The Federal Government is planning its defence against the suit filed by 11 Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governors challenging the imposition of state of emergency in Rivers State by President Bola Tinubu.
This comes after a top official at the Federal Ministry of Justice in Abuja disclosed on Wednesday that the government has officially received the opposition governors’ suit.
Speaking on condition of anonymity for lack of authorisation, the source said the suit had been served on the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice.
According to PUNCH, the source stated, “They have served the HAGF with the suit.”
NEW DAILY PRIME reports that the opposition party’s governors, representing Adamawa, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Bauchi, Akwa Ibom, Plateau, Delta, Taraba, Zamfara, and Bayelsa States, approached the Supreme Court to challenge the President’s constitutional authority to suspend an elected state government structure.
Although earlier media reports had suggested that the suit was filed last week, it was gathered that the suit was only filed late Tuesday, with the Federal Government given 14 days to file a response to the suit.
The suit questions the legality of President Tinubu’s March 18 proclamation, which declared a state of emergency in Rivers State and suspended Governor Siminalayi Fubara, Deputy Governor Ngozi Odu, and all members of the state House of Assembly for an initial six-month period.
Following the suspension, President Tinubu appointed retired Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas as the Sole Administrator to oversee the affairs of the state during the period of emergency rule.
The National Assembly has since backed the President’s decision.
Aggrieved by what they view as an unconstitutional act, the 11 PDP governors filed a suit marked SC/CV/329/2025, urging the Supreme Court to determine several constitutional questions, including:
“Whether, upon a proper construction of Sections 1(2), 5(2), 176, 180, 188, and 305 of the 1999 Constitution, the President can lawfully suspend or interfere with the offices of a Governor and Deputy Governor of any of the 36 states, and replace them with an unelected nominee as a Sole Administrator, under the guise of a state of emergency.”
They further asked the court to decide:“Whether, based on Sections 1(2), 4(6), 11(4) & (5), 90, 105, and 305 of the Constitution, the President can suspend a State House of Assembly under the pretext of declaring a state of emergency.”
The suit also challenges what it describes as a “threat” to constitutional federalism:
“Whether the threat by the first defendant, acting on behalf of the President, suggesting that governors and their deputies could be suspended by virtue of an emergency proclamation, does not contravene Sections 1(2), 4(6), 5(2), 11(2) & (3) of the 1999 Constitution and violate the principles of constitutional federalism.”
With the suit now formally received by the Attorney General’s office, preparations are underway for the Federal Government’s legal response at the Supreme Court.
