Where is the state of emergency?
By Chukwuma Ambrose Ohaka
Nigeria today teeters on the edge. From the restive highlands of Jos to the terror-ravaged plains of Borno, and the lawless hinterlands of Zamfara, insecurity has become a national plague. The southwest, once a relatively calm zone, now faces rising incidents of kidnapping and rural banditry. In the face of all these, the Federal Government has remained curiously restrained — hesitant to deploy the ultimate constitutional tool: the declaration of a state of emergency.
That was until Rivers State happened.
In a move that has shocked many observers and concerned citizens alike, the Federal Government recently declared a State of Emergency in Rivers State — not because of terrorism, mass killings, or the collapse of civil order, but due to a deepening political crisis between Governor Siminalayi Fubara and a rival faction believed to be loyal to his predecessor and current Federal Capital Territory Minister, Nyesom Wike.
This development has left Nigerians asking hard questions. Where was the urgency when dozens were killed in Jos, Plateau State just weeks ago? Where was the state of emergency when terrorists attacked villages in Borno, or when whole communities in Zamfara were forced to pay protection levies to bandits? What about the expressway kidnappings and rural unrest in Oyo, Ondo, and Ogun states? If ever there was a textbook definition of a security emergency, these regions fit the description far more than Rivers.
READ ALSO: When corruption rules a nation
The troubling contrast reveals the deep politicization of security and governance in Nigeria. In Rivers, what is clearly a power tussle is now being presented as a national security threat. This smacks of ulterior motives, especially when compared to the Federal Government’s hesitant — even indifferent — approach to the actual security collapse happening in other parts of the country.
One must ask: is this declaration truly about protecting lives and property, or is it about consolidating political control in a key oil-rich state? The optics are worrying. A democratic dispute, however intense, has not translated into widespread violence or civil unrest that warrants military intervention or suspension of normal governance structures. Yet it is being treated with more alarm than the ongoing, deadly attacks in northern and central Nigeria.
This selective application of state power damages the credibility of government and deepens public distrust. It suggests a country where political loyalty, not public safety, determines the urgency of federal response. It implies that elite conflict in Rivers poses a greater threat to Nigeria’s unity than the relentless slaughter of innocent citizens in Borno, Zamfara, or Plateau.
By all objective standards, Rivers State does not face a security emergency. Nigeria does.
This is not to downplay the tensions in Rivers — clearly, the political situation is serious and demands attention. But the imposition of a state of emergency is a drastic constitutional measure, historically reserved for situations where civil authorities can no longer maintain order. Using it as a tool for political arbitration sets a dangerous precedent — and trivializes its intended purpose.
If the Federal Government is willing to declare an emergency in Rivers, then what stops it from doing so in states where terrorists operate with impunity, where thousands have died, and where law enforcement is virtually nonexistent?
This moment calls for a reset — not just of our security strategy but of our national conscience. Security should never be used as a weapon of politics. The lives lost in Borno, Zamfara, Jos, and elsewhere are not less Nigerian than those in Port Harcourt. The selective sense of urgency betrays the promise of equal protection under the law.
Until Nigeria begins to respond to real emergencies, not political inconveniences, we will keep asking — where is the state of emergency, really?
