The Federal Government has presented its defence before the Supreme Court justifying the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State, arguing that the move was necessitated by the collapse of governance and increasing threats to national economic infrastructure.
its response to a legal challenge filed by 11 states, predominantly governed by the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), the government maintained that it had no alternative but to act in the interest of national stability.
The plaintiff states—Adamawa, Akwa Ibom, Bauchi, Bayelsa, Delta, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Plateau, Taraba, and Zamfara—contend that the Federal Government acted unlawfully by imposing emergency rule in Rivers. However, the Federal Government rejected these claims in a counter-affidavit deposed by Mr. Taiye Hussain Oloyede, Special Assistant to the President and the Federal Ministry of Justice, who stated, “I am a Special Assistant to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, GCFR. By reason of that, I have been working in close contact with the Hon. Attorney-General of the Federation, the 1st defendant in this case. Further by reason of the same position, I know the facts of this case and I have the authority of the President and Chief Akin Olujinmi, CON, SAN, counsel to the 1st defendant, to swear to this counter affidavit.”
Oloyede continued, “I have read through the affidavit in support of the plaintiffs originating summons. I admit paragraphs 1 and 8 of the affidavit in support of the originating summons. I deny paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5,6, 7,9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, #7, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32 of the affidavit in support of the originating summons on the ground that they are not true.”
He asserted that the political impasse in Rivers State had rendered governance impossible, noting, “By reason of my job as Special Assistant to President Ahmed Bola Tinubu, GCFR, I know the facts and circumstances that happened in Rivers State, which culminated in the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State by President Bola Ahmed Bola Tinubu on 18th March, 2025. It is a matter of common knowledge that there was a very serious political crisis in Rivers State which had led to the Governor of Rivers State and the House of Assembly not being able to work together.”
According to the affidavit, the Rivers State House of Assembly was fragmented with only four members aligned with Governor Similayi Fubara, while 27 others opposed him. “As a result, the governor was not able to present any Appropriation Bill to the House to be passed for the governor to be able to access funds for the running of the affairs of Rivers State,” Oloyede stated. “Further to paragraph 10 above, by reason of the non-presentation of Appropriation Bill to the Rivers State House of Assembly for passage, governance had run to a standstill.”
The Federal Government also accused Governor Fubara of exacerbating the crisis by demolishing the state House of Assembly, which left the majority of lawmakers without a venue for legislative duties. “The crisis escalated to the point that the governor demolished the House of Assembly of the State thus depriving the 27 members opposed to him from having official accommodation where they could meet to carry out their duties as a House of Assembly,” the affidavit read. “The governor however allowed the four members he considered loyal to him to be meeting in his office.”
The government highlighted further instability, citing attacks on economic infrastructure and rising militancy. “There was violence in the state with attacks on critical economic assets of the State including vandalization of oil pipelines, with the Governor not taking any steps to address the occurrences. Militants were openly threatening fire and brimstone against those they perceived as enemies of the governor with the governor not doing anything even as little as denouncing and disowning them.”
Oloyede said both the governor and the lawmakers engaged in a flurry of legal actions that culminated at the Supreme Court. “There were several suits filed by the governor and the 27 members of the House opposed to the governor in several courts raising counteraccusations, with each side struggling to outdo the other in the political logjam in the state.”
He referenced the Supreme Court’s judgment, which stated, “A government cannot be said to exist without one of the three arms that make up the government of a state under the 1999 Constitution as amended. In this case, the head of the executive arm of the government has chosen to collapse the legislature to enable him to govern without the legislature as a despot. As it is, there is no government in Rivers State.”
Efforts by President Tinubu and other statesmen to mediate the crisis were reportedly unsuccessful. “President Bola Ahmed Tinubu intervened in the dispute between the governor and the members of the State Assembly and other political players in the state with a view to resolving issues amicably for them, but the parties stuck to their individual positions to the detriment of peace and development in the state,” Oloyede noted. “Again, many well-meaning and respected Nigerians also intervened in the crisis with a view to settling it but the Governor and members of the State Assembly gave no room for the crisis to be resolved. Even after the delivery of the Supreme Court judgment referred to above, matters still remained the same in the State with no efforts made by the parties to resolve the crisis to allow governance to resume. Therefore, to avoid further deterioration, President Ahmed Bola Tinubu had to declare a state of emergency in Rivers State to stop the drift to greater violence.”
The Federal Government submitted a certified true copy of the proclamation as evidence, adding, “Contrary to the depositions at paragraphs 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 of the plaintiffs’ affidavit, the President has neither said nor threatened that he would declare a state of emergency in any of the plaintiffs’ states but the plaintiffs have only been driven into panic mode by their own imaginary fears.”
Oloyede also rejected the plaintiffs’ interpretation of Section 305(6) of the Constitution, stating, “I have read Section 305(6) of the 1999 Constitution as amended and I know that there is no stipulation therein that the resolution of two third majority prescribed therein shall be by physical counting of the votes by each house of the National Assembly.”
He insisted that the President acted within the bounds of the Constitution and added, “That it is the President of the country that has power under the Constitution to declare a state of emergency in the Federation or any part of it. That the role given to the National Assembly by the Constitution is to approve or disapprove of a state of emergency declared by the President, without more. That it is the President on whom the constitution has imposed the duty to take the extraordinary measures required to restore peace and security in the area affected by the declaration of a state of emergency.”
He emphasized, “That President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is a strong adherent of the rule of law who has committed himself to exercising his powers and carrying out his duties as President only in accordance with the law and the constitution and based on verifiable facts. That there was actual breakdown of public order and public safety in Rivers State before the President declared a state of emergency in Rivers State. That the situation in Rivers required the President to take extraordinary measures to restore peace and security.”
The National Assembly, also named in the suit, has filed a preliminary objection dated 22 April, urging the Supreme Court to dismiss the suit on grounds of procedural irregularities and lack of merit. It called for N1 billion in costs against the plaintiffs, describing the case as “frivolous and speculative.”
The PDP governors are seeking constitutional clarification from the Supreme Court on whether the President can suspend or interfere with the offices of state governors or their legislatures through emergency declarations, arguing that such actions contravene the principles of constitutional federalism and violate sections of the 1999 Constitution.
