Governors of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) have approached the Supreme Court to challenge the legality of the President’s action. The governors of Adamawa, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Bauchi, Akwa Ibom, Plateau, Delta, Taraba, Zamfara, and Bayelsa states, through their Attorney General, filed a suit (SC/CV/329/2025) to obtain the Supreme Court’s interpretation and verdict on the President’s suspension of a sitting governor in Rivers State. 

On March 18, 2025, President Tinubu declared a state of emergency in a national broadcast, suspending Governor Sim Fubara and his deputy, Mrs Ngozi Odu, as well as the House of Assembly, initially for six months. He also nominated Vice Admiral Ibokette Ibas (Rtd) as Administrator to take charge of the affairs of the state in the interest of the good people of Rivers State.

The action was taken as a response to the prolonged political crisis in the state between the camp of Siminalyi Fubara and his predecessor, Nyesom Wike, leading to different legal tussles and reported cases of vandalism in the state. However, the president’s action did not receive acceptance from Nigerians, who criticised him for sidelining the law and constitution in his declaration.

While the National Assembly later ratified the president’s declaration after adjusting some proclamations, the state governors from the opposition parties also expressed their dissatisfaction with the development.

As a result, they approached the Supreme Court to determine whether the President has the power to suspend or interfere with the offices of the elected governors and their deputies in the process of declaring a state of emergency in a state.

They further urged the apex court to provide an interpretation and determine the following: “Whether upon a proper construction and interpretation of the provisions of Sections 1(2), 5(2), 176, 180, 188 and 305 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria can lawfully suspend or in any manner whatsoever interfere with the offices of a Governor and the Deputy Governor of any of the component 36 States of the Federation of Nigeria and replace same with his unelected nominee as a Sole Administrator, under the guise of, or under, a Proclamation of a State of Emergency in any of the State of the Federation, particularly in any of the Plaintiffs States?

“Whether upon a proper construction and interpretation of the provisions of Sections 1(2), 4(6), 11(4) & (5), 90, 105 and 305 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria can lawfully suspend the House of Assembly of any of the component 36 States of the Federation of Nigeria under the guise of, or under, a Proclamation of a State of Emergency in any of such States, particularly in any of the Plaintiffs States”

Whether the consequent threat by the first defendant acting on behalf of the President to the states of the federation, including the plaintiffs’ states, to the effect that the President can suspend the offices of the governor and deputy governor of the states by a proclamation of a state of emergency, is not in contravention of the provisions of sections 1(2), 4(6), 5(2), 11(2) and (3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and inconsistent with the principles of constitutional federalism. The case partly reads.