Supreme Court Reserves Judgment in PDP States’ Suit Challenging Tinubu’s Suspension of Rivers Gov

The Supreme Court of Nigeria has reserved judgment in a case filed by 11 Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)-controlled states challenging what they described as President Bola Tinubu’s unconstitutional suspension of Rivers State Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, and members of the State House of Assembly.

The states, represented by their respective Attorneys-General, argued that the President lacks constitutional powers to suspend an elected governor or dissolve a state assembly under the pretext of a state of emergency.

In their suit, marked SC/CV/329/2025, the plaintiffs asked the apex court to declare that, under Sections 1(2), 5(2), and 305 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the President “has no powers whatsoever to suspend a democratically elected governor and deputy governor of a state under the guise of proclaiming a state of emergency.”

They further asked the court to pronounce the suspension of Governor Fubara, his deputy, and the Rivers Assembly as “unconstitutional, unlawful, and grossly violative” of Nigeria’s supreme law.

The Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and the National Assembly (NASS) were listed as first and second defendants.

During Tuesday’s hearing, AGF Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) personally appeared to represent the Federal Government — a move that underscored the sensitivity of the case — while Charles Yohila represented the National Assembly, and Eyitayo Jegede (SAN) led the legal team for the PDP states.

After both sides adopted their final briefs, a seven-member panel led by Justice Inyang Okoro reserved judgment, stating that a ruling date would be communicated later.

Before the adjournment, Delta State formally withdrew from the suit following the defection of its governor, Sheriff Oborevwori, from the PDP to the All Progressives Congress (APC).

The remaining states are Adamawa, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Bauchi, Akwa Ibom, Plateau, Taraba, Zamfara, and Bayelsa.

Arguing for the plaintiffs, Jegede (SAN) clarified that they were not disputing the President’s power to declare a state of emergency, but were challenging “the extent to which such a proclamation can interfere with the offices of the governor, deputy governor, and the state assembly.”

However, AGF Fagbemi urged the court to dismiss the suit, describing it as baseless and without merit. He defended the President’s intervention, saying it was necessary to restore order in Rivers State, which had been engulfed in a deep political crisis.

“No responsible government would sit back and allow the state to burn without taking any action,” Fagbemi said.
“The President had to act and act fast to safeguard the state. Rivers was in an extraordinary situation that required extraordinary measures to restore peace and protect democracy.”

The National Assembly, through its counsel, also urged the court to throw out the case, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to comply with the three-month pre-action notice required under Section 21 of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act, 2017.

Describing the case as “frivolous, speculative, and a waste of judicial time,” the NASS requested the Supreme Court to impose ₦1 billion in costs jointly against the PDP states.

The Supreme Court’s panel — which also included Justices Chioma Nwosu-Iheme, Haruna Tsammani, Obarinde Ogbuinya, Stephen Adah, Habeeb Abiru, and Mohammed Idris — took submissions and adjourned for judgment.

It will be recalled that on March 18, President Tinubu declared a state of emergency in Rivers State and suspended Governor Fubara, his deputy, and lawmakers for six months, appointing Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas as Sole Administrator of the state, a move later backed by both chambers of the National Assembly.

The PDP-led states subsequently took the matter to the Supreme Court, arguing that the President’s action violated Nigeria’s federal and constitutional principles.

Opinion Nigeria News