Federal Government Tells Supreme Court: Rivers State Emergency Rule Was Constitutional and Necessary
In a dramatic legal showdown that could redefine the limits of executive power under Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution, the Federal Government has submitted a comprehensive defense before the Supreme Court, justifying the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State. The move, which has drawn fierce legal challenges from 11 opposition-controlled states, is now at the heart of a constitutional debate on federalism, security, and governance.
Filed in response to a suit brought by governors of Adamawa, Akwa Ibom, Bauchi, Bayelsa, Delta, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Plateau, Taraba, and Zamfara — all members of the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) — the Federal Government’s affidavit paints a grim picture of lawlessness and administrative collapse in the oil-rich state of Rivers.
According to the affidavit deposed by Mr. Taiye Hussain Oloyede, Special Assistant to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and representative of the Federal Ministry of Justice, the emergency proclamation on March 15, 2025, became unavoidable after persistent legislative paralysis, violent threats from militants, and sabotage of key national assets.
Oloyede stated that the situation in Rivers had escalated beyond political infighting. He revealed that the State House of Assembly was not only split, but also rendered non-functional. While four lawmakers loyal to Governor Siminalayi Fubara continued to meet within the confines of the Governor’s office, 27 others were effectively locked out, following the demolition of the Assembly complex by executive order.
This, the Federal Government argued, brought legislative activity to a complete halt, leaving the governor without constitutional backing to run the state or access budgetary funds due to the absence of an approved Appropriation Bill.
“Governance had run to a standstill,” Oloyede emphasized. “Militants had issued threats of violence, and oil pipelines — critical to national revenue — became targets of sabotage. The Governor failed to act or even disavow these hostile actors. A vacuum of governance emerged, compelling the President to act under Section 305 of the Constitution.”
The government’s stance directly contradicts the PDP governors’ claims that the emergency rule was an unlawful encroachment on state autonomy. In their originating summons, the governors contend that the President acted outside the constitutional framework, imposing an unelected administrator and suspending the state’s democratic institutions without lawful justification.
But the Federal Government insists that Tinubu followed constitutional procedures, and that the National Assembly’s approval — as required under Section 305 — was obtained. It also dismissed fears expressed by the plaintiff states as “hypothetical and speculative,” reaffirming that there were no plans to extend emergency rule to any other state.
The affidavit drew heavily from the recent Supreme Court ruling in the appeal case Rivers State House of Assembly v. Government of Rivers State & Ors (2025) LPELR – 80539, where the court declared that there was “no government in Rivers State.” The government cited this as further legal grounding for its intervention.
Despite attempts by President Tinubu and respected national leaders to mediate, the affidavit disclosed that both Governor Fubara and the 27 opposing lawmakers refused to compromise, further exacerbating the crisis. This, the Federal Government argued, rendered all reconciliatory efforts futile.
The National Assembly, also listed as a defendant in the suit, filed a preliminary objection on April 22, urging the Supreme Court to dismiss the matter for being “frivolous, speculative, and procedurally flawed.” It also requested the court to impose a N1 billion cost against the plaintiffs.
Meanwhile, the governors are urging the court to determine whether the President has constitutional authority to suspend state governors and legislatures under the guise of emergency powers. They maintain that such actions violate the principles of federalism and the Constitution.
This legal battle sets a critical precedent for the interpretation of executive powers in Nigeria’s democracy. The Supreme Court’s eventual decision will not only determine the legality of the emergency rule in Rivers State but could also reshape the balance of power between the federal and state governments.
As the nation waits for the verdict, tensions remain high, with political observers, civil society groups, and legal scholars closely monitoring the case. The outcome will have profound implications for Nigeria’s political stability and the limits of presidential authority under emergency conditions.
SEO Keywords: Rivers State emergency rule, Bola Tinubu, Supreme Court Nigeria, PDP governors, Nigerian Constitution Section 305, governance breakdown in Rivers, militant threats Nigeria, oil pipeline sabotage Nigeria, Fubara crisis, Nigerian federalism debate
Would you like a featured image or infographic to go with this article?
