Eleven governors elected on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) have filed a suit at the Supreme Court challenging President Bola Tinubu’s powers to impose emergency rule in Rivers State and suspend its democratically elected officials....READ ORIGINAL & FULL CONTENT FROM SOURCE | READ ORIGINAL & FULL CONTENT FROM SOURCE...
The suit, filed on Tuesday, specifically questions the legality of the President’s proclamation of a state of emergency in the oil-rich state, his suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara and other elected officials, and the appointment of a sole administrator to oversee the state’s affairs.
The Director of Information and Public Relations of the Supreme Court, Dr. Festus Akande disclosed the filing of the suit.
President Tinubu had on March 18 announced a six-month state of emergency in Rivers State, suspending Governor Fubara, Deputy Governor Mrs. Ngozi Odu, and all members of the state House of Assembly. Vice Admiral Ibok Ete Ibas (retd.) was subsequently appointed as the sole administrator to manage the state during the suspension period.
The National Assembly later backed the President’s decision, a move that drew swift condemnation from PDP governors and various leaders across the country who described the action as unconstitutional and a dangerous precedent.
Reacting formally, the 11 PDP governors representing Adamawa, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Bauchi, Akwa Ibom, Plateau, Delta, Taraba, Zamfara, and Bayelsa States are now seeking judicial interpretation on whether the President possesses the authority to suspend elected state structures and impose unelected leadership.
The suit, marked SC/CV/329/2025, is anchored on eight legal grounds and was filed through the respective Attorneys General of the plaintiff states.
Among the key questions raised by the governors is, “Whether upon a proper construction and interpretation of the provisions of Sections 1(2), 5(2), 176, 180, 188 and 305 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria can lawfully suspend or in any manner whatsoever interfere with the offices of a Governor and the Deputy Governor of any of the component 36 States of the Federation of Nigeria and replace same with his own unelected nominee as a Sole Administrator, under the guise of, or pursuant to, a Proclamation of a State of Emergency in any of the State of the Federation, particularly in any of the Plaintiffs States?”
They further asked the apex court to determine, “Whether upon a proper construction and interpretation of the provisions of Sections 1(2), 4(6), 11(4) & (5), 90, 105 and 305 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria can lawfully suspend the House of Assembly of any of the component 36 States of the Federation of Nigeria, under the guise of, or pursuant to, a Proclamation of a State of Emergency in any of such States, particularly in any of the Plaintiffs States?”
In addition, the plaintiffs asked the court to rule on whether the President’s threats to suspend governors and their deputies under the emergency rule doctrine do not violate the country’s constitutional structure.
“Whether the consequent threat by the first Defendant acting on behalf of the President to the States of the Federation, including the Plaintiffs’ States, to the effect that the offices of the Governor and Deputy Governor of the States can be suspended by the President by virtue of a Proclamation of a State of Emergency, is not in contravention of the provisions of Sections 1(2), 4(6), 5(2), 11(2) and (3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and inconsistent with the principles of constitutional federalism?”
According to court procedures, the defendants are required to enter an appearance within 14 days of being served the summons.