The Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), has begun drafting President Bola Tinubu’s response to the lawsuit filed by 11 governors elected on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) over the declaration of emergency rule in Rivers State.
The PDP governors have assembled a formidable legal team comprising 11 Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) and six other legal practitioners to challenge the Federal Government at the Supreme Court. Their case questions the President’s constitutional powers to declare an emergency and suspend a democratically elected government in any state.
Among the SANs engaged by the governors are Bolaji Ayorinde, Eyitayo Jegede, Kamaldeen Ajibade, J.A. Mumuni, Musibau Adetunbi, Samuel Atung, and Yunus Abdulsalam. Other members of the team include M.S. Atolagbe, Ezenwa Ibegbunam, Chiamaka Anagu, Olakunle Lawal, Abduljalil Musa, and H.A. Adeleke.
The governors are also challenging President Tinubu’s appointment of a sole administrator to oversee the affairs of Rivers State following the suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara.
President Tinubu, on March 18, 2025, declared a state of emergency in Rivers State, suspending Governor Fubara, his deputy Mrs. Ngozi Odu, and all elected members of the Rivers State House of Assembly for an initial period of six months.
Subsequently, Tinubu appointed retired Vice Admiral Ibok Ete Ibas as the sole administrator to manage the state during the suspension period — a move later endorsed by both chambers of the National Assembly via a voice vote.
In response, 11 PDP governors filed a suit at the Supreme Court, challenging what they described as an unconstitutional overreach. The states represented in the suit are Adamawa, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Bauchi, Akwa Ibom, Plateau, Delta, Taraba, Zamfara, and Bayelsa.
The suit, marked SC/CV/329/2025, seeks a judicial interpretation of key constitutional provisions, including Sections 1(2), 5(2), 176, 180, 188, and 305 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). The plaintiffs are asking the court to determine:
“Whether… the President… can lawfully suspend or in any manner whatsoever interfere with the offices of a Governor and Deputy Governor… and replace same with his own unelected nominee as a Sole Administrator under the guise of… a Proclamation of a State of Emergency…”
“Whether the threat… that the offices of Governor and Deputy Governor can be suspended by the President by virtue of a Proclamation of a State of Emergency, is not in contravention of… the Constitution… and inconsistent with the principles of constitutional federalism?”
