The Supreme Court ruling in 2006 has placed a legal obstacle before the suspended Governor of Rivers State, Siminalayi Fubara, preventing him from seeking the enforcement of his rights through the courts.
According to TheCable, while Fubara is barred from directly approaching the court under the precedent set by the ruling, he could potentially initiate a case at the Federal High Court, though experts indicate that a swift resolution of the matter is unlikely.
On March 19, 2025, President Bola Tinubu announced the suspension of Fubara, his deputy, Ngozi Odu, and all members of the Rivers State House of Assembly.
The decision, made in a live national broadcast, cited the ongoing political unrest in the state as the reason for declaring a state of emergency.
Naija News reports that the president appointed retired Vice-Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas as the state’s sole administrator during the six-month emergency period.
Fubara, a member of the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), has since been excluded from office, as part of the emergency measures aimed at restoring order.
Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) grants the president the power to declare a state of emergency under certain conditions.
However, legal experts have raised concerns about whether the suspension of a sitting governor, deputy governor, and lawmakers goes beyond the constitutional limits of executive authority.
This situation mirrors a previous instance in 2004, when President Olusegun Obasanjo declared a state of emergency in Plateau State due to violent ethnic and religious clashes.
The emergency resulted in the suspension of then-Governor Joshua Dariye and the state legislature, with retired General Chris Alli appointed as the sole administrator.
In the Plateau case, the Plateau state government and the state assembly challenged the president’s actions at the Supreme Court, but their case was struck out on jurisdictional grounds.
The court ruled that the appointed administrator had full control of the state and had not authorized anyone to challenge the president’s decision in court.
The court’s lead judgment, delivered by Justice Idris Kutigi, concluded that the plaintiffs lacked the legal standing (locus standi) to file the case on behalf of the state.
The judgment also clarified that since there was no legal dispute between the administrator and the federal government, the court lacked the jurisdiction to hear the case.
This legal precedent means that Fubara cannot seek to challenge his suspension through the Rivers State government, as he no longer holds executive authority under the state of emergency.
According to the 2006 ruling, any attempt to sue on behalf of the state government would be invalid since the current administrator holds full control.
Can’t File In Personal Capacity
The Supreme Court, in Plateau State v. Attorney-General of the Federation, also clarified that under Section 232(1) of the 1999 Constitution, it only has original jurisdiction over disputes between the federal government and a state — not cases filed by individuals in their personal capacity.
The court struck out all reliefs sought on behalf of Dariye, the deputy governor, members of the House of Assembly, and state commissioners, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain their personal grievances.
This sets a precedent: Fubara cannot personally approach the Supreme Court to challenge his suspension.
Other governors elected on the platform of the PDP have resolved to approach the Supreme Court to challenge the declaration of emergency rule. Fubara is notably not listed as a plaintiff.
According to TheCable, if Fubara cannot seek redress at the Supreme Court, could the federal high court offer an alternative legal pathway?
The federal high court has jurisdiction over cases involving the enforcement of fundamental rights, constitutional interpretation, and disputes involving the federal government.
Under Section 251 especially subsection (r) of the 1999 Constitution, the court can hear cases where the federal government or any of its agencies is a party.
This raises the question of whether Fubara or not can challenge his suspension by arguing that it violates his fundamental rights or seek judicial review arguing that his suspension exceeds presidential powers.
Ultimately, while the federal high court might offer a window for legal action, success would depend on whether Fubara’s legal team can establish that the president acted beyond his constitutional powers.
Even then, lawyers contend the case would likely face objections from the federal government and could take years to resolve — by which time the six-month suspension would have lapsed.
