Hot SourceAlex Enumah in Abuja
The Supreme Court on Tuesday, reserved judgment in the suit challenging the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State.
A seven-man panel of the apex court fixed the date for its judgment shortly after taking arguments from lawyers representing parties in the suit brought by 11 governors against President Bola Tinubu.
The suit was filed on behalf of the governors by their respective Attorneys-General and Commissioners for Justice.
Among the plaintiffs are Adamawa, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Bauchi, Akwa Ibom, Plateau, Delta, Taraba, Zamfara and Bayelsa States.
The Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), personally appeared in court to lead the government’s defence, in a move that underscored the seriousness with which the Federal Government views the case and its resolve to defend the president’s constitutional powers of proclamation.
He was accompanied by a formidable team of senoir lawyers, ncluding former AGF and Minister of Justice, Chief Akinlolu Olujimi (SAN), Prof. Kanyinsola Ajayi (SAN), Abiodun Ononikoko (SAN), and Kehinde Ogunwumiju (SAN).
The plaintiffs’ team was led by Eyitayo Jegede (SAN), alongside J. A. Mumuni and Musbau Adetumbi, while the National Assembly, listed as the second defendant, was represented by Charles Yohila, who also prayed the court to dismiss the suit.
At the resumed hearing, the fifth plaintiff, Delta State, formally withdrew from the suit. Responding, Fagbemi, referencing the words of M.C.K. Ajuluchukwu, said with characteristic wit: “They shall know the truth and the truth shall set them free. The truth has set them free. We have no objection, my Lords.”
The Supreme Court subsequently struck out Delta State’s name from the list of plaintiffs.
Arguing for the plaintiffs, Jegede clarified that their case was not a denial of the president’s power to proclaim a state of emergency but a challenge to “the extent to which the proclamation can be made to affect the offices of the governor, deputy governor, and the state House of Assembly”.
Adopting all the processes filed by the Federal Government; including the preliminary objection filed on May 9, the reply on points of law dated June 3, 2025, and the counter-affidavit and written address against the originating summons, the AGF urged the apex court to dismiss the suit in its entirety.
“The more I look at the plaintiffs’ action, the more I am convinced it is speculative and lacks merit,” he argued.
According to him, Rivers State was engulfed in a political crisis involving the governor, deputy governor and lawmakers, and “no responsible government would sit back and allow it burn without taking any action”.
Fagbemi maintained that the president did not act out of discretion but discharged a constitutional obligation to safeguard democracy, life and property.
The minister described the suspension of the governor, deputy governor and lawmakers as an “extraordinary measure” rather than a removal, taken in response to an extraordinary situation.
“The president therefore had to act and act fast to safeguard the state.
“My lords, the starting point is the judgment of the Supreme Court, wherein your lordships held that as things were at that time, there was no government and governance in Rivers State. Therefore, the president had no choice but a duty to act in the best interest of the state. What he did was to suspend the protagonists, not remove them. Rivers was in an extraordinary situation, and that required taking extraordinary measures to restore peace and protect democracy,” he submitted.
Fagbami in addition, submitted that those directly affected by the proclamation were not before the court, remarking that the plaintiffs were “trying to be more Catholic than the Pope”.
Counsel to the National Assembly, Charles Yohila, aligned himself with Fagbemi’s position and urged the court to dismiss the case.
Responding, the plaintiffs’ lawyer countered that while extraordinary circumstances might justify firm executive action, such measures must remain within constitutional bounds.
He submitted: “Extraordinary measures will not contain illegal and unconstitutional measures, sir.”
After taking arguments, the Supreme Court reserved judgment to a date to be communicated to the parties.
The judgment, when delivered, will mark a defining moment in the interpretation of presidential powers under Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
