Atiku condemns Tinubu, insisting the Rivers crisis reflects abuse of power, unlawful suspension of Fubara, and a threat to Nigeria’s democracy.
Former Vice President and 2023 presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Atiku Abubakar, has renewed his attack on President Bola Ahmed Tinubu over the political turmoil in Rivers State.
In his latest remarks, Atiku condemns Tinubu for suspending and later reinstating Governor Siminalayi Fubara and members of the Rivers State House of Assembly, describing the actions as unconstitutional, illegal, and a serious danger to Nigeria’s democratic system.
In a statement posted on his official X account on Thursday, September 18, Atiku warned that the suspension was not only baseless but also an alarming abuse of presidential power.
He dismissed any suggestion that reinstating Fubara and the lawmakers should be considered progress, insisting that the illegality had already damaged the credibility of democratic governance.
Quoting directly, Atiku wrote: “Lifting the suspension of Governor Simi Fubara is nothing to cheer about. The suspension of the Rivers State Governor and the State House of Assembly was unconstitutional when it was done six months ago, and it remains illegal today.
“President Tinubu had no power to suspend a democratically elected governor and lawmakers. The Rivers shenanigans only signpost the dictatorship of the Tinubu administration.”
The controversy over Rivers has become a litmus test for Nigerian democracy. Legal scholars argue that the constitution does not grant the president powers to remove or suspend elected state officials.
Such authority lies with the judiciary or, in some cases, the legislature.
By overruling these processes, critics warn, the presidency is setting a dangerous precedent that could weaken state autonomy across the federation.
Atiku’s criticism echoes this concern. He has consistently cautioned against executive interference in state affairs, warning that unchecked federal power could unravel the foundations of democracy.
According to him, Atiku condemns Tinubu because the Rivers suspension undermines federalism and blurs the line between lawful authority and political overreach.
This is not the first time Atiku has raised alarm over the crisis.
IREPORT247NEWS recalls that on March 18, he had earlier slammed the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers.
At the time, he accused Tinubu of acting as “a vested partisan actor” instead of a neutral leader.
He said: “The declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State reeks of political manipulation and outright bad faith.
“Anyone paying attention to the unfolding crisis knows that Bola Tinubu has been a vested partisan actor in the political turmoil engulfing Rivers.”
For Atiku, these moves reveal an agenda that goes beyond peacekeeping and veers into the realm of political advantage.
The Rivers crisis, initially sparked by factional disputes in the state assembly, has grown into a national debate on constitutional order.
Many observers believe that Tinubu’s intervention deepened the crisis rather than resolved it.
By suspending elected officials, the federal government not only inflamed tensions but also signaled that state institutions can be bypassed.
Political analysts warn that the episode could embolden future leaders to use similar tactics elsewhere.
That, they say, is why Atiku condemns Tinubu so strongly: because the incident represents more than one state’s struggle—it threatens the democratic balance of the entire nation.
Atiku’s statement has drawn diverse reactions. PDP members and his supporters praise him for taking a stand, calling his intervention an act of patriotism.
They argue that democracy requires constant defense, especially when institutions are being undermined.
On the other hand, APC loyalists dismiss Atiku’s words as opportunistic politics.
They insist that the president’s intervention in Rivers was necessary to prevent a complete breakdown of law and order.
To them, national stability outweighs rigid constitutional interpretations.
Despite the clash of opinions, the Rivers saga has forced Nigerians to confront a pressing question: How far should presidential powers extend in a federal democracy?
Beyond partisan lines, Atiku’s position serves as a reminder that democracy thrives only when constitutional limits are respected.
By insisting that Atiku condemns Tinubu for acting beyond the law, he is urging Nigerians to remain vigilant and resist creeping authoritarianism.
The Rivers crisis has become more than a local dispute—it is now a mirror reflecting the strength or weakness of Nigeria’s democracy.
With Atiku condemns Tinubu for unconstitutional overreach, the debate about the balance of federal and state power has deepened.
While supporters of Tinubu defend his actions as necessary, critics see them as executive lawlessness.
Atiku’s warnings highlight a crucial truth: democracy cannot survive if constitutional limits are ignored.
Whether Nigerians heed this warning and demand stronger protections for their institutions will determine the future of governance in the country.
About The Author
