FG Responds To PDP Governors’ Lawsuit On State Emergency In Rivers

The Federal Government has officially presented its case to the Supreme Court, justifying its decision to impose a state of emergency in Rivers State.

The government cites the collapse of governance and increasing attacks on critical national economic infrastructure as the primary reasons for the intervention, stating that it had no option but to act.

The federal government’s defence was made in response to a suit filed by 11 states, mostly controlled by the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), who challenged the imposition of emergency rule in Rivers.

The plaintiffs include states such as Adamawa, Akwa Ibom, Bauchi, Bayelsa, Delta, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Plateau, Taraba, and Zamfara, who argue that the Federal Government erred in law by imposing the state of emergency.

In an affidavit filed by the Special Assistant to the President and the Federal Ministry of Justice, Taiye Hussain Oloyede, the Federal Government outlined the severe political crisis in Rivers State, which led to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency on March 15, 2025.

According to the government, the state’s governance had collapsed to such an extent that key national assets, including oil pipelines, were regularly vandalised.

Militants also openly threatened violence against those perceived as enemies of the governor, with little to no intervention from the state authorities.

The government further alleged that the state’s crisis peaked when suspended Governor Similayi Fubara took drastic measures, including demolishing the State House of Assembly complex.

The Federal Government claimed that the political gridlock in the state was so severe that only four members of the State Assembly could sit in Fubara’s office, while the other 27 lawmakers were deprived of their constitutional rights to legislate for the state.

The Federal Government also pointed out that the situation in Rivers had worsened to the point where Governor Fubara was unable to present any Appropriation Bill to the House for approval, preventing the state from accessing necessary funds to operate.

The government backed these claims with classified security reports that confirmed the demolition of the State House of Assembly complex by Governor Fubara, further illustrating the breakdown of law and order in the state.

Oloyede, in the affidavit, said, “I am a Special Assistant to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, GCFR. By reason of that, I have been working in close contact with the Hon. Attorney-General of the Federation, the 1st defendant in this case.

“Further by reason of the same position, I know the facts of this case and I have the authority of the President and Chief Akin Olujinmi, CON, SAN, counsel to the 1st defendant, to swear to this counter affidavit.

“I have read through the affidavit in support of the plaintiffs originating summons. I admit paragraphs 1 and 8 of the affidavit in support of the originating summons.

“I deny paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5,6, 7,9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, #7, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32 of the affidavit in support of the originating summons on the ground that they are not true.

“By reason of my job as Special Assistant to President Ahmed Bola Tinubu, GCFR, I know the facts and circumstances that happened in Rivers State, which culminated in the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State by President Bola Ahmed Bola Tinubu on 18th March, 2025.

“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.

“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 of the House.

“As a result, the governor was not able to present any Appropriation Bill to the House to be passed for the governor to be able to access funds for the running of the affairs of Rivers State.

“Further to paragraph 10 above, by reason of the non-presentation of Appropriation Bill to the Rivers State House of Assembly for passage, governance had run to a standstill.”

The Federal Government accused the suspended governor of escalating the crisis by demolishing the state House of Assembly.

“The crisis escalated to the point that the governor demolished the House of Assembly of the State thus 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.

“The governor, however, allowed the four members he considered loyal to him to be meeting in his office,” Oloyede said.

The Federal Government cited attacks on critical infrastructure and threats by militants in the oil-rich state as other factors behind the state of emergency.

He said, “There was violence in the state with attacks on critical economic assets of the State including vandalization 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.”

According to the Federal Government, the political problem had to a stage where the governor and the lawmakers were trying to outdo one another in a series of suits on the political logjam in the state.

Oloyede added, “There were several suits filed by the governor and the 27 members of the House opposed to the governor in several courts raising counteraccusations, with each side struggling to outdo the other in the political logjam in the state.

“The suits eventually reached the Supreme Court on appeal and the Court gave a composite judgment in the appeals with the Court holding, amongst others, as follows: “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.

“In this case, the head of the executive arm of the government has chosen to collapse the legislature to enable him to govern without the legislature as a despot. As it is, there is no government in Rivers State.”

The Federal Government said President Tinubu met with the all-warring parties but they stuck to their guns.

Oloyede said, “President Bola Ahmed Tinubu intervened in the dispute between the governor and the members of the State Assembly and other political players in the state with a view to resolving issues amicably for them, but the parties stuck to their individual positions to the detriment of peace and development in the state.

“Again, many well-meaning and respected Nigerians also intervened in the crisis with a view to settling it but the Governor and members of the State Assembly gave no room for the crisis to be resolved.

“Even after the delivery of the Supreme Court judgment referred to above, matters still remained the same in the State with no efforts made by the parties to resolve the crisis to allow governance to resume.

“Therefore, to avoid further deterioration, President Ahmed Bola Tinubu had to declare a state of emergency in Rivers State to stop the drift to greater violence.

“The foregoing facts were captured in the address made by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to the nation while declaring the state of emergency in Rivers State. A certified true copy of the proclamation of emergency is attached as Exhibit A.

“Contrary to the depositions at paragraphs 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 of the plaintiffs’ affidavit, the President has neither said nor threatened that he would declare a state of emergency in any of the plaintiffs’ states but the plaintiffs have only been driven into panic mode by their own imaginary fears.

“Contrary to the depositions at paragraphs 18, 19, 20, 21, 22,23 and240f. 4/9 plaintiffs’ affidavit, I have read Section 305(6) of the 1999 Constitution as amended and I know that there is no stipulation therein that the resolution of two third majority prescribed therein shall be by physical counting of the votes by each house of the National Assembly.”

The Federal Government insisted that President Tinubu acted within the constitution to declare the state of emergency in Rivers State.

Oloyede said the 1st defendant, the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) informed him in his office along Shagari Way in the Central Area, Abuja on 7th May, 2025 at 11 a.m., of the following facts which he verily believes to be true, viz, “That it is the President of the country that has power under the Constitution to declare a state of emergency in the Federation or any part of it.

“That the role given to the National Assembly by the Constitution is to approve or disapprove of a state of emergency declared by the President, without more.

“That it is the President on whom the constitution has imposed the duty to take the extraordinary measures required to restore peace and security in the area affected by the declaration of a state of emergency.

“That he, the 1st defendant, as such does not share the power to declare a state of emergency with the President and whatever be may have said to journalists does not amount to a dispute between the Federation and any of the plaintiff states.

“That the suit filed by the plaintiffs is hypothetical, academic, and speculative.

“That he, the 1st defendant agrees with the plaintiffs that each of the governors of the 10 plaintiffs states has a duty to ensure peace and security in their individual states.

“That President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is a strong adherent of the rule of law who has committed himself to exercising his powers and carrying out his duties as President only in accordance with the law and the constitution and based on verifiable facts.

“That there was actual breakdown of public order and public safety in Rivers State before the President declared a state of emergency in Rivers State.

“That the situation in Rivers required the President to take extraordinary measures to restore peace and security.

“That even the Supreme Court, based on the facts contained in the appeals agitated to the Court in Rivers State House of Assembly v. The Government of Rivers State & Ors (2025) LPELR — 80539 cited by the plaintiffs at paragraph 13 of their affidavit, held emphatically, among other things, that there was no government in Rivers State.”

The National Assembly which was also sued on the same issue by the PDP governors has urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the suit.

Responding via a preliminary objection dated 22 April, the national legislature said the suit is procedurally flawed and lacks merit.

It argued that the court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the suit and should award N1 billion in costs against the plaintiffs for filing what it termed a “frivolous and speculative suit.”

The governors are praying the Supreme 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?”