The Supreme Court, on Monday, struck out a suit that 11 states of the federation filed to challenge what they termed President Bola Tinubu’s unconstitutional actions in Rivers State.
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/idrinstitute.png")
The states, which were controlled by the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) through their respective attorneys-general, queried President Tinubu’s statutory powers to suspend a serving governor from office after the proclamation of emergency rule.
They prayed the apex court to declare that based on the provisions of Sections 1(2), 5(2), and 305 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, the president “has no powers whatsoever or vires to suspend a democratically elected governor and deputy governor of a state in the federation of Nigeria under the guise of or pursuant to the proclamation of a state of emergency in the state of the federation by the president, including the states of the federation represented by the plaintiffs.”
The plaintiffs equally prayed the court to declare that President Tinubu had no power to suspend a democratically elected House of Assembly of a state pursuant to Sections 192(4), (6) and 305 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
As well as to declare that the suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy and members of the Rivers State Assembly was unconstitutional, unlawful, illegal and utterly in gross violation of the provisions of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.
Cited as 1st and 2nd defendants in the suit marked SC/CV/329/2025 were the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and the National Assembly (NASS).
In its judgment on Monday, a seven-man panel of Justices of the Supreme Court, in a split decision of six to one, struck out the case for want of competence.
The apex court panel, in its majority verdict, held that the plaintiffs failed to establish any cause of action that led to the activation of its original jurisdiction.
Justice Mohammed Idris, who delivered the lead judgment, added that the states were unable to show that there was any actionable dispute between them and the federation to require the apex court to exercise its original jurisdiction.
While deciding the case on Monday, the Supreme Court, in its majority judgement that was delivered by Justice Mohammed Idris, held that Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, imbued the president with the power to deploy extraordinary measures with a view to restoring normalcy where emergency rule was declared.
It held that the said Section 305 was not specific on the nature of the extraordinary measures, thus granting the President the discretion on how to proceed with any situation at hand.
Besides, the panel upheld preliminary objections the two defendants filed to challenge the competence of the suit.
The apex court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish any cause of action that led to the activation of its original jurisdiction.
It maintained that the states failed to show that there was any actionable dispute between them and the federation to require the exercise of original jurisdiction by the Supreme Court.
More so, the panel stressed that the Supreme Court could only be called upon to adjudicate as a court of first instance where there is a dispute between the federation and any state or states.
It held that the subject matter of the litigation did not qualify as a dispute between the federal government and any of the plaintiffs on record.
Consequently, it also dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction.
DISSENTING JUDGMENT
However, a member of the panel, Justice Obande Ogbuinya, gave a dissenting verdict.
Justice Ogbuinya held that upon his careful examination of the case of the plaintiffs, he was satisfied that it succeeded in part.
He held that though the president had the power to declare a state of emergency, however, he could not use such power as a tool to suspend elected officials of the state, including governors, deputy governors and members of the parliament.
Other members of the panel that distanced themselves from the minority judgement were Justices Inyang Okoro, Chioma Nwosu-Iheme, Haruna Tsammani, Stephen Adah and Habeeb Abiru.
It will be recalled that President Tinubu had on March 18 declared a state of emergency in Rivers State after he slammed Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, and lawmakers in the state with a six-month suspension.
President Tinubu appointed Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas to pilot the affairs of the state within the period as a Sole Administrator.
The president’s decisions received legislative backing from both the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Before the case was slated for judgment, Delta State, which was initially listed as the 5th plaintiff, formally withdrew from the matter.
The withdrawal followed the defection of Governor Sheriff Oborevwori of Delta State from the PDP to the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC).
Aside from Delta, other states behind the suit were Adamawa, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Bauchi, Akwa Ibom, Plateau, Taraba, Zamfara, and Bayelsa.
Governors of some of the states that filed the suit had, since then, equally dumped the PDP.
Arguing the case, Mr. Eyitayo Jegede, SAN, who represented the plaintiffs, said his clients did not approach the Supreme Court to challenge the power of the president to proclaim a state of emergency, but “the extent to which the proclamation can be made to affect the offices of the governor, deputy governor, and the State House of Assembly.”
On his part, the AGF insisted that President Tinubu’s action was in the overall interest of Rivers State.
According to him, the state was engulfed in a political crisis that involved the governor, deputy governor and the lawmakers.
“No responsible government would sit back and allow the state to burn without taking any action,” Fagbemi, SAN, submitted, adding that Fubara’s suspension, along with his deputy and lawmakers, “was an extraordinary measure to check an extraordinary situation.”
The AGF said, “My lords, the president had to act and act fast to safeguard the state. The starting point is the judgment of the Supreme Court, wherein your lordships held that as things were at that time, there was no government and governance in Rivers State.
“Therefore, the president had no choice but to act in the best interest of the state. What he did was to suspend the protagonists, not remove them. Rivers was in an extraordinary situation, and that required taking extraordinary measures to restore peace and protect democracy,” the AGF contended.
His position was adopted by the NASS, which also urged the court to dismiss the suit.
The NASS contended that the plaintiffs failed to fulfil the condition precedent that would empower the Supreme Court to hear the suit it described as frivolous and speculative.
It was part of the contention of the 2nd defendant that the plaintiffs failed to issue the statutorily required three-month pre-action notice to its clerk, as mandated under Section 21 of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act, 2017.
While praying the apex court to dismiss the suit as “unfounded, frivolous and a vexatious waste of resources, time and energy of the 2nd defendant,” the NASS prayed for a cost of ₦1 billion to be awarded, jointly and severally, against the plaintiffs.
Dissatisfied with the development that led to the emergency rule, the PDP states had lodged the case that was struck out on Monday.
A timely new publication, Casebook on Privacy & Data Protection in Nigeria, co-authored by Olumide Babalola and Uchenna Nnawuchi,📘Casebook on Privacy & Data Protection in Nigeria is now available on Amazon:https://a.co/d/8TmFZrd
______________________________________________________________________
[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
How to Order:
📞 Call, Text, or WhatsApp: 08034917063 | 07055285878
📧 Email: benadigwe1@gmail.com
🌎 Website: www.benadigwe.com
Ebook Version: Access it directly online at https://selar.com/prv626
_____________________________________________________________________
