The Federal Government has assembled a team of 12 Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs), led by former Attorney General of the Federation, Chief Akin Olujinmi (SAN), to defend the declaration of emergency rule in Rivers State. The legal team was constituted in response to a suit filed by 11 governors elected under the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), challenging the suspension of democratic institutions in the oil-rich state.
The legal team also includes other prominent SANs: Prof. Kanyinsola Ajayi, Jelili Owonikoko, Kehinde Ogunwumiju, Tijani Gazali, Babatunde Obama, Olawale Fapohunda, Olumide Olujinmi, Akinyemi Olujinmi, and Ademola Abimbola. They are joined by six other lawyers: Akinsola Olujinmi, Oluwole Ilori, Abdulwahab Abayomi, Mojeed Balogun, Jideuche Ezi, and Ramat Tijani.
President Bola Tinubu had on March 18, 2025, declared a state of emergency in Rivers State, suspending Governor Siminalayi Fubara, Deputy Governor Ngozi Odu, and all elected members of the State House of Assembly for an initial period of six months. In their place, the President appointed retired naval officer Ibokette Ibas as sole administrator of the state.
The National Assembly ratified the emergency proclamation through a voice vote, a move that has sparked significant controversy.
PDP Governors Challenge Emergency Rule
Unhappy with the development, 11 PDP governors — from Adamawa, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Bauchi, Akwa Ibom, Plateau, Delta, Taraba, Zamfara, and Bayelsa — filed a suit before the Supreme Court. Through their respective Attorneys General in suit number SC/CV/329/2025, the governors are asking the court to determine the legality and constitutionality of the President’s actions.
The governors posed six constitutional questions to the apex court, including whether the President has the authority to suspend elected state officials and replace them with unelected appointees under the guise of a state of emergency. They also queried whether the National Assembly can ratify such a proclamation with a simple voice vote, instead of the constitutionally required two-thirds majority in each chamber.
The plaintiffs are seeking several reliefs, including declarations that the President cannot lawfully suspend or interfere with the offices of governors and state assemblies, and that the Attorney General’s threats to do so are unconstitutional. They also seek a perpetual injunction restraining the Federal Government from taking such actions in any state.
Additionally, the plaintiffs are asking the Supreme Court to nullify the proclamation of emergency rule in Rivers State as published in Official Gazette No. 47 of 2025.
Federal Government’s Defence and Preliminary Objection
In response, the Federal Government filed a preliminary objection and counter-affidavit dated May 9, 2025, urging the Supreme Court to dismiss the suit for lack of jurisdiction. The objection, filed on behalf of the government by Chief Akin Olujinmi (SAN), contends that the suit does not fall within the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction under Section 232(1) of the 1999 Constitution.
The Attorney General of the Federation argued that the suit does not disclose any justiciable dispute between the Federation and the plaintiff states and lacks a cause of action. He further asserted that the plaintiffs have no locus standi, and that the case is hypothetical, academic, speculative, and constitutes an abuse of court process.
A counter-affidavit deposed to by Taiye Oloyede, Special Assistant to the President on Arbitration, Drafting and Regulations, defended the emergency declaration. Oloyede stated that the President acted in response to a severe political crisis in Rivers State, which had paralyzed governance.
He cited the breakdown of relations between the Governor and the State Assembly, noting that the House was split — with four members loyal to the Governor and 27 opposing him. According to Oloyede, this division made it impossible to pass an appropriation bill, thereby stalling governance.
He further alleged that the Governor demolished the Assembly complex, depriving the 27 lawmakers of a venue to sit, while allowing the four loyalists to meet in his office. The situation, he said, degenerated into violence, including threats from militants and vandalism of critical infrastructure, with the Governor allegedly taking no action.
Oloyede added that several lawsuits between the Governor and lawmakers were filed in different courts and that, even after the Supreme Court delivered a composite judgment, the crisis remained unresolved.
He argued that the emergency rule was necessary to prevent further deterioration and that the suspension of elected officials was an extraordinary but justified measure to restore peace.
National Assembly Also Files Objection
The National Assembly, named as the second defendant in the suit, has also filed a preliminary objection dated April 22, 2025, urging the Supreme Court to dismiss the case for lack of locus standi. It asked the court to award N1 billion in costs against the plaintiffs for filing what it described as a “frivolous and speculative suit.”
It argued that the governors had not demonstrated any special injury that distinguishes them from other citizens of Rivers State, nor had they established a legal right warranting the equitable reliefs sought.
The National Assembly also contended that due process was not followed in filing the suit. Specifically, it pointed out that the plaintiffs failed to issue the mandatory three-month pre-action notice to the Clerk of the National Assembly as required under Section 21 of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act, 2017.
Furthermore, the plaintiffs allegedly failed to secure resolutions from their respective State Houses of Assembly authorizing the suit, in contravention of the Supreme Court (Original Jurisdiction) Act, 2002.
The Supreme Court may announce a date for the commencement of the hearing this week, as the matter continues to generate significant national attention.