Rivers: Tinubu Govt Receives PDP Governors’ Suit Questioning Fubara’s Suspension, Prepares Defence

The suit filed by 11 governors of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) challenging the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State by President Bola Tinubu has officially been received by the Federal Government.

A source at the Federal Ministry of Justice, speaking anonymously due to lack of authorization, confirmed on Wednesday that the suit had been served on the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami.

“They have served the HAGF with the suit,” the source disclosed in response to an inquiry by Punch.

The 11 PDP governors, representing Adamawa, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Bauchi, Akwa Ibom, Plateau, Delta, Taraba, Zamfara, and Bayelsa States, approached the Supreme Court to challenge the legality of the emergency declaration made by President Tinubu in Rivers State.

Naija News reports that the governors are questioning the constitutional authority of President Tinubu to suspend an elected state government structure, including Governor Siminalayi Fubara, Deputy Governor Ngozi Odu, and all members of the Rivers State House of Assembly.

The suit filed by the governors elected on the platform of the PDP on Tuesday is marked SC/CV/329/2025. The PDP governors are seeking a determination from the Supreme Court on whether President Tinubu has the constitutional right to suspend or interfere with the offices of a state governor and deputy governor and replace them with an unelected nominee as a Sole Administrator under the guise of a state of emergency.

In addition to the suspension of the state government officials, the President appointed retired Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas as the Sole Administrator to oversee the state during the six-month period of emergency rule.

The governors also challenged the President’s proclamation on other constitutional grounds, asking the Supreme Court to determine if the President can suspend a State House of Assembly under the pretext of declaring a state of emergency.

They further argue that the threat of suspending elected state officials, as implied by the President’s actions, violates the principles of constitutional federalism.

They have raised the following questions for the court, “Whether, upon a proper construction of Sections 1(2), 5(2), 176, 180, 188, and 305 of the 1999 Constitution, the President can lawfully suspend or interfere with the offices of a Governor and Deputy Governor of any of the 36 states, and replace them with an unelected nominee as a Sole Administrator, under the guise of a state of emergency.”

They also seek a decision on, “Whether the threat by the first defendant, acting on behalf of the President, suggesting that governors and their deputies could be suspended by virtue of an emergency proclamation, does not contravene Sections 1(2), 4(6), 5(2), 11(2) & (3) of the 1999 Constitution and violate the principles of constitutional federalism.”

With the suit now formally received by the AGF’s office, preparations are underway for the Federal Government’s legal response at the Supreme Court.