The Supreme Court has reserved judgment in the high-profile suit challenging the legality of President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State and the controversial suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara and other elected officials.
A seven-member panel of the apex court, headed by Justice Inyang Okoro, reached the decision after hearing submissions from all parties involved during proceedings held on Tuesday.
The suit, registered as SC/CV/329/2025, was initiated by 11 governors elected under the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). The plaintiffs include governors from Adamawa, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Bauchi, Akwa Ibom, Plateau, Taraba, Zamfara, and Bayelsa states. Delta State, initially among the plaintiffs, formally withdrew from the suit during the hearing, a move that was unopposed by the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Lateef Fagbemi.
The legal action targets both the Federal Government and the National Assembly over the events of March 18, when President Tinubu declared a state of emergency in Rivers State. He cited escalating political tensions and the vandalisation of critical oil infrastructure as reasons for the drastic move.
As part of the emergency rule, Tinubu suspended Governor Fubara, Deputy Governor Ngozi Odu, and the entire state House of Assembly for six months. In their place, the president appointed retired Vice-Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas as the sole administrator of the state, a decision that has drawn widespread scrutiny and legal challenge.
The PDP governors argue that the president’s actions breach the 1999 Constitution, especially concerning the roles and autonomy of elected state officials. According to the plaintiffs’ counsel, Eyitayo Jegede, the case does not contest the president’s authority to declare a state of emergency. Instead, it questions whether such a declaration can lawfully extend to suspending elected officials and appointing a sole administrator in their stead.
Jegede submitted that the constitution provides specific guidelines on how governors and assembly members can be removed, and none of those procedures were followed in Rivers State.
On the other side, AGF Fagbemi defended the federal government’s action, asserting that the political crisis in Rivers had reached a dangerous level. He maintained that Fubara and others were not removed but temporarily suspended as a necessary step to restore stability.
“No responsible government would sit back and allow the state to burn without taking any action,” Fagbemi told the court. He further pointed to an earlier Supreme Court ruling that concluded governance had broken down in Rivers State, giving the president a constitutional obligation to act.
Counsel to the National Assembly, Charles Yohila, fully aligned with the federal government’s stance and urged the court to dismiss the suit in its entirety.
Following the conclusion of submissions from all sides, Justice Okoro announced that the Supreme Court would communicate the judgment date to all parties in due course.
The case remains one of the most consequential legal battles in recent Nigerian history, with implications for federalism, constitutional interpretation, and the limits of presidential powers during emergencies.
📌 Editor’s Note: For content partnerships and collaborations, reach out via editor@naija247news.com
Naija247news Media Group LLC is committed to ethical, independent journalism that serves the public interest. Our editorial process prioritizes accuracy, fairness, and transparency in reporting. All content is fact-checked and held to the highest standards of integrity. Learn more in our full editorial policy here.
© 2025 Naija247news Media Group LLC. All rights reserved. This material, and other digital content on this website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed in whole or in part without prior express written permission from Naija247news Media Group LLC.
Reporting by Agnes Ekebuike Editor, Naija247news in Lagos, Nigeria.
