Rivers emergency rule: FG taps ex-AGF, 11 SANs as Supreme Court battle looms

To defend the emergency rule declaration in Rivers State in the lawsuit brought by the 11 governors of the Peoples Democratic Party contesting the suspension of democratic rule in the oil-rich state, the Federal Government has gathered 12 Senior Advocates of Nigeria, led by Chief Akin Olujinmi (SAN), a former Attorney General of the Federation, and six additional attorneys.

Prof. Kanyinsola Ajayi, Jelili Owonikoko, Kehinde Ogunwumiju, Tijani Gazali, Babatunde Obama, Olawale Fapohunda, Olumide Olujinmi, Akinyemi Olujinmi, and Ademola Abimbola are among the other Senior Advocates.

Akinsola Olujinmi, Oluwole Ilori, Abdulwahab Abayomi, Mojeed Balogun, Jideuche Ezi, and Ramat Tijani are among the other attorneys on the team.

On March 18, 2025, President Bola Tinubu proclaimed a State of Emergency in Rivers State, suspending all elected members of the State House of Assembly, Governor Siminalayi Fubara, and Deputy Governor Ngozi Odu for a six-month starting period.

Ibokette Ibas (retd.) was designated by the President as the only administrator to manage the state's activities during the suspension period.

The President's proclamation was then approved by the National Assembly by a voice vote.

Eleven PDP governors were upset and filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court against the AGF and the National Assembly as first and second defendants, respectively.
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), 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.