The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a suit filed by 11 states challenging President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s decision to suspend the Rivers State governor and declare emergency rule in the state, ruling that the case was incompetent.
The states, all governed by the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) at the time the suit was instituted, had approached the apex court through their attorneys-general to contest what they described as unconstitutional actions by the president in Rivers State. Specifically, they questioned the legal authority of President Tinubu to suspend a sitting governor, deputy governor, and members of a state House of Assembly following the declaration of a state of emergency.
In their reliefs, the plaintiffs urged the Supreme Court to interpret Sections 1(2), 5(2), and 305 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and declare that the president lacks the powers or legal competence to suspend democratically elected state officials under the guise of emergency rule. They also asked the court to rule that the suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, and the Rivers State House of Assembly was unconstitutional, unlawful, and a gross violation of the Constitution.
The Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and the National Assembly were named as the first and second defendants in the suit, marked SC/CV/329/2025.
In a split decision of six to one, a seven-member panel of the Supreme Court struck out the suit for lacking competence. Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Mohammed Idris held that the plaintiffs failed to establish any valid cause of action capable of invoking the court’s original jurisdiction. He explained that the Supreme Court can only exercise original jurisdiction where there is a clear dispute between the federation and one or more states, adding that the matter before the court did not meet that constitutional threshold.
According to the court, the issues raised did not amount to a justiciable dispute between the federal government and the plaintiff states, and therefore could not be entertained at first instance by the apex court.
The panel, presided over by Justice Inyang Okoro, had earlier reserved judgment on October 21 after all parties adopted their written arguments. Before judgment was delivered, Delta State withdrew from the suit following the defection of its governor, Sheriff Oborevwori, from the PDP to the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC). Other states involved in the case included Adamawa, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Bauchi, Akwa Ibom, Plateau, Taraba, Zamfara, and Bayelsa, although some of their governors have since also left the PDP.
Arguing for the plaintiffs, Eyitayo Jegede, SAN, maintained that the suit was not challenging the president’s power to declare a state of emergency, but rather the extent to which such a declaration could lawfully affect the offices of a governor, deputy governor, and state lawmakers.
On the other hand, the AGF argued that President Tinubu’s actions were taken in the overriding interest of Rivers State, which he said was engulfed in a deep political crisis. He contended that the suspension of the governor, his deputy, and lawmakers was an extraordinary but necessary response to an extraordinary situation, stressing that they were suspended, not removed from office.
The National Assembly aligned itself with the AGF’s position and urged the court to dismiss the suit, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to meet statutory conditions, including issuing a mandatory pre-action notice. It also described the case as frivolous and sought N1 billion in costs against the plaintiff states.
The dispute arose after President Tinubu, on March 18, declared a six-month state of emergency in Rivers State, suspended the elected officials, and appointed Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas as Sole Administrator, a move later endorsed by both chambers of the National Assembly. Dissatisfied with the development, the PDP-controlled states approached the Supreme Court, leading to the case that was ultimately struck out.