Atiku Abubakar Criticizes Tinubu’s State of Emergency in Rivers State, Alleges Political Manipulation

Former Vice President of Nigeria and the 2023 presidential candidate of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), Atiku Abubakar, has strongly condemned President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State. Abubakar accused Tinubu of political manipulation and bad faith, arguing that the decision was driven by personal and partisan interests rather than genuine concerns for stability.

In a statement released following Tinubu’s nationwide broadcast, Abubakar claimed that the President’s administration had actively contributed to the crisis in Rivers State through “calculated negligence” or deliberate inaction. He criticized the President’s inability to prevent the escalation of tensions, suggesting that Tinubu’s involvement in the political turmoil was evident from the outset.

Abubakar further alleged that the severe security breaches that led to the destruction of national infrastructure in Rivers State should be attributed to the President’s leadership failures. According to him, the damage and instability in the state are consequences of Tinubu’s mismanagement and disregard for the region’s fragile peace.

The former Vice President highlighted the significance of the Niger Delta, emphasizing that the current unrest undermines the hard-won stability achieved under the late President Umaru Yar’Adua. Yar’Adua’s administration had implemented an amnesty program to address militancy and conflict in the oil-rich region, a strategy that successfully reduced violence and improved relations between the federal government and local communities. Abubakar argued that the Tinubu administration’s approach risks reversing these gains and rekindling unrest.

Abubakar expressed particular concern over the suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara, Deputy Governor Ngozi Odu, and the Rivers State House of Assembly, describing it as a politically motivated attack aimed at weakening opposition voices. He asserted that the decision to suspend elected officials while appointing retired military chief Ekwe Ibas as an interim administrator was a tactic to consolidate federal control over the state.

Condemning the state of emergency as an “assault on democracy,” Abubakar suggested that the federal government’s intervention was less about restoring order and more about suppressing dissent. He argued that punishing the people of Rivers State for a crisis allegedly fueled by political gamesmanship between the state government and Tinubu’s allies is unjust and undemocratic.

Abubakar’s critique reflects a broader debate over the legitimacy and necessity of the state of emergency in Rivers State. While the federal government maintains that the measure is essential to restore stability, opposition figures and political analysts argue that it sets a troubling precedent of federal overreach. Critics warn that such interventions can undermine the autonomy of states and weaken the democratic process.

The controversy surrounding the declaration also raises questions about the federal government’s handling of security in the Niger Delta and its approach to managing the region’s complex socio-political dynamics. As the situation develops, the impact of the state of emergency on the people of Rivers State and the broader implications for Nigeria’s federal structure will continue to be scrutinized.

Abubakar’s strong criticism adds to the growing discontent over Tinubu’s handling of the crisis, signaling potential tensions between the federal government and opposition forces. As stakeholders continue to debate the motivations behind the state of emergency, the coming months will likely test the effectiveness and fairness of the federal government’s intervention in Rivers State.