Opinion
A golden opportunity not to be missed: Time to deal with Iran’s nuclear program
Iran would require only weeks – not months – to “break out” from its current self-imposed 60% enrichment limit to the 90% plus needed for a bomb.
Hezbollah and Hamas no longer threaten Israel. Iran’s axis of resistance lies in ruin. The Islamic Republic and Syria’s air defenses are destroyed, and Iran’s missile capabilities are shredded.
But Iran is on the verge of producing enough weapons-grade uranium for several bombs. It is so close, in fact, that relying on a timely warning by US or Israeli intelligence that Iran is “breaking out” may not be a winning bet. Now is the time to deal with Iran’s program militarily, ideally through a joint attack by Jerusalem and Washington.In December, both the US Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iran was closer than ever to having enough highly enriched uranium (HEU) for several bombs. Iran would require only weeks – not months – to “break out” from its current self-imposed 60% enrichment limit to the 90% plus needed for a bomb.
Until recently, Tehran dismissed all talk of acquiring nuclear weapons capacity as nonsense that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei had specifically prohibited in an alleged oral fatwa (Islamic legal ruling). No longer. Senior officials of the Islamic Republic now discuss openly the pros and cons of developing the bomb.
The collapse of Iran’s anti-Israel axis of resistance has strengthened Tehran’s temptation to develop the bomb.
Khamenei’s long-standing plan to use proxies to weaken Israel is in tatters: Hamas barely subsists, Hezbollah no longer seriously threatens Israel, and, most importantly, the collapse of the Assad regime in Syria has all but closed the arms pipeline that Tehran used for years to bolster Hezbollah. Only Iran’s Houthi allies in Yemen are active, but they do not pose a major threat to Israel.
Moreover, the ease with which Israel penetrated Iranian airspace twice this year may have convinced Iranian leaders hitherto skeptical about the need for a bomb to see it as necessary to deter additional such “aggressions.”Tehran has not yet assembled the puzzle that is a deliverable nuclear device, but Iran continues assiduously to fashion the individual puzzle pieces. The expansion of the uranium enrichment facilities at Fordow and Natanz continues apace, and multiple sources report that Tehran is working on improving the accuracy of its ballistic missiles. In October, Israel bombed what it considered to be a nuclear weapons research facility at Parchin.
THE SIMPLEST reason to conclude that Iran still aspires to obtain nuclear weapons is how it has designed its entire nuclear program from the start: enriching uranium domestically when imported fuel for a civilian nuclear program would have been much cheaper; consistently hiding key nuclear sites from the IAEA and the West and placing one of them (Fordow) under a mountain. Finally, there is Tehran’s willingness to be deprived of billions of dollars due to Western sanctions and lost foreign investment in order to build a program that is the stark opposite of what a country genuinely seeking peaceful nuclear power would want.
This is the nuclear panorama facing President-elect Donald Trump. Given the Republican Party’s division into isolationist “America first”-ers and more traditional internationalists, it would be foolhardy to predict the direction of the next administration. There are, however, indicators suggesting that Trump strongly prefers economic coercion and negotiations over military solutions.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu discusses Iran’s nuclear program at the Defense Ministry, 2018. (credit: JACK GUEZ/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES)
Shortly after the election, Trump adviser Elon Musk met with Iran’s UN Ambassador to discuss ways to “defuse tensions.” Former members of Trump’s first administration have talked publicly about reapplying the “maximum pressure” economic sanction strategy that Biden discontinued. Trump himself consistently states that he wants to end wars and prevent new ones through personal diplomacy rather than by military means.
It seems likely that Trump will revive maximum pressure on and negotiations with Iran in a quest to produce a nuclear agreement with Tehran that he can claim as a vast improvement over the Iran accord (JCPOA) that Barack Obama negotiated.
That would be a great mistake.
If 25 years of nuclear negotiations with Iran have taught us anything, it is that the country’s rulers are determined to acquire nuclear weapons. Given Iran’s current perilous economic and military situation, Khamenei almost certainly wants to resume nuclear talks with the West to allay further economic sanctions and buy time while continuing to enrich uranium and research weaponization. Iran has no interest in forgoing domestic uranium enrichment, except as a temporary measure to gain time.
The ayatollahs may calculate that Trump’s eagerness to replace the JCPOA with an improved version bearing the Trump housekeeping seal of approval will produce a treaty Tehran can live with, one that appears to plug the JCPOA’s many holes while in practice leaving escape clauses that Iran can use in the future to achieve its nuclear goals.
This approach means that the United States, Israel, and the IAEA must be constantly vigilant lest Iran try to “break out” and acquire enough HEU for several bombs. Neither Israel nor the US has stated with certainty that they can detect a breakout early enough to stop it. As Iran enriches more and more uranium to 60%, its path to the breakout 90% level grows shorter and probably harder to identify, further reducing the time Western intelligence agencies have to alert their governments about an imminent breakout – and the time those governments have to react.
Such a breakout would not immediately give Iran the bomb; experts assess that Tehran needs anywhere from six months to two years to weaponize HEU. But it would mean that destroying Iran’s large, stationary nuclear targets (primarily the uranium enrichment facilities at Fordow and Natanz) would no longer block Iran’s path to a bomb. The new targets would be much more difficult to locate and destroy. HEU is not bulky and can be stored anywhere in a country three times the size of Texas, and scientists can undertake research on weaponization in a facility the size of a large garage.
There is a better solution: the use of military means to destroy Iran’s major nuclear facilities now.Israel seriously contemplated such action in 2012, but a combination of US pressure and divisions within the Israeli government and the IDF removed the kinetic option from consideration. Now, however, Iran is much weaker and many of yesterday’s obstacles to military action are no longer relevant.
Hezbollah’s downfall
Until this year, the most compelling argument against an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities was that it would unleash a catastrophic war with Iran’s proxy Hezbollah (and to a much lesser extent Hamas). But Iran has lost its ace in the hole. Hezbollah’s leadership is decimated; most – if not all – of its long-range precision-guided missiles that could reach anywhere in Israel have either been destroyed or are in Israel’s gun sights; and Hezbollah’s short-range rockets have little more than nuisance value – and that only against Israel’s North.
Assad’s demise
Equally significant is the collapse of the Assad regime in Syria, the Islamic Republic’s oldest and closest state ally in the Middle East. Israel’s “war between the wars” in Syria over the past decade successfully thwarted Iran’s efforts to reproduce in Syria a Hezbollah-like missile threat against Israel. Now Syria has become a no-go area for Iranian military activities. Tehran’s land bridge from Iran to Lebanon through the vaunted Shia crescent is blocked, and Iran can no longer easily replace Hezbollah’s equipment and missile losses.
Demolished Iranian and Syrian air defenses
Prior to this year, Israel had never mounted a serious air attack against Iran and thus could not know for certain how well the Islamic regime’s Russian-supplied S-300 air defense system would work. The verdict is now in: Jerusalem’s response to Iran’s October 1 launch of almost 200 ballistic missiles against Israel all but obliterated the Islamic Republic’s air defenses. Israel sent scores of aircraft against Iran, aerially refueled them, and lost not a single plane. This has left the regime’s nuclear and military sites largely undefended and will give any air force that targets them – Israeli and/or American – much greater prospects for success than was thought possible in the recent past.
Diminished missile capacities
Iran attacked Israel twice in 2024 with ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and drones, abandoning its long-standing reliance on proxies to target the Jewish state. The attacks proved that Iran is a paper tiger when it comes to missile warfare against Israel, which either intercepted most of the missiles or allowed them to land in rural areas. Moreover, Washington, Western allies, and moderate Arab Sunni states – including Saudi Arabia, which does not even recognize the Jewish state – helped Israel repel Iranian missiles. It is unclear how many of the Islamic Republic’s surviving missiles can reach Israel, but the example of Tehran’s two foiled strikes this year suggests that they do not now present a major threat.
What is to be done?
Tehran’s weakness provides Jerusalem with a golden opportunity to cut Iran’s nuclear ambitions down to size. The Israel Air Force has proven it can precisely target Iranian military and nuclear sites without generating extensive civilian collateral damage and without requiring land refueling in a neighboring country.
Moreover, the destruction of Iran’s air defenses has put paid to the long-standing assumption that Israel could only mount one surprise blow against Iran’s nuclear facilities before Iran’s residual air defenses kicked in and made further attacks too dangerous. With the Islamic Republic’s air defenses demolished, Israel would probably now be able to mount additional sorties in the hours and days following the initial attack to revisit sites
insufficiently damaged in the first round.
There is one major drawback to Israel’s mounting an independent blue-and-white attack on Iran’s nuclear sites: the uranium enrichment facility at Fordow. The IAEA reports that Iran recently increased enrichment at this site, which alone could quickly produce enough HEU for several bombs. Fordow is a subterranean bunker built under a mountain that Israel – which lacks a heavy bomber fleet – would be hard-pressed to destroy by itself.
However, the United States Air Force (USAF) possesses a non-nuclear weapon that can penetrate and demolish Fordow: the GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), colloquially referred to as a “bunker buster” bomb. The MOP is a 30,000-pound self-guided munition, currently only deliverable by the USAF’s B-2 Spirit stealth aircraft.
A joint US-Israel attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities has another major advantage: It would permit the targeting of many more nuclear and missile sites and inflict much greater damage than a unilateral Israeli operation. There are many ways in which the two allies could cooperate. Washington, for example, could launch the MOP against Iran’s large underground nuclear sites and perhaps a few select non-nuclear ones, while Israel could target Iranian missile storage and production facilities, other sundry military targets, and especially the many smaller and more vulnerable nuclear facilities that supply inputs used at the Fordow and Natanz enrichment plants.
Retaliation?
Some US policy-makers oppose almost any use of US force in the Middle East out of fear that the subsequent “escalation” would drag the United States into another Middle East war on a par with the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. The Iraq/Afghanistan experience, however, teaches us little if anything about the consequences of an attack on Iran’s nuclear and other military facilities. Such an operation would not require a single US boot on the ground (although clandestine Israeli boots might play a role).
No one is proposing that a US expeditionary force march to Tehran. And if the Israeli experience over the skies of Iran is anything to go by, USAF pilots are likely to return home as heroes, not in coffins.
A second, more credible, objection is that while Iran cannot significantly penetrate Israel’s air defenses or those of major US military bases in the region, it can wreak havoc on US allies in the Persian Gulf, especially the UAE, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia. Iran has thousands of short-range projectiles it can hurl against military and economic targets in these countries: Tehran has already proven their effectiveness. In 2019, the Islamic Republic mounted a cruise missile and drone attack on Saudi Arabia’s Abqaiq oil production facility, putting the kingdom’s premier petroleum processing plant out of business for several weeks.
The threat of Iranian retaliation on our Arab allies, however, is not a game-stopper. The Gulf states’ air defenses are much more effective today than they were in 2019 when Tehran essentially caught Riyadh with its pants down.An entire regional air defense network, which includes Israel, the US, and the major moderate Sunni states, has taken shape since then and showed its mettle twice this year by defending Israel from Iranian attacks. Some Iranian missiles will penetrate these defenses, but the notion that Tehran can quickly reduce all Arab Gulf state oil production and processing facilities to rubble in the wake of an attack by Israel and/or the US is overblown.
Secondly, a serious promise by the US and Israel to hobble Iran’s economy should it retaliate in a major fashion for the destruction of its nuclear facilities would give Tehran pause.
The US and Israel should deliberately spare Iranian industrial and oil production facilities from damage while sending a message (overtly and/or through clandestine conduits) to Tehran to coincide with the dropping of the first MOPs over Fordow: “We are not targeting your economy, but if you retaliate against Israel, the US, or any of its regional allies, we will utterly destroy your oil and gas production and export facilities.”
One major installation alone – the Kharg Island terminal – handles nearly 90% of Iran’s gas and petroleum exports, which in turn account for 40% of the country’s export earnings; Israel could easily demolish Kharg Island.The prospect of losing the jewel in its economic crown must give Tehran pause before it retaliates in any more than a perfunctory fashion. Even more intimidating would be an Israeli/American pledge to go after the entirety of the country’s petroleum infrastructure, plus other major industrial sites.
There is a downside to destroying Kharg Island and other such targets: World oil and gas prices would immediately soar. But this is no reason to turn the threat into empty words. Saudi Arabia has ample excess oil capacity that it can quickly bring into production, minimizing the impact on world petroleum prices of lessened Iranian oil production and export.
An unexpected bonus?
The weakening of Hezbollah in Lebanon and the demise of the Assad regime in Syria illustrate the dangers of predicting Middle East developments.
We do not know how Iranians would react to a concerted attack on their country’s nuclear and military facilities. Such a setback might induce Khamenei and his security forces to batten down the hatches and intensify persecution, lest the Iranian populace revolt. To judge by the regime’s recent repression of popular protests, it retains the loyalty of its most capable and bloodthirsty security forces. Whether the massive international and domestic embarrassment caused by a nuclear debacle would shake this loyalty is anyone’s guess. There is at least a chance that such an open demonstration of the regime’s manifold weaknesses could break the log jam that has hitherto impeded the Iranian opposition from threatening Islamic rule.
At the very least, such a shock would likely weaken the regime and force it to devote more and more manpower and resources to keeping the Iranian political pot from boiling over.
A perishable moment
We are at a crossroads in the 30-year struggle to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
The Islamic Republic has never been weaker, both at home and abroad. Its axis of resistance lies in shambles, and what little domestic popular support the mullahs retain is draining away. The only place where Tehran is not retreating is at the Natanz and Fordow uranium enrichment plants, where the danger of a nuclear breakout is greater than ever. Meanwhile, both Israeli and US military capabilities have never been stronger, resulting in a very high probability of successful kinetic action against Iran’s nuclear program.
These circumstances will not last forever. Russia may help the Islamic Republic defend itself by supplying it with the more formidable S-400 air defense system. Tehran could lure Washington into an endless series of negotiations which it would take advantage of to inch ever closer to breaking out – or else negotiate an agreement only marginally less favorable to the regime than was the JCPOA.
Should the latter happen, the West will once again just have just kicked the Iranian nuclear can down the road, in the forlorn hope that it explodes on somebody else’s watch.
The writer is a 30-year veteran of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), where he specialized in the Middle East, from which he retired in 2012 as a member of the Senior Analytical Service. From 2012 until his departure in 2024, he was the senior in-house Middle East expert for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
The views expressed here are exclusively his own and do not represent those of the CIA or AIPAC and was first published on Jerusalem Post.
By Abiodun KOMOLAFE
The concepts of power, privilege and governance are complex and multifaceted. Power refers to the ability to influence others, while privilege denotes unearned advantages.
Governance encompasses institutions, structures and processes that regulate these dynamics. Together, these concepts raise fundamental questions about justice, equality and resource distribution.
It emphasizes the importance of considering marginalized groups’ experiences and perspectives. The main problem in Nigeria today is its political economy, which is rooted in rent-seeking and fosters a mindset that prioritizes patronage over production.
The country’s politics are characterized by a patron-client relationship, where everything revolves around government handouts rather than effective governance. This has led to a situation where “politics” in Nigeria is essentially a scramble for resources in a country with severely limited opportunities for self-improvement.
When French agronomist René Dumont wrote ‘False Starts in Africa’ in 1962, he inadvertently described Nigeria’s current state in 2025. Nigeria’s missteps have magnified themselves in the theatre of the absurd, such as the construction of a new vice presidential residence and Governor Chukwuemeka Soludo’s boasts about the lavish official residence for the governor of Anambra State, currently under construction.
It is to be noted in contradistinction that the newly sworn-in Prime Minister of Canada, Mark Carney, is looking for somewhere to live. The official residence of the prime minister, 24 Sussex Drive, the Canadian equivalent of 10 Downing Street, is in disrepair and uninhabitable. No Canadian government can dare ask the parliament to appropriate the $40m needed to refurbish the residence.
Canada’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) exceeds $2 trillion, while Nigeria’s GDP is less than $400 billion. Still, Nigeria claims to be a giant! With an electricity generation capacity of less than 6,000 megawatts, Nigeria’s proclamation seems absurd, especially when compared to cities like Johannesburg, Singapore, Hong Kong and Mumbai. Even Lagos State alone should be generating, transmitting and distributing at least 15,000 megawatts, which would be a basic expectation rather than an achievement.
Nigeria today needs a comprehensive overhaul of its governance crisis to build a new political economy and social services that are fit for purpose. Although the government is on the right path in some ways, a root-and-branch transformation is still necessary.
A notable breakthrough is the decision to recapitalize development finance institutions, such as the Bank of Industry and, crucially, the Bank of Agriculture. This move is significant in a rent-seeking state, as it addresses the need for long-term capital – a prerequisite for achieving meaningful progress.
The development finance institutions require annual recapitalization of at least N500 billion, ideally N1 trillion. Achieving this necessitates a thorough cost evaluation of the government’s machinery, starting with the full implementation of the Oronsaye Committee’s recommendations.
The resulting cost savings can then be redirected to development finance institutions and essential social services like primary healthcare. Furthermore, the government should be bolder, if it can afford to be so, especially since there’s no discernible opposition on offer At the moment, the Nigerian political establishment across the board appears to be enamored by the position put forward by the leader of the Russian revolution, Vladimir Lenin, after the failed putsch. Lenin wrote the classic, ‘What is to be done?’
His observation is that revolutions do not take place at times of grinding poverty. They do so during periods of relatively rising prosperity. Significant sections of the Nigerian establishment believe that relatively rising prosperity could trigger off social discontent.
In their own interest, they had better be right. The caveat is that Lenin wrote ‘What’s to be Done’ in 1905. The world has moved on and changed since the conditions that led to the failure of the attempted takeover of government in Russia in 1905. Therefore, the Nigerian political establishment, for reasons of self-preservation, had better put on its thinking cap. Addressing power and privilege in governance requires collective action, institutional reforms and a commitment to promoting social justice. Nigeria currently lacks a leadership recruitment process, which can only be established if political parties are willing to develop a cadre. Unfortunately, the country is dealing with Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) instead. It’s rare to find leadership in Nigeria operating political boot camps to recruit and groom youths for future leadership roles.
This might be why many young people have a misguided understanding of politics, viewing it as merely a means of sharing the nation’s commonwealth. Mhairi Black was elected to the British House of Commons at 20 years old.
However, the key point is that Black had started becoming involved in politics at a young age. By the time she was elected, she had already gained significant experience, effectively becoming a veteran in the field. In Nigeria, politics is often seen as one of the few avenues for self-fulfillment. However, the economy is stagnant, with few jobs created in the public sector and limited investment opportunities.
This is a far cry from the 1950s and 1960s, when political parties were more substantial. Today, it’s worth asking how many Nigerian political parties have functional Research Departments. Besides, what socialization into any philosophy or ideology do our politicians have? Similarly to former Governor Rotimi Amaechi, many of those who currently hold power are motivated to stay in politics due to concerns about economic stability.
Of course, that’s why the Lagos State House of Assembly has had to revert itself. It is the same challenge that has reduced the traditional institution to victims of Nigeria’s ever-changing political temperature. It is the reason an Ogbomoso indigene is not interested in what happened between Obafemi Awolowo and Ladoke Akintola.
It is also the reason an Ijebuman sees an Ogbomoso man as his enemy without bothering to dig up the bitter politics that ultimately succeeded in putting the two families on the path of permanent acrimony. Of course, that’s why we have crises all over the place! May the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, grant us peace in Nigeria!
KOMOLAFE wrote from Ijebu-Jesa, Osun State, Nigeria (ijebujesa@yahoo.co.uk; 08033614419)
Byabiodun KOMOLAFE
Rivers State is now under emergency rule, and it’s likely to remain so for the next six months, unless a drastic change occurs.
If not managed carefully, this could mark the beginning of a prolonged crisis.
In situations like this, opinions tend to be divergent. For instance, some people hold the notion that the security situation and the need to protect the law and public order justified President Bola Tinubu’s proclamation of a state of emergency in, and the appointment of a sole administrator for Rivers State.
However, others view this act as ‘unconstitutional’, ‘reckless’, ‘an affront on democracy’, and ‘a political tool to intimidate the opposition’. When we criticize governments for unmet expectations, we often rely on our own perspectives and biases.
Our individual identities and prejudices shape our criticism. However, it’s essential to recognize that not all criticism is equal. Protesting within the law is fundamentally different from protests that descend into illegality. Once illegality creeps in, the legitimacy of the protest is lost.
As John Donne wrote in ‘Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions’, “Never send to know for whom the bell tolls.” A protest is legitimate when it aligns with societal norms, values and laws. But when protests are marred by violence or sabotage, they lose credibility. Without credibility, protests become ineffective.
Regarding the validity or otherwise of the emergency rule in Rivers State, it is imperative that the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governors approach the Supreme Court immediately. They should seek a definitive clarification on whether the proclamation is ultra vires or constitutional.
For whatever it’s worth, they owe Nigerians that responsibility!May the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, grant us peace in Nigeria!
Abiodun KOMOLAFE,ijebujesa@yahoo.co.uk; 08033614419 – SMS only.
Abba Dukawa
The political crisis began in December 2023, when Governor Fubara ordered the demolition of the state House of Assembly complex, which remains unrebuilt to this day. This act has effectively paralyzed the legislative arm, disrupting the state’s system of checks and balances.
The Supreme Court highlighted the severity of this situation on February 28, 2025, emphasizing the absence of a functional government in Rivers State and the executive’s role in collapsing the legislative arm, thereby creating a governance void
Additionally, recent reports indicate that militants have been vandalizing pipelines and issuing threats without any intervention from the state government, raising concerns about the state’s security and economic stability.Given Rivers State’s crucial role in the country’s economy, this situation necessitates urgent and cautious intervention from the federal government.Despite interventions from various stakeholders, including Tinubu himself, the crisis has persisted
.It’s worth noting that Tinubu is the third president to invoke Section 305 of the Constitution, after Ex-President Olusegun Obasanjo and Former President Goodluck Jonathan.
President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State has sparked intense debate about its necessity and potential motivations. During his nationwide speech, Tinubu warned that this decision could set off a chain of unpredictable events, potentially leading to radical ideologies and extremist tendencies.
Critics argue that Tinubu’s decision was unnecessary and politically motivated, particularly given his connection to Minister of the Federal Capital Territory Nyesom Wike, who is accused of being the “arrowhead” of the crisis. Some believe that Tinubu’s administration aims to remove Governor Fubara, perceived as hostile to the 2027 Tinubu/Wike project.Ultimately, the motivations behind Tinubu’s decision remain unclear, and its implications for Rivers State and Nigeria as a whole are yet to be fully seen.
Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has strongly opposed President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State and his suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, and members of the Rivers State President Tinubu, in his national address, cited rising political tensions and recent acts of pipeline vandalism as justification for the emergency declaration.House of Assembly. President Tinubu, in his national address, cited rising political tensions and recent acts of pipeline vandalism as justification for the emergency declaration.
The NBA pointed to Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution, which governs the procedure for declaring a state of emergency. While this section grants the President emergency powers, it does not allow for the removal or suspension of elected officials. The NBA stressed that the only constitutional method for removing a governor or deputy governor is through impeachment as outlined in Section 188.
Furthermore, the removal of lawmakers must adhere to electoral laws and constitutional provisions insisted that a state of emergency does not equate to an automatic dissolution of an elected government, and any attempt to do so is an overreach of executive power.
Also Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has strongly condemned President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State, calling it an “assault on democracy” that must be denounced in the strongest possible terms . Wazirin Adamawa argues that Tinubu’s administration is responsible for the chaos in Rivers State, either by enabling it or failing to prevent it. He emphasizes that the President should bear full responsibility for any compromise of federal infrastructure in the state, rather than punishing the people of Rivers State with a state of emergency.
Abubakar also accuses president Tinubu of being a partisan actor in the political turmoil in Rivers, and his refusal to prevent the escalation is seen as “disgraceful to the people of Rivers” The former Vice President believes that the destruction of national infrastructure in Rivers State is a direct result of the President’s failure to act, and punishing the people of Rivers State would be undemocratic.
In his statement, former vice president asserts that the declaration of a state of emergency “reeks of political manipulation and outright bad faith. He urges that the people of Rivers State should not be punished for the political gamesmanship between the governor and Tinubu’s enablers in the federal government. Other analyst believes that the situation in Rivers State, though politically tense, does not meet the constitutional threshold for the removal of elected officials.
For a state of emergency to be declared, Section 305(3) of the Constitution outlines specific conditions, including:
1. War or external aggression against Nigeria. Imminent danger of invasion or war. A breakdown of public order and safety to such an extent that ordinary legal measures are insufficient.
Other reasons for such decisions to be enforced are clear danger to Nigeria’s existence and Occurrence of any disaster or natural calamity affecting a state or a part of it. Where public danger constitutes a threat to the Federation.
Since the state of the emergency in Rivers state has been promulgation, political watchers questions whether the political crisis in Rivers State has reached the level of a complete breakdown of law that has warranting the removal of the Governor and his administration. Political disagreements, legislative conflicts, or executive-legislative tensions do not constitute a justification for emergency rule.
Had been the president remain filmed Such conflicts should have been resolved through legal and constitutional mechanisms, including the judiciary, rather than executive fiat.
A state of emergency is an extraordinary measure that must be invoked strictly within constitutional limits. The removal of elected officials under the pretext of emergency rule is unconstitutional and unacceptable.Tinubu’s administration decision to declare a state of emergency has been met with mixed reactions. Some argue that it was necessary to restore sanity to the state and ensure the country’s stability. Others,, believe that it was an unnecessary decision that could have dire economic and security implications for the state and Nigeria at large.
Was declaration for Rivers state is necessary or political motivation? President Bola Amed Tinubu is fully aware that the declaration of State of Emergency in a prevalent democratic system is not the solution to the self-inflicted crisis bedeviling the State.
What Tinubu needed most was to call Wike, his Minister of FCT, to order. The former governor Wike is the arrowhead of the crisis bedeviling the State.
Now what the president Tinubu decision for the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State was an unnecessary decision” that could have dire economic and security implications for the state and Nigeria at large.
Other views whether president decisions of keeping his ally, Minister of the Federal Capital Territory Nyesom Wike, is worth jeopardizing Nigeria’s economy.The keen watcher of events regarded the decision as a display of unpardonable mediocrity and diabolic partisanship geared towards 2027.
Tinubu administration wants to use the excuse of the political instability and other security challenges in Rivers to remove Governor FUBURA from the POWER considered hostile to the minister of the Federal Capital Territory or TInubu/Wiki diabolic partisanship geared towards 2027 election.
During his speeches Mr. President, blaming only the state governor and House of Assembly for the crisis in Rivers State is like expecting one iron to make a loud sound – it’s unrealistic and ignores the roles of others, including the former governor and a cabinet member in your administration.
Let us not forget; The situation in Rivers state is indeed complex, with President Tinubu’s intervention aiming to restore order, but also raising important questions about the balance between federal intervention and state autonomy. Invoking a state of emergency to suspend elected officials is a drastic measure that may set a worrying precedent, especially if not handled carefully.
The appointment of a retired military officer as the state’s administrator also raises concerns about the militarization of a democratic government. This move may be perceived as an attempt to exert federal control over the state, rather than allowing democratic processes to unfold, the initial six-month period of emergency rule, with provisions for extension, could lead to prolonged federal control. This is why it’s essential to establish clear timelines and measurable objectives to ensure a timely return to democratic governance.
Some of the key concerns that need to be addressed include: The potential for abuse of power*: The suspension of elected officials and the appointment of a military administrator could be seen as an attempt to consolidate federal power.
– *The impact on democratic institutions*: The emergency rule could undermine the democratic institutions in Rivers state and set a precedent for future interventions.
– *The need for transparency and accountability*: The federal government must ensure that the emergency rule is transparent, accountable, and subject to regular review. Ultimately, finding a balance between restoring order and respecting democratic institutions is crucial. The federal government must tread carefully to avoid exacerbating the situation and ensure a peaceful resolution.
Dukawa public affairs commentator and can be reached at abbahydukawa@gmail.com
Kano residents benefit from Fidelity Food Bank initiative
Lado commends President Tinubu for assenting to South-South, South West Commission bills
BREAKING: Key contact details missing in petition to recall Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan – INEC
-
News1 week agoBill to establish National Cashew Production and Research Institute in Kogi passes first reading in Senate
-
News1 week agoReport of attack on Wike’s Port Harcourt residence false, misleading – Police
-
News1 week agoShehu Sani debunks Governor Uba Sani’s alleged diversion of LG funds, challenges El-Rufai to publicly tender evidence
-
News1 week agoPlateau gov’t expresses concern over violence in Shendam LGA, calls for calm
-
Sports1 week agoMerino gives Arsenal win over Chelsea
-
Politics6 days agoOpposition leaders announce coalition to challenge Tinubu in 2027
-
Interview1 week agoSenators Natasha-Akpabio saga should have been resolved privately – Rev. Mrs Emeribe
-
News1 week agoNatasha uncovers arrest plot after reported Akpabio to IPU in New York