Follow Us on Google
From Godwin Tsa, Abuja
The Supreme Court has reserved judgment in the suit by some state governors on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) challenging the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State by President Bola Tinubu.
After hearing spirited arguments from parties to the litigation, the Supreme Court reserved judgment to a date to be communicated to the parties.
In a move that underscored the seriousness with which the Federal Government views the case and its resolve to defend the President’s constitutional powers of proclamation, the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice (AGF), Prince Lateef Fagbemi, personally appeared in court to lead the government’s defence.
He was accompanied by a team of Senior Advocates, including former Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Chief Akinlolu Olujimi, Prof. Kanyinsola Ajayi, Abiodun Owonikoko and Kehinde Ogunwumiju.
The plaintiffs’ team was led by Eyitayo Jegede, alongside J. A. Mumuni and Musbau Adetumbi, while the National Assembly listed as the second defendant, was represented by Charles Yohila, who also prayed the court to dismiss the suit.
At the commencement of proceedings, the fifth plaintiff, Delta State, formally withdrew from the suit.
Responding, Fagbemi, referencing the words of M.C.K. Ajuluchukwu, said with characteristic wit: “They shall know the truth and the truth shall set them free. The truth has set them free. We have no objection, my Lords.”
The Supreme Court subsequently struck out Delta State’s name from the list of plaintiffs.
Arguing for the plaintiffs, Jegede clarified that their case was not a denial of the President’s power to proclaim a state of emergency but a challenge to the extent to which the proclamation can be made to affect the offices of the governor, deputy governor, and the State House of Assembly.
Adopting all the processes filed by the Federal Government, including the preliminary objection filed on May 9, the reply on points of law dated June 3, 2025 and the counter-affidavit and written address against the originating summons, Fagbemi urged the court to dismiss the suit in its entirety.
“The more I look at the plaintiffs’ action, the more I am convinced it is speculative and lacks merit,” he argued. According to him, Rivers State was engulfed in political crises involving the governor, deputy governor and lawmakers, and “no responsible government would sit back and allow itself to burn without taking any action.”
Fagbemi maintained that the President did not act out of discretion but discharged a constitutional obligation to safeguard democracy, life and property. He described the suspension of the governor, deputy governor and lawmakers as an extraordinary measure rather than a removal, taken in response to an extraordinary situation.
Other News
“The President, therefore, had to act and act fast to safeguard the state.
“My lords, the starting point is the Supreme Court’s judgement, 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 a duty 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,” he submitted.
The Attorney General further argued that those directly affected by the proclamation were not before the court, remarking that the plaintiffs were trying to be more Catholic than the Pope.
Counsel to the National Assembly, Charles Yohila, aligned himself with the Attorney General’s position and urged the court to dismiss the case.
In response, Jegede countered that while extraordinary circumstances might justify firm executive action, such measures must remain within constitutional bounds. “Extraordinary measures will not contain illegal and unconstitutional measures, sir,” he retorted.
The judgment, when delivered, will mark a defining moment in the interpretation of presidential powers under Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
The plaintiffs specifically challenged President Tinubu’s powers to suspend democratically elected state officials, including a serving governor and his deputy and replace them with unelected ones.
Cited as first and second defendants in the matter, were the Attorney-General of the Federation and the National Assembly, respectively.
Aside from Delta, other states behind the suit were Adamawa, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Bauchi, Akwa Ibom, Plateau, Taraba, Zamfara and Bayelsa.
The governors had, through their respective Attorneys-General, posed six questions for the Supreme Court to determine, among which is 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.
The plaintiffs urged the apex court to also 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, was in contravention of provisions of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, as well as principles of constitutional federalism.
They further prayed the court to determine 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 of the two chambers.
Upon determination of the questions, the PDP governors, among other reliefs, applied for an order nullifying the state of emergency proclamation in Rivers State as published in Official Gazette No. 47 of 2025.
