•Tinubu
A total of 11 governors of the Peoples Democratic Party have approached the Supreme Court challenging what powers President Bola Tinubu has to suspend a democratically elected structure of a state.
The suit filed by the governors also challenges the declaration of a state of emergency rule in Rivers State.
While the media previously reported that the suit had been filed before the Supreme Court, the governors suit was actually only filed before the apex court yesterday, reports The PUNCH.
This was exclusively confirmed to our correspondent by the Director of Information and Public Relations of the Supreme Court, Dr Festus Akande.
President Bola Tinubu had on March 18 declared a state of emergency in Rivers State and suspended Governor Siminalayi Fubara, the state deputy governor, Mrs Ngozi Odu, and all elected members of the Rivers State House of Assembly for an initial period of six months.
Following the suspension, President Tinubu appointed Vice Admiral Ibok Ete Ibas (retd.) as the sole administrator to oversee the affairs of Rivers State pending the period of the suspension.
Meanwhile, the legislature at the National Assembly, on their part supported the President’s decision to implement the suspension.
Aggrieved by the suspension meted out to one of its fellow party governors, 11 PDP state governors approached the Supreme Court to challenge the suspension, the declaration of emergency rule in Rivers state and the appointment of the sole administrator before the apex court in the country.
The governors, in the suit marked: SC/CV/329/2025, predicated the summon on eight grounds.
The plaintiffs in the suit are – Adamawa, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Bauchi, Akwa Ibom, Plateau, Delta, Taraba, Zamfara, and Bayelsa states.
The plaintiffs urged the Supreme Court to determine if the president had the powers to suspend a democratically elected structure of a state.
They also asked the apex court to determine if the way and manner the President pronounced the state of emergency declaration in Rivers State was not in contravention of the 1999 Constitution.
Amongst others, all 11 governors in the suit, filed through their state Attorney Generals, prayed the court to determine the following, “Whether upon a proper construction and interpretation of the provisions of Sections 1(2), 5(2), 176, 180, 188 and 305 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria can lawfully suspend or in any manner whatsoever interfere with the offices of a Governor and the Deputy Governor of any of the component 36 States of the Federation of Nigeria and replace same with his own unelected nominee as a Sole Administrator, under the guise of, or pursuant to, a Proclamation of a State of Emergency in any of the State of the Federation, particularly in any of the Plaintiffs States?
“Whether upon a proper construction and interpretation of the provisions of Sections 1(2), 4(6), 11(4) & (5), 90, 105 and 305 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria can lawfully suspend the House of Assembly of any of the component 36 States of the Federation of Nigeria, under the guise of, or pursuant to, a Proclamation of a State of Emergency in any of such States, particularly in any of the Plaintiffs States?
“Whether the consequent threat by the first Defendant acting on behalf of the President to the States of the Federation, including the Plaintiffs’ States, to the effect that the offices of the Governor and Deputy Governor of the States can be suspended by the President by virtue of a Proclamation of a State of Emergency, is not in contravention of the provisions of Sections 1(2), 4(6), 5(2), 11(2) and (3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and inconsistent with the principles of constitutional federalism?
Meanwhile, the respondents in the suit are to within 14 days after the service of the summons on them, inclusive of the day of such service, cause an appearance to be entered for them.
The suit filed by the opposition governors ends weeks of speculation of what action they would take following reports that they had earlier approached the apex court to challenge the President’s action.
Before yesterday, seven PDP governors, specifically from Bauchi, Adamawa, Bayelsa, Enugu, Osun, Plateau and Zamfara states reportedly decided to challenge the President’s action by filing a suit before the Supreme Court.
However, multiple Supreme Court and Ministry of Justice sources told our correspondent that they were yet to be served with the court papers, following findings by our correspondent.
When our correspondent asked a state counsel at the Ministry of Justice, Abuja last month if the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), had been served with the PDP Governors suit challenging Fubara’s suspension, he replied, “We haven’t seen it.”
Our correspondent on March 31, a week after the suit was reportedly filed at the Supreme Court, was also told by another state counsel in the Federal Ministry of Justice that the suit had yet to be served on the federal government.
The official, who works with the Attorney General of the Federation, spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorised to speak to the media.
He said, “Here at the Ministry of Justice, we have yet to be served with the governors’ suit that they said they filed before the Supreme Court to challenge Fubara’s suspension. Immediately after we heard about the suit, we prepared our response.
“We have our response ready because for three days we started reading books to prepare but we have yet to be served. We are still waiting.”
Last month, while speaking on the Rivers State situation, Bayelsa State Governor, Duoye Diri, who is the Chairman of the South-South Governors’ Forum, was also silent on the filing of a suit.
Rather, he harped on the call for the federal government to urgently reverse the Rivers emergency rule, reinstate Governor Fubara and set up a panel to reconcile Fubara and the state lawmakers.
