Legal precedents and constitutional provisions have effectively barred Siminalayi Fubara, the suspended governor of Rivers State, from challenging his suspension at the Supreme Court. President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State on March 19, which led to Fubara’s suspension alongside his deputy, Ngozi Odu, and members of the state assembly, has sparked legal debate. However, judicial rulings indicate that Fubara has no legal pathway to seek redress at the Supreme Court.
1. Lack of Legal Standing to Sue on Behalf of Rivers State
A 2006 Supreme Court ruling in Plateau State v. Attorney-General of the Federation established that when a governor is suspended and an administrator is appointed, the governor no longer has the legal standing (locus standi) to sue on behalf of the state. In 2004, then-President Olusegun Obasanjo declared a state of emergency in Plateau State and suspended Governor Joshua Dariye. When the Plateau State government challenged this at the Supreme Court, the court struck out the case, ruling that the suspended governor and legislature lacked the legal authority to sue. This precedent applies to Fubara, making it impossible for him to take his case to the Supreme Court in the name of Rivers State.
2. Supreme Court Jurisdiction Does Not Cover Personal Challenges
The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Plateau case also clarified that under Section 232(1) of the 1999 Constitution, the court only has original jurisdiction over disputes between the federal government and a state, not cases brought by individuals in their personal capacity. This means that Fubara, as a private citizen following his suspension, cannot personally file a case at the Supreme Court to contest the decision. The court had previously dismissed similar claims made by suspended Plateau State officials, setting a legal precedent that prevents Fubara from using the Supreme Court as a legal remedy.
3. PDP Governors, Not Fubara, Are Challenging the Suspension
Governors elected under the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) have resolved to approach the Supreme Court to challenge the declaration of emergency rule in Rivers State. However, Fubara is notably absent from the list of plaintiffs. Legal experts suggest this might be a strategic decision, considering that the Supreme Court’s past rulings make it clear that he lacks the standing to pursue the case. If the PDP governors succeed in their challenge, Fubara could benefit indirectly, but he cannot initiate the case himself.
4. The Federal High Court Is an Option, but Resolution May Be Delayed
With the Supreme Court out of reach, Fubara’s only potential legal avenue would be the Federal High Court. Under Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution, this court has jurisdiction over cases involving the federal government, constitutional interpretation, and fundamental rights enforcement. Fubara could argue that his suspension violates his constitutional rights or exceeds presidential powers. However, legal analysts warn that the federal government is likely to raise objections, leading to lengthy delays. Given the slow judicial process, a final ruling could take years—by which time Fubara’s six-month suspension would have ended, rendering the case ineffective.
