The Federal Government has assembled a high-profile legal team comprising 10 Senior Advocates of Nigeria, SANs, and six other lawyers to defend the declaration of emergency rule in Rivers State before the Supreme Court.
The legal team is led by a former Attorney General of the Federation, Chief Akin Olujinmi, and includes notable SANs such as Prof Kanyinsola Ajayi, Jelili Owonikoko, Kehinde Ogunwumiju, and Tijani Gazali.
Other SANs on the team are Babatunde Obama, Olawale Fapohunda, Olumide Olujinmi, Akinyemi Olujinmi, and Ademola Abimbola.
Additional members include Akinsola Olujinmi, Oluwole Ilori, Abdulwahab Abayomi, Mojeed Balogun, Jideuche Ezi, and Ramat Tijani.
Read also: Coalition Backs Call To Sack Rivers Sole Administrator Ibas
Lawyer Urges NBA To Return N300m To Rivers Govt
Rivers Administrator Confirms Release Of Withheld Allocations
The legal action follows President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of a six-month State of Emergency in Rivers State on 18 March 2025, suspending Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, and all members of the State House of Assembly.
Retired Vice Admiral Ibokette Ibas was appointed as the sole administrator to oversee state affairs during the suspension period.
The National Assembly ratified the emergency declaration through a voice vote, a move contested by 11 Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governors at the Supreme Court.
The governors, representing Adamawa, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Bauchi, Akwa Ibom, Plateau, Delta, Taraba, Zamfara, and Bayelsa states, are the plaintiffs in the suit.
Through their Attorneys General, the governors filed suit SC/CV/329/2025, challenging the legal authority of the President to suspend elected officials under the guise of an emergency.
The suit questions whether the President can suspend governors and their deputies or dissolve state assemblies without violating the 1999 Constitution.
The plaintiffs also queried whether the National Assembly could validate such a declaration using a voice vote instead of the constitutionally required two-thirds majority.
They requested a declaration that the emergency proclamation in Rivers State is unconstitutional and sought an injunction to prevent future similar actions.
Specifically, the plaintiffs prayed the court to nullify Official Gazette No. 47 of 2025, which documented the emergency declaration.
They further sought a perpetual injunction restraining the Federal Government from suspending elected state officials by proclamation or any other method.
In response, the Federal Government filed a preliminary objection dated May 9, 2025, asserting that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
The objection, filed by Chief Olujinmi, argues that the plaintiffs have no locus standi and have not demonstrated a legal dispute under section 232(1) of the Constitution.
The AGF contended that the suit is speculative, hypothetical, and constitutes an abuse of court process.
A counter-affidavit from Taiye Oloyede, a Special Assistant to the President, defended the declaration, citing a breakdown in governance due to political infighting.
Oloyede described a situation in which the State House of Assembly was fractured, rendering the governor unable to pass an appropriation bill.
He added that the governor demolished the assembly complex, preventing 27 opposing lawmakers from meeting while favouring four loyalists.
He also cited violence, attacks on economic infrastructure, and militant threats as evidence of deteriorating public order in the state.
Oloyede explained that both factions filed numerous suits, which eventually culminated in a Supreme Court decision that governance cannot exist without all three arms.
He said President Tinubu tried to mediate the conflict but was unsuccessful, prompting the emergency declaration to prevent further violence.
Oloyede stated, “The suspension of the governor, deputy governor, and House members was necessary to restore peace and security in Rivers State.”
The AGF informed the court that the President’s actions were within his constitutional powers to protect public safety.
The National Assembly also filed a preliminary objection on April 22, 2025, contesting the plaintiffs’ legal standing and the court’s jurisdiction.
The legislature argued the governors had not suffered any unique harm to justify the suit and failed to follow legal requirements for initiating it.
Specifically, the National Assembly cited the failure to issue a pre-action notice and obtain resolutions from their respective state legislatures.
The Supreme Court is expected to announce a date for the commencement of the hearing this week.
