Former Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Mohammed Bello Adoke, has provided in-depth insights into the legal, political, and constitutional aspects surrounding the 2013 State of Emergency that was declared by the then-President Goodluck Jonathan in three states in Northern Nigeria.
In a recent revelation, Adoke categorically confirmed that Jonathan did not remove any sitting Governors from office during the emergency rule, despite significant political pressure from various quarters and widespread speculation that such a move was imminent.
This clarification comes at a time when political discussions have intensified regarding the recent suspension of elected officials in Rivers State by President Bola Tinubu. The issue has sparked debates about the use of executive powers in dealing with state leadership crises.
The emergency rule in question, which was officially declared in May 2013, was reportedly a response to the escalating violence and insurgency that was being perpetrated by the extremist group Boko Haram in the states of Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa.
At that time, Nigeria was grappling with widespread insecurity, and President Jonathan’s decision to impose emergency rule was largely seen as a necessary and urgent measure to curb the insurgency, restore public order, and reinforce the authority of the federal government in those affected states.
Despite growing calls from various political figures and interest groups—especially within Jonathan’s own ruling People’s Democratic Party (PDP)—to remove the Governors of these states as part of the emergency measures, Jonathan ultimately resisted that pressure.
Adoke, in his detailed explanation, emphasized that Jonathan’s decision not to remove the Governors was not merely a political consideration but was fundamentally grounded in Nigeria’s constitutional provisions, which provided clear limitations on the powers of a president during a State of Emergency.
He specifically pointed out that under the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, there was no legal backing that permitted a president to remove elected state Governors simply because emergency rule had been declared, regardless of the severity of the unrest in their respective states.
Instead of taking the politically charged path of sacking the Governors, Jonathan chose to deploy additional military and law enforcement personnel to the affected regions. This strategy was aimed at strengthening security, stabilizing the situation, and restoring normalcy while allowing the Governors to continue discharging their constitutional duties.
“This decision was not one that was taken lightly,” Adoke stated. “It was a matter of constitutional integrity and adherence to the rule of law. The declaration of a State of Emergency gave the president certain extraordinary powers, but removing Governors from office was not one of them. The decision was ultimately made to ensure that we upheld the Constitution and safeguarded democratic principles, even in the midst of severe security challenges.”
Jonathan’s choice to retain the Governors during the emergency period was met with mixed reactions across Nigeria. Some critics, particularly from the opposition, viewed it as a lack of decisiveness on his part, arguing that a stronger response—including the dismissal of the Governors—was necessary to fully assert federal authority over the troubled regions.
Others claimed that Jonathan’s reluctance to remove the Governors indirectly empowered local political structures that were resistant to federal intervention and, in some cases, accused of not doing enough to combat insurgency within their states.
On the other hand, supporters of Jonathan’s stance praised him for respecting Nigeria’s legal framework and avoiding what they saw as an unnecessary constitutional crisis. They argued that his decision demonstrated political maturity and a deep commitment to upholding democratic governance, even in the face of serious challenges.
They maintained that the president’s refusal to sack the Governors was the correct constitutional course of action, even though it ran counter to popular political sentiment at the time.
Adoke’s recent remarks on this historical matter have drawn strong parallels with the current political climate under President Bola Tinubu’s administration.
Just recently, President Tinubu announced the suspension of Rivers State Governor Siminalayi Fubara and his deputy, Mrs. Ngozi Odu, for an initial period of six months.
This move came in response to rising political tensions in the state, and as part of the measures to manage the situation, Tinubu appointed retired Vice Admiral Ibokette Ibas as the Administrator to oversee the governance of the state for the duration of the suspension.
In his official announcement, Tinubu emphasized that the suspension of the Governor and Deputy Governor would not in any way affect the functioning of the judicial arm of the state, which would continue to operate in accordance with its constitutional mandate.
The suspension of elected officials in Rivers State has reignited debates on executive authority and constitutional governance, with many political observers drawing direct comparisons between Tinubu’s approach in 2025 and Jonathan’s approach in 2013.