The Federal High Court, Abuja, on Thursday dismissed a suit instituted against President Bola Tinubu challenging the 18 March 2025, emergency rule declaration in Rivers State.
Justice James Omotosho, while delivering judgment in the suit filed by Belema Briggs and four others against the declaration, held that the five plaintiffs lacked the legal power to institute the case.
President Tinubu, in March, declared a state of emergency in Rivers State and suspended the Rivers State Governor, Siminalayi Fubara, deputy, Ngozi Odu, and members of the Rivers State House of Assembly for six months.
Following the suspension, President Tinubu appointed a sole administrator who took charge of running the affairs of the state for the period.
Aggrieved by the president’s actions, the plaintiffs dragged him to court.
The defendants in the suit sued the president; the Federal Republic of Nigeria; the Rivers State Administrator, Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas (retd.); and three others.
The plaintiffs had, among other reliefs, sought a declaration that the president lacked the power to suspend Fubara and others.
They also sought a declaration that the president lacked the power to delegate the executive powers of the state to Ibas.
They argued, ‘That the proclamation is illegal and a breach of the Constitution’.
The plaintiffs further sought an order setting aside the suspension of the governor and an order prohibiting Ibas from exercising the executive powers of the governor, among others.
On 18 September 2025, the president announced the end of the emergency rule.
He also disclosed in a statement that over 40 lawsuits had been filed to challenge the declaration in the state, the most notable being the opposition Peoples Democratic Party’s suit before the Supreme Court.
Justice Omotosho held that the claim that President Tinubu imposed the state of emergency to avert a looming breakdown of law and order was neither challenged nor disputed by the plaintiffs.
Justice Omotosho ruled that the plaintiffs’ contention of breach of fundamental rights by the President did not hold water because the appropriate law on emergency rule was invoked by Tinubu to prevent an unpleasant situation.
Justice Omotosho stated: ‘The originating process ought not to have been accepted for filing in this court.
‘The subject matter of this suit is clearly outside the jurisdiction of this court’.
He noted that the court could not arrogate to itself powers it did not have.
‘The law is settled that where a matter is not within the jurisdiction of a court, it should decline jurisdiction’, he said.
Justice Omotosho further stated that an individual could not bring a suit on behalf of all the residents of a state.
He observed that none of the suspended persons was a party to the suit.
He described the case as frivolous and baseless, stating that the mandate of the people of Rivers State was not obtained before it was instituted on their behalf.
He further held that none of the five plaintiffs claimed to be members of the State Executive Committee, members of the House of Assembly, or to have suffered any injury greater than that of the general populace of Rivers State.
The court also noted that none of the plaintiffs claimed to have obtained the fiat of the Attorney General of the state to initiate the case.
He described the case as frivolous and baseless, stating that the mandate of the people of Rivers State was not obtained before it was instituted on their behalf.
He further held that none of the five plaintiffs claimed to be members of the State Executive Council, members of the House of Assembly, or to have suffered any injury greater than that of the general populace of Rivers State.
The trial judge also held that the claim that President Tinubu imposed the state of emergency to avert a looming breakdown of law and order was neither challenged nor disputed by the plaintiffs.
He proceeded to note that from the court’s findings, there were reasonable grounds for the president to have declared a state of emergency and appointed a sole administrator for Rivers State.
He held that the proclamation of the state of emergency and the suspension of the governor and others were proper and in line with Section 305 of the Constitution, the act having been done to avert anarchy and chaos in the state.
Justice Omotosho ruled that the plaintiffs’ contention of a breach of fundamental rights by the president did not hold water, as the appropriate law on emergency rule was invoked by Tinubu to prevent an unpleasant situation.
He added that the law allows the president to exercise certain powers in the interest of public safety and public order.
‘The president has duly exercised his power by appointing the sole administrator for Rivers in accordance with Section 305’, he said.
He further held that the issue of whether the president secured a two-thirds vote of members of the National Assembly could not be determined on the basis of affidavit evidence from the plaintiffs.
He stated, ‘I have carefully gone through all the processes before this court.
‘Four issues are left for determination by this court:
‘Whether the subject matter is within the jurisdiction of this court.
‘Whether the plaintiffs have the locus standi to institute this suit.
‘Whether the first defendant (the president) has the power to suspend the executive governor, the deputy governor and members of the Rivers State House of Assembly.
‘Whether the first defendant has the power to declare a state of emergency and appoint a sole administrator for Rivers State’.
The judge said even if the court could exercise jurisdiction on the suit, the weight of evidence is in favour of the defendants.
‘Consequently, this suit is dismissed in its entirety’, Justice Omotosho declared.
