A 2006 Supreme Court ruling presents a legal hurdle preventing Rivers State Governor Siminalayi Fubara from directly challenging his suspension through the country’s highest court.
Reports from TheCable indicate that while Fubara may not have the legal standing to approach the Supreme Court, he could seek redress through the Federal High Court. However, legal experts suggest that a swift resolution 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. This decision was made during a national broadcast, with the president citing political instability as the reason for imposing emergency rule.
During this period, retired Vice-Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas has been appointed as the sole administrator of the state. As a result, Fubara, a member of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), has effectively been removed from power for the next six months.
The 1999 Constitution (as amended) allows the president to declare a state of emergency under Section 305. However, legal analysts argue that suspending an elected governor and state lawmakers may exceed constitutional limits.
A similar case occurred in 2004 when then-President Olusegun Obasanjo declared emergency rule in Plateau State following violent conflicts. This led to the suspension of Governor Joshua Dariye and the state assembly, with retired General Chris Alli appointed as the administrator.
The Plateau State government later challenged the decision at the Supreme Court, but the case was dismissed. The court ruled that only the appointed administrator had the authority to represent the state in legal matters, effectively barring Dariye from seeking redress.
In its 2006 judgment, led by Justice Idris Kutigi, the Supreme Court determined that:
- The appointed administrator had full control of the state.
- Since no legal dispute existed between the administrator and the federal government, the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.
- The suspended governor had no legal standing to sue on behalf of the state.
Based on this precedent, Fubara cannot file a lawsuit through the Rivers State government, as he no longer holds executive power under the emergency rule.
Additionally, the Supreme Court ruling in Plateau State v. Attorney-General of the Federation clarified that under Section 232(1) of the 1999 Constitution, the court only has original jurisdiction in disputes between the federal government and a state—not individuals.
As a result, Fubara cannot personally file a case in the Supreme Court to challenge his suspension.
While other PDP governors are reportedly planning to take legal action against the emergency declaration, Fubara is notably absent as a plaintiff in their case.
Given these restrictions, could the Federal High Court offer Fubara an alternative legal route?
The Federal High Court has jurisdiction over:
- Fundamental rights enforcement cases.
- Constitutional interpretation disputes.
- Cases where the federal government or its agencies are involved (Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution).
Fubara’s legal team could potentially argue that his suspension violates his fundamental rights or exceeds presidential authority. However, legal experts believe this would likely be challenged by the federal government.
Even if the case is admitted, it could take years to resolve—by which time the six-month emergency rule would have expired, making the legal battle ineffective.
