A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has fixed March 9, 2026, to deliver judgment in a fresh suit contesting the constitutional authority of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to remove elected state officials during a state of emergency.
Justice James Omotosho adjourned the matter for judgment on Friday after counsel to the plaintiff and the defendants adopted their final written addresses and presented arguments for and against the suit.
The case was instituted by the Civil Society Observatory for Constitutional and Legal Compliance (CSOCLC), through its counsel, Nnamdi Nwokocha-Ahaaiwe.
The organisation is challenging actions taken by the President following the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State last year.
The plaintiff argued that although Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution empowers the President to declare a state of emergency, it does not grant him the authority to suspend or remove elected executive and legislative officials, nor to appoint an interim administrator to govern a state.
Justice Omotosho, however, observed that the suit bears resemblance to earlier cases he had dismissed on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, relying
He also referenced a Supreme Court ruling of December 15, 2025, which reportedly struck out a similar matter on procedural grounds.
Responding, Ahaaiwe acknowledged the earlier decisions but maintained that they were wrongly decided.
He argued that the 1962 Act had become obsolete and was deliberately excluded from Nigeria’s statute books before the commencement of the 1999 Constitution.
According to him, any presidential order issued in 2025 purporting to modify or rely on the defunct law is unconstitutional, null, and void.
The Constitution has fully covered the field on emergency powers,” Ahaaiwe submitted, adding that no executive proclamation can amend or override the clear provisions of Section 305 of the Constitution.
Counsel to the first to fifth defendants, including the President and the Attorney-General of the Federation, countered the argument by insisting that the 1962 Act and the subsequent modification order remain valid.
They contended that only the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction to entertain such disputes and urged the court to strike out the suit.
The plaintiffs are seeking 26 reliefs, among them a declaration that Rivers State cannot be administered by an appointed administrator, retired Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ekwe Ibas, outside the provisions of the Constitution.