“Jonathan didn’t sack any governors during his emergency rule in three states” – Adoke, former AGF
Former Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Mohammed Bello Adoke, has shed light on the political and constitutional intricacies surrounding the 2013 State of Emergency declared by then-President Goodluck Jonathan in three Northern Nigerian states.
In a recent revelation, Adoke confirmed that Jonathan did not sack any Governors during the emergency rule, despite mounting political pressure and widespread speculation.
This clarification comes amid ongoing political discussions and the recent suspension of elected officials in Rivers State by President Bola Tinubu.
The emergency rule, declared in May 2013, was reportedly a response to the escalating violence and insurgency caused by the extremist group Boko Haram in Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa states.
At the time, the country was grappling with widespread insecurity, and Jonathan’s decision to impose emergency rule was seen as a necessary measure to curb the violence and restore order in the affected regions.
Despite growing calls for the removal of the Governors of these states, particularly from Jonathan’s political allies in the ruling People’s Democratic Party (PDP), the former president resisted the pressure.
Adoke, in his explanation, highlighted that the decision to not sack the Governors was grounded in constitutional integrity.
He clarified that the constitutional framework did not support the removal of Governors during a State of Emergency, no matter the level of unrest.
The 1999 Constitution of Nigeria made it clear that Governors could not be dismissed solely based on the declaration of emergency powers.
Instead of removing the Governors, Jonathan focused on deploying additional military and law enforcement resources to the region to address the insurgency.
The Governors were allowed to continue in office while security forces worked to stabilize the affected areas.
“This decision was not one that was taken lightly,” Adoke explained. “It was a matter of constitutional integrity and the rule of law. The State of Emergency granted the president certain powers, but removing Governors was not one of them. The decision was made to ensure that we adhered to the Constitution and upheld democratic principles, even in the face of serious security challenges.”
Jonathan’s decision to retain the Governors was met with mixed reactions. Critics, particularly from the opposition, saw it as a failure to take decisive action in a time of crisis.
Some believed that Jonathan’s reluctance to dismiss the Governors inadvertently empowered local political structures that were resistant to federal intervention.
On the other hand, supporters of Jonathan’s stance lauded him for his respect for Nigeria’s legal framework, arguing that it was a sign of political maturity and a commitment to upholding democratic principles.
They maintained that the president’s refusal to sack the Governors was constitutionally appropriate, even if it went against the prevailing political opinion.
Adoke’s recent remarks have drawn 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 amid mounting political tensions in the state, and Tinubu appointed retired Vice Admiral Ibokette Ibas as Administrator to take charge of the affairs of the state.
In his announcement, Tinubu emphasized that the suspension would not affect the judicial arm of the state, which would continue to function as per its constitutional mandate.
The suspension of elected officials in Rivers State has sparked fresh debates, with some drawing comparisons to Jonathan’s decision to retain the Governors in 2013.