Rivers emergency rule: FG taps ex-AGF, 11 SANs as Supreme Court battle looms
CHIGOZIE AMADI
The Federal Government has assembled 10 Senior Advocates of Nigeria, led by a former Attorney General of the Federation, Chief Akin Olujinmi (SAN) and six other lawyers to defend the emergency rule declaration in Rivers State in the suit filed by the 11 Peoples Democratic Party governors challenging the suspension of democratic rule in the oil-rich state.
The other Senior Advocates include Prof Kanyinsola Ajayi, Jelili Owonikoko, Kehinde Ogunwumiju, Tijani Gazali, Babatunde Obama , Olawale Fapohunda, Olumide Olujinmi, Akinyemi Olujinmi and Ademola Abimbola.
Other lawyers in the team are: Akinsola Olujinmi, Oluwole Ilori, Abdulwahab Abayomi, Mojeed Balogun, Jideuche Ezi and Ramat Tijani.
President Bola Tinubu declared a State of Emergency in Rivers State on March 18, 2025, 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.
Following the suspension, the President appointed Ibokette Ibas (retd.) as the sole administrator to oversee the state’s affairs for the duration of the suspension period.
The National Assembly subsequently ratified the President’s declaration through a voice vote.
Displeased, 11 PDP governors sued the AGF and the National Assembly as 1st and 2nd defendants, respectively, before the Supreme Court.
The plaintiffs are Adamawa, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Bauchi, Akwa Ibom, Plateau, Delta, Taraba, Zamfara, and Bayelsa States.
The governors through their various state Attorneys General in a suit marked SC/CV/329/2025, asked the Supreme Court to determine what authority the President has to suspend a democratically elected state institution and replace it with an unelected one.
They asked the apex court to determine six constitutional questions, including whether the President of Nigeria can lawfully suspend or interfere with the offices of a governor and deputy governor and replace them with an unelected appointee under the guise of a state of emergency proclamation.
They further requested the court to determine whether the Attorney-General’s threat, acting on behalf of the President, to suspend the offices of governors and deputy governors by virtue of such proclamations contravenes the provisions of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and principles of constitutional federalism.
The plaintiffs also questioned whether the National Assembly could approve a state of emergency proclamation, including suspension of state executives and legislatures, by a simple voice vote rather than the constitutionally required two-thirds majority of all members of each house.
In their reliefs, the plaintiffs sought declarations that: The President cannot lawfully suspend or interfere with the offices of governors and deputy governors or replace them with unelected nominees under a state of emergency.
They argued that the President cannot lawfully suspend a State House of Assembly under such circumstances.
They further contended that the Attorney-General’s threats to suspend state officials are unconstitutional and violate the principles of federalism and that the National Assembly cannot approve such proclamations through voice votes without a two-thirds majority.
Additionally, they prayed for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with state offices through state of emergency proclamations.
The plaintiffs sought an order nullifying the state of emergency proclamation in Rivers State as published in Official Gazette No. 47 of 2025.
They also requested, “An order of perpetual Injunction restraining the defendants from suspending or approving the suspension or in any way interfering with the offices of the Governor, the Deputy Governor and /or the House of Assembly of any of the Plaintiffs States by way of a Proclamation of State of Emergency or in any manner whatsoever or by any method howsoever.”
In response to the governors’ suit, the Federal Government in a five ground preliminary objection and counter-affidavit dated May 9, 2025, filed on its behalf by Chief Olujinmi (SAN), and obtained by The PUNCH, urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the PDP governors’ suit challenging the declaration of emergency rule in Rivers State.
The Attorney General of the Federation in a notice of preliminary objection asked the apex court to dismiss their suit as it did not fit into the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under section 232(1) of the 1999 constitution.
The AGF further noted that the jurisdiction of the court is exercisable only in dispute between the Federation of Nigeria and a state in so far as the dispute involves any question on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends.
The AG, however, emphasised that “the plaintiffs have not disclosed any dispute let alone a justiciable dispute between the Federation and them.’’
The AGF also argued that the suit has not disclosed any cause of action., noting that that the plaintiffs have no locus standi to institute the suit.
He added that the suit is hypothetical, academic , speculative and an abuse of court process.
In a counter-affidavit deposed to by a Special Assistant to the President on Arbitration, Drafting and Regulations, Taiye Oloyede defended the emergency rule declaration stating that by virtue of his position to the president, he knows the facts and circumstances which culminated in the declaration of state of emergency in Rivers State.
Oloyede stated, “It is a matter of common knowledge that there was a very serious political crisis in Rivers State which had led to the governor of Rivers State and the House of Assembly not being able to work together.”
He added that the State House of Assembly was crisis-ridden such that members of the house were divided into two with four members working with the governor while 27 members were opposed to the governor while one was loyal to the speaker.
He said as a result of this, the governor was not able to present any Appropriation Bill to the house to enable the governor to access funds for the running of the affairs of Rivers State.
Oloyede added that due to the non-presentation of the Appropriation Bill to the Rivers State House of Assembly for passage, governance in the state became stalled.
He added that the crisis in the state escalated to the point that “the governor demolished the House of Assembly of the state depriving the 27 members opposed to him from having official accommodation where they could meet to carry out their duties as a House of Assembly.”
He further stated that the governor, however, allowed the four members he considered loyal to him to meet in his office.
“There was violence in the state with attacks on critical economic assets of the state, including vandalisation of oil pipelines with the governor not taking any steps to address the occurrences.
“Militants were openly threatening fire and brimstone against those they perceived as enemies of the governor with the governor not doing anything even as little as denouncing and disowning them,” he affirmed.
Oloyede explained that there were several suits filed by the governor and the 27 lawmakers opposed to him in several courts raising counter-accusations with each side struggling to outdo the other in the political logjam in the state.
He noted that after the suits eventually reached the Supreme Court, the court gave a composite judgment in the appeals, emphasising that a government cannot be said to exist without one of the three arms that make up the government of a state under the 1999 Constitution as amended.
The counter- affidavit further stated that President Tinubu intervened in the dispute in a bid to resolve issues amicably but the parties (Governor Fubara and members of the House) stuck to their individual positions to the detriment of peace and development in the state.
It pointed out that not even the Supreme Court judgment made any difference as the parties made no effort to resolve the crisis to allow governance to resume.
“Therefore, to avoid further deterioration, President Ahmed Bola Tinubu had to declare a state of emergency in Rivers State to stop the drift to greater violence, ” the counte- affidavit stated.
Further responding to the questions of the plaintiffs, Oloyede stated that he was reliably informed by the AGF Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), that “it is the President of the country that has power under the Constitution to declare a state of emergency in the federation or any part of it.
“That there was actual breakdown of public order and public safety in Rivers state before the President declared a state of emergency in Rivers State.
“That the situation in Rivers State required the President to take extraordinary measures to restore peace and security.
“That the suspension of the governor, deputy governor and members of the State Assembly which together were the protagonists of the political crisis that engulfed Rivers State is just one of the extraordinary measures that is required for the restoration of peace and security in Rivers State.”
In conclusion, the AGF urged the court to uphold his preliminary objection and dismiss the plaintiffs’ suit.
Meanwhile, there are expectations the Supreme Court may announce a date for the commencement of the hearing of the suit on Monday (today).
The PUNCH reported that the National Assembly already filed its response to the plaintiffs’ suit.
In a preliminary objection dated April 22, 2025, accompanied with a counter- affidavit, the second defendant urged the apex court to dismiss the suit for lack of locus standi.
It argued that the court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the suit and should award N1bn in costs against the plaintiffs for filing what it termed a “frivolous and speculative suit.”
The National Assembly argued that the PDP governors had not shown that they suffered anything far and above any other persons or people of Rivers State to warrant their institution of the suit.
It asserted that the plaintiffs have not established any legal rights to warrant the equitable reliefs sought such as a perpetual injunction.
The National Assembly contended that due process for instituting the action was not followed.
Specifically, it argued that the plaintiffs failed to issue the requisite three-month pre-action notice to the Clerk of the National Assembly as mandated by section 21 of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act, 2017.
Additionally, the NASS argued that the plaintiffs did not obtain the resolutions of the Houses of Assembly of their respective states authorising the suit, as required under the Supreme Court (Original Jurisdiction) Act, 2002.
