In times of crisis and imminent danger, a responsible and committed leader must act swiftly to prevent unnecessary harm and destruction. This principle applies equally to a President safeguarding national stability or a General steering his troops through conflict.
History teaches us that extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary measures. Ignoring this reality only allows problems to fester, turning turmoil into catastrophe and making resolution even more difficult.
Rivers State had reached a breaking point, engulfed in crisis with stakeholders unable to find a solution. Without intervention, the situation threatened to spiral out of control. In response, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu took decisive action, exercising his constitutional and moral duty to restore order.
The declaration of a six-month state of emergency in Rivers State falls well within the President’s constitutional powers, as explicitly outlined in the nation’s democratic framework and upheld by judicial precedent. While opinions on the decision vary, the rule of law remains the ultimate authority. Critics opposing this move do so largely due to political interests rather than legal grounds.
Leadership demands the courage to act when circumstances require it. The Supreme Court has long recognized this principle, as demonstrated in the 1962 case involving FRA Williams and Majekodunmi. In matters of national security and public safety, the courts have historically deferred to the President’s discretion, acknowledging that such decisions are beyond their purview.
The securitization theory, developed by the Copenhagen School, supports this stance. It posits that when an issue is recognized as an existential threat by a legitimate authority, urgent action must be taken to neutralize it before it escalates beyond control.
The escalating crisis in Rivers State had become a direct threat to both democracy and national stability. Importantly, this intervention is a temporary suspension—not a permanent removal of democratic structures. The six-month window provides an opportunity for normalcy to be restored.
Legal scholar Tanimu Y. and others have aptly summarized the necessity of this intervention:
“President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s intervention in Rivers State must be understood—not as a political maneuver, but as a constitutional necessity to prevent the descent into anarchy. His actions, in invoking Section 305 of the Nigerian Constitution, affirm the fundamental role of the presidency: not as a bystander to disorder but as the ultimate custodian of constitutional integrity and national safety.”
To delay action would have been to allow the crisis to deepen. President Tinubu’s swift and strategic intervention is a classic case of a stitch in time saving nine, ensuring that order and stability prevail before irreversible damage occurs.