as Femi Gbajabiamilla (during the election of Speaker in the year 2015) and Nyesom Ezenwo Wike (NEW) during the presidential primaries of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) of 2022!!!

To conclude, the brand of politics that promotes empathy and support for the interests of the Nigerian Constitution and the constituents above selfish and party interests is the brand of politics that is encouraged and it is practicable as exemplified by Senator Aminu Tambuwal.

Going down memory lane, as a young lawyer in the year 2005, I had previously never known Senator Aminu Tambuwal from anywhere. I was posted to Sokoto State as an NYSC lawyer. In appreciation of the work that I was doing in his home state, in the year 2005, as a member of the House of Representatives, National Assembly, Aminu Tambuwal provided the sum of ₦60,000 for the publication of this writer’s first book entitled: “Access to Justice in Sharia Courts”. This author was an NYSC pupil lawyer at the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria (Sokoto State office). Aminu Tambuwal is from Sokoto State and provided the said funds to support the contribution to knowledge of Sokoto State!!!

“No man’s life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session.”

– Gideon J. Tucker

A Governor Bola Tinubu of Lagos would not vacate his seat for anyone appointed illegally from Abuja – or from anywhere. If the heavens wanted to fall, he would ask them to fall. He would not go hide somewhere in his wife’s handbag, and from the safety of his ghetto be issuing gutless press releases. If Abuja insisted on his suspension, he would mobilise the law and lawyers for eruptions of seismic proportions. He would ask the Supreme Court to determine whether the president could sack or suspend elected governors, appoint caretaker governors and take over the role of state Houses of Assembly. He would ask the apex court to reconcile this case with its earlier verdict which outlawed caretaker governments for one of our tiers of government. He would put everything he had into the mix; he would count the teeth of the tiger in Abuja. But Rivers is not Lagos, and Siminalayi Fubara is not Bola Ahmed Tinubu. The difference between both is the difference between courage and cowardice.

Until Saturday when he spoke on the Rivers State problem, ex-President Goodluck Jonathan walked the terrace of power with utmost carefulness. He avoided speaking truth to power the way the barefooted avoids walking a floor of broken glass. But on Saturday, he came out of his zone of reticence and dared the dark, dangerous sherds of impunity. Jonathan spoke following President Bola Tinubu’s deployment of a Supreme Court judgment to meddle with and seize control of the nuts and bolts of our federation. In a fit of daring, calculative move for political advantage, Tinubu suspended democracy on a floor of the structure. And days after the act, without a whim of resistance, he got legislative approval for the mess. He left no one in doubt that all the powers and principalities of this realm are with him and that they work for him.

The three arms of government in Nigeria have become a triangular cult of iniquity. If the executive is after you, the other two quickly join in the clobbering. Jonathan identified the springhead of the problem. He saw: “a clear abuse of office, clear abuse of power, clear abuse of privileges, cutting across the three arms of government — from the executive through the parliament and to the judiciary.” Now, when those three institutions of democracy become citadels of abuse, what remains and what is next for us?Nigerian food

Yesterday, 23 March, 2025, was the 92nd anniversary of the enactment of Germany’s Enabling Act which gave Adolf Hitler the power to make laws without parliamentary approval.

Nazi Germany had a parliament known as the Reichstag. The decay and destruction of that institution started in very innocuous bits, very small. It took off by saying yes to everything the leader did or took before it. The parliament members, incrementally, thought the leader deserved not their check, but their cheeks. Reichstag began its descent and quickened its suicide by enacting laws without any real debate or opposition. Then it took many other self-destruct steps; the climax came on 23 March, 1933, when Reichstag passed the historic Enabling Act transferring its powers and functions to the head of the executive.

In this Rivers matter, the Supreme Court cast the foundation, the president laid the blocks, the legislature roofed the edifice of an emerging autocracy. Jonathan spoke on the executive dictating judgments to judges. He described Nigeria as a country where “government functionaries can dictate to judges what judgment they will give.” That was a huge one. We expect a reaction or denial from the judiciary now or never. The ex-president also spoke on the operatives of the three branches of government not giving a damn as the country burned. He said they were feigning sleep while a flood of badness swept through the land. What he spoke on was the treachery of the judiciary and the perfidy of the legislature, both of which act as palace courtiers, and as whores of benefit who have surrendered their functions, power and glory to the president. Nigerian food

Checks and balances. How often do we ask what they are and why they are at the core of this democracy? Destruction of checks and balances creates excesses that take rest of mind away from the society. Absolute power creates all the antonyms of peace and stability. It makes the nation the ultimate sick man on a roller coaster. It was exactly so for Hitler and his Germany. The Nazi leader, on 23 March, 1933, got the powers to make laws. The ease with which he got it made him think it was time for further consolidation. Thus, on 7 April, 1933, the leader put officials of his political party in charge of all local governments. On 14 July, 1933, Reichstag became a one-party parliament. January 1934, the ruling party took over all state governments. On 19 August, 1934, the leader announced himself president, chancellor and head of the army. The Fuhrer was born!

Our National Assembly would act Reichstag if it had not done so already. It spent the whole of last weekend denying taking bribes to approve the president’s illegal suspension of democracy in Rivers State. Our multi party Senate has 109 members; the House of Representatives has 360, elected from various parties. Yet, on a very critical day last week, members of the parliament collapsed their structures into a single party; they endorsed illegality with a single voice. The president suspended democracy, appointed and swore in a viceroy to serve as governor. He declared a state of emergency without parliament’s prior approval. He usurped the powers of the legislators and the legislators endorsed the usurpation without following the law. They used voice votes to announce that he was right!

Treachery has no other definition. What does it cost a leader to be told the truth? President Bola Tinubu himself called for truth two weeks ago. He told Catholic Bishops who paid him a visit that they should tell him the truth whenever he was missing the way: “I’m here open to you, ready to listen…I won’t shut my door,” he said. But he made that request to the wrong audience. The right audience for that demand is the National Assembly, a conglomerate of dank agents. They are his enemy. He also acts his own enemy, redacting his own records of resistance and activism.

Abuse of any power will happen where there are no checks. With the help of the legislature and the judiciary, Prime Minister Balewa abused the emergency law of his time. Olusegun Obasanjo did same. And, despite all the political and legal repercussions of what Balewa and Obasanjo did, Tinubu learnt nothing and has also done it. He now sits back, watches and smiles as we fret.

The president and all who cheer him would remember that this presidential democracy is not our creation. We copied it from America. And if they agree that we copied this system from the US, have they ever found out why an American president has never tried to suspend or remove a state governor under any pretext, including under emergencies which are provided for under their own laws? It is because US governors are not boys of the president, and both sides know this to be legally and historically correct.

Where the law is allowed to work, there are always consequences for aberrant behaviour. Whatever is happening in Donald Trump’s America today, the fact is that the US Congress had historically managed to contain the excesses of presidents who thought they were king. I cite an example:

President Andrew Johnson took over as US president following the 1865 assassination of Abraham Lincoln. But Johnson does not enjoy as much favours of history as Lincoln does. Why?

President Johnson ran into problems because of his Kabiyesi stance on procedural and constitutional issues. On August 5, 1867, Johnson asked Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton to resign because the secretary disagreed with him over Reconstruction plans. The man refused to resign. The president gave him a week of grace, the man remained recalcitrant; then the president suspended him on August 12 without the approval of the Congress.

Four months after that act (December 12), the president submitted his reasons for suspending Secretary Stanton to the Senate. On January 13, 1868, Senate refused to approve Johnson’s suspension of Stanton. The following day, the man who had been acting as Interim Secretary of War, Ulysses S. Grant, informed President Johnson that in view of Senate’s decision, he was vacating his post for the rightful owner, Stanton. He left.

Stubborn President Johnson, on February 21, 1868 in gross violation of the Tenure of Office Act, formally removed Stanton and gave the control of the War Department to General Lorenzo Thomas. With the law behind him, sacked Stanton glared down President Johnson’s decision. For the next two months, he stayed put, he slept and woke up (holed up) in his cabinet office, barricading himself in there.

The US Congress watched with consternation as the president usurped its powers. It saw what the president did as a blatant violation of the Tenure of Office Act. It proceeded to commence an impeachment process against the Commander-in-Chief. On February 24, 1868, the House of Representatives voted 126-47 to impeach Johnson.

On March 5, 1868, the Senate began its impeachment trial with Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase presiding. On May 16, 1868, the Senate voted 35-19 to convict President Johnson. The figure was, however, one vote short of the necessary two-third majority to get the man sacked. On May 26, 1868, the Senate gave the president a reprieve, it voted to acquit the president on two of the charges. It then adjourned and never voted on the remaining eight articles of impeachment.

Johnson escaped sack but the damage had been done. It was effectively the ‘end’ of Johnson as president. He never recovered.

On 11 July, 2024, Nigeria’s Supreme Court declared that state governors had no power to sack elected local government chairmen and councilors and constitute caretaker committees to run the local governments. The court further declared that a local government council was only recognisable with a democratically elected government.

“A democratically elected local government is sacrosanct and non-negotiable,’’ the apex court declared.

The Attorney-General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, who was the plaintiff in that case saluted the Supreme Court for delivering justice. He said the judgment had effectively ended the practice of governors replacing democracy with autocracy by wantonly sacking elected council bosses and replacing them with unelected caretaker committees.

On Wednesday, 19 March, 2025, the same Fagbemi addressed a press conference in Abuja endorsing President Bola Tinubu’s appointment of a caretaker governor for Rivers State and the suspension of democratic structures there. “A lawyer’s truth is not the truth” (David Henry Thoreau).

Fagbemi is supposed to know (and he knows) that there is nothing like ‘suspension’ of governor or ‘suspension’ of the legislature in our constitution which governs all other laws and everything about our democracy. But he went further to threaten other governors with the fate of Fubara. He hinted them not to dare dare his boss: “It is Rivers State’s turn today, it can be anybody’s turn tomorrow, let the signal be clearly sent to those who want to foment trouble, who want to make the practice of democracy and the enjoyment of dividends of democracy a mirage to think twice.” In other words, when you slaughter a goat in the presence of another goat, the living will be sober; it will behave well.

But wait. If the emergency rule is declared by the president over the whole country, will he appoint himself sole administrator and suspend the National Assembly? Or who rules?

To Nigeria’s chief law officer, under an emergency rule, the president can become the electorate deciding who governs and who ceases to govern. He can also be the people of any or all the states; voters in INEC registers would become Shakespeare’s “blocks, stones …worse than senseless things.”

From the courts to the president’s office to the office of the Attorney-General, to the parliament, we could see the futility in hoping for acting right and talking straight. An incestuous triangle of the three arms or what David Wyatt called a “tyrannizing unity” of the powers, reigns.

Their ways remind us of a favourite passage in Jonathan Swift’s ‘Gulliver’s Travels’: “You have clearly proved that ignorance, idleness, and vice are the proper ingredients for qualifying a legislator. That laws are best explained, interpreted, and applied by those whose interest and abilities lie in perverting, confounding, and eluding them.”

Emergency rule started in Rome around the 3rd century BC. The Romans used the law to create what they called ‘office of the dictator’ to solve specific public (safety) problems. They had two main categories of such. The first they named the dictatura rei gerundae causa (dictatorship for getting things done). The second was dictatura seditionis sedandae causa (dictatorship for suppressing civil insurrection). The Romans did not, however, create the emergency rules and laws for free roamers to exploit. They limited the dictators’ term to six months. They also struggled to contain abuse of their powers. But, apparently because of abuses such as we saw last week in Nigeria, the Roman senate took direct control of resolving crises. It replaced the office of dictator with what was called ‘Ultimate Decree of the Senate’ (senatus consultum ultimum). The present controversy presents us an opportunity to also rethink our emergency law and everything connected with it.

Strong, uncontrollable leaders always put their nations in trouble. Keeping quiet, excusing their excesses or enabling their illegality put everyone in danger. Where big men reign above the law and below decency, people pay for what they did not buy. Italian dictator, Benito Mussolini was created and nurtured by a culture of acquisence. His appointment as Prime Minister in 1922 was approved despite his party holding only 35 seats out of 535 in the parliament. With intimidation and harassment of voters, his party pushed up its figure to 374 seats in the April 1924 election. In January 1925, Mussolini, right inside the parliament, declared himself dictator. The legislators heard him and applauded him. They proceeded to grant him more powers. They passed laws that dissolved opposition parties and shut down free press. Mussolini dismantled democratic institutions that won’t let him breathe and emit fire. He got the constitutionally recognised Chamber of Deputies, Italy’s equivalent of our House of Representatives, replaced by something called the Chamber of Fasces and Corporations, a body controlled by his Fascist Party. He made the parliament in his image transforming it for his use in outlawing the opposition and the law.

The National Assembly that sat last week in Abuja may go that way unless Kabiyesi, our president, does not want it to.

By Chidi Anselm Odinkalu

In Nigeria, history tends to repeat itself with unerring accuracy and tiresome syntax. When he wrote his Report on the Amalgamation of Northern and Southern Nigeria and Administration in 1919, Frederick Lugard described Nigeria as an “anomaly…. of a country with aggregate revenue practically equal to its needs, but divided into two by an arbitrary line of latitude.” While one portion was fiscally viable, he suggested, the other “was dependent on a grant paid by the British taxpayer.” Through the Amalgamation in 1914, Lugard created a Customs Union in which extraction could be sustained by administering mechanisms of fiscal compensation to smooth over these disparities.

From the get-go, the invention of Nigeria was about the exploitation of resources and property. Rivers State is at the centre of these resources. Towards this goal, the powers of government have historically been mobilised. More than 111 years after the Amalgamation, this raison d’être of the Nigerian estate remains resilient. It is both evident and explicit in the machinations that have now eventuated in the declaration of a state of emergency over Rivers State.

When he addressed the country on 18 March 2025 to proclaim a state of emergency in Rivers State, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Nigeria’s president, claimed that he acted on “security reports made available to [him]” showing “disturbing incidents of vandalization of pipelines by some militant without the governor taking any action to curtail them.” Importantly, he had not bothered to speak to the State Governor to hear his own side of the story, nor did he indicate that any humans had been injured or killed.

Security reports in such situations are provided by the State Security Service, (SSS). It is currently headed as Director-General by Oluwatosin Ajayi, whose stint as State Director of Security (SDS) in Rivers State coincided with the tenure as governor of Nyesom Wike, a principal belligerent in the political conflict in the State.

As a result, the President continued, “no good and responsible President will standby and allow the grave situation to continue without taking remedial steps prescribed by the Constitution to address the situation in the state, which no doubt requires extraordinary measures to restore good governance, peace, order and security.”

These words were not new. When he moved the motion in the federal parliament on 29 May 1962 for the declaration of a state of emergency in the old Western Region, Prime Minister, Abubakar Tafawa-Balewa uttered the original version of the same sentence. After rendering his version of the events in the regional parliament in Ibadan the previous week, the Prime Minister declared: “No responsible Government of the Federation could allow an explosive situation such as that which now exists in Western Nigeria to continue without taking adequate measures to ensure that there is an early return to the Region of peace, order and good Government.”

Then in the Western Region, as today in Rivers State, there was a political dispute between a predecessor and his successor, both of them of the same party. The predecessor was Chief Obafemi Awolowo, leader of the Action Group, who had transitioned from the office of regional Premier to being leader of the Opposition in the federal parliament. His successor as Premier was Ladoke Akintola. Although both lawyers, these men had fundamental differences of both provenance and ideology. Awolowo was Ijebu from the south of Yoruba-land. Akintola, who grew up in Northern Nigeria, was from Ogbomosho in the north of Yoruba-land. Ideologically, Akintola’s politics tended towards conservative populism; Awolowo was more towards democratic socialism.

In May 1962, the National Executive Committee of the Action group resolved to request Akintola to resign as both deputy leader to Chief Awolowo in the party and as premier of the Western Region. Rival factions emerged in the party claiming a majority in the regional parliament. Akintola sought to have the parliament convened for the purpose of procuring a vote of confidence on his government. Both the regional governor and the Speaker of the parliament rebuffed his overtures. Instead, outside the parliament, some party officials led by Bola Ige, secured the signatures of a majority of elected members withdrawing support from Akintola’s administration.

The party presented these signatures to the Governor, Oba Adesoji Aderemi, then the Ooni of Ife who thereafter invited Alhaji Dauda Adegbenro to form a new government as regional Premier. Attempts to re-convene the regional parliament ended in fracas. As recalled by Chief Awolowo, “one Mr. Oke, a supporter of Chief Akintola, a Member from Ogbomosho, jumped on the desk and was running about on the desk and then lifted a chair and struck somebody on the head. That is how it started, and then thereafter one Mr. Ebubedike, the Member for Badagry, who lives in Ajeromi, took the Mace and then in an attempt to strike the Speaker with the Mace, the Mace struck the table and broke into two.”

On receiving notification of the governor’s decision removing him and designating Alhaji Adegbenro as regional premier on 21 May 1962, Akintola began proceedings at the High Court of the Western Region. The Chief Justice of the Region – they were called Chief Justice then –Samuel Okai Quashie-Idun, had acted as Chief Justice of Ghana under the government of Kwame Nkrumah. He headed to Nigeria after resigning from Ghana’s judiciary in 1958 over disagreements with the Nkrumah government in the first flush of post-colonial authoritarianism. In 1960, Quashie-Idun became Chief Justice of the Western Region in succession to Robert Yorke Hedges. As Chief Justice, he was said to enjoy the support and patronage of Premier Akintola.

The expectation of Akintola was reportedly that the Chief Justice would afford him expedited hearing and a favorable verdict, handing him under colour of law the boost he needed in this battle of his political life. Instead, Chief Justice Quashie-Idun decided to distil the legal issues and, rather than rule on them, transmitted those to the then Federal Supreme Court for decision. The case eventually traveled up to the Privy Council where Akintola lost the legal dispute. It is said that a disappointed Ladoke Akintola withdrew patronage from Quashie-Idun and their relationship never recovered. The following year, Quashie-Idun left the judiciary of the Western Region to East Africa, becoming the President of the East African Court of Appeal, where he died in 1966.

It is thought that Quashie-Idun tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to recover the relationship. In June 1963, he dismissed the action by Alhaji Adegbenro of the Action Group seeking to invalidate the appointment of Odeleye Fadahunsi as regional governor, and denied Adegbenro leave to appeal to the Federal Supreme Court. 

The disagreement between Quashie-Idun and Akintola was in reality unbridgeable. As Chief Justice, he saw a legal dispute which deserved judicial dispassion. For Akintola, it was a political dispute in which the role of the judiciary was to serve as his instrument. In 1962, Quashie-Idun chose to stick with his judicial brief. Today in Nigeria, judges at the highest levels have chosen to discard judicial robes and purchase sides in the political dispute in Rivers State, becoming shamefully complicit in instrumentalizing the highest courts for a proverbial mess of political pottage.

When he addressed the country this past week, therefore, the President was not content with merely plagiarising Tafawa-Balewa; he found comfort in the partisanship of a willful judiciary.

On 28 February, the Supreme Court restrained the Central Bank from releasing the federal allocations of Rivers State until the State House of Assembly had passed a lawful budget. In his address declaring the state of emergency, the president said his newly appointed military administrator in Rivers State would not be able to make any laws. In effect, he could not pass a budget to implement the Supreme Court judgment.

Yet, the day after he was installed, the Central Bank released the withheld allocation to the military administrator. On the same day, the National Assembly approved the emergency proclamation on an unlikely voice vote after what was reported to be a splurge of money to sweeten that outcome. If the statutory allocation of Rivers State was used to purchase an emergency proclamation over the state, it is entirely in keeping with the project originated by Frederick Lugard to preserve Nigeria as a proposition in extractive anomaly.

A lawyer and a teacher, Odinkalu can be reached at [email protected]