Mohammed Bello Adoke, a former Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), has clarified the constitutional and political complexities surrounding the 2013 State of Emergency that was imposed in three Northern Nigerian states by then-President Goodluck Jonathan. Despite growing political pressure and a lot of conjecture, Adoke recently revealed that Jonathan did not fire any governors during the emergency rule. This clarification follows President Bola Tinubu's recent suspension of elected officials in Rivers State and subsequent political disputes.
The emergency rule, imposed in May 2013, was purportedly in reaction to the terrorist group Boko Haram's escalation of violence and conflict in Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa states. At the time, the country was experiencing severe instability, and Jonathan's decision to impose emergency rule was viewed as an essential step to quell the violence and restore order in the afflicted areas. Despite mounting calls to remove the governors of these states, particularly from Jonathan's political allies in the ruling People's Democratic Party (PDP), the former president defied the pressure. Adoke explained that the decision not to fire the Governors was based on constitutional integrity.
He stressed that the constitutional structure does not permit the dismissal of governors during a State of Emergency, regardless of the extent of unrest. The 1999 Nigerian Constitution made it clear that governors could not be fired purely on the basis of a proclamation of emergency powers. Instead of removing the Governors, Jonathan prioritised deploying greater military and law enforcement resources to the region to combat the insurgency. The governors were permitted to remain in office while security personnel sought to stabilise the impacted areas.
"This decision was not made lightly," Adoke explained. "The issue was one of constitutional integrity and the rule of law. The State of Emergency gave the president specific powers, but replacing governors was not one of them. The decision was made to ensure that we followed the Constitution and upheld democratic norms, even in the face of significant security difficulties." Jonathan's choice to keep the Governors elicited diverse views. Critics, notably from the opposition, saw it as a failure to act decisively during a crisis. Some argued that Jonathan's hesitancy to fire the Governors had unintentionally bolstered local political systems that were resistant to federal action.