Three suits challenging the declaration of emergency rule, the suspension of elected officials and activities of the appointed administrator in Rivers State were yesterday dismissed by a Federal High Court in Abuja.
Justice James Omotosho, in three decisions held that, not only were the cases filed in a wrong court – the Federal High Court – which lacked the necessary justification, the plaintiffs were without the requisite locus standi (the right to approach the court on the issues raised).
The first suit was filed by Belema Briggs, Princess Wai-Ogosu, I. Acho, Emmanuel Mark and Hadassa Ada, who claimed to have sued for themselves and residents of Rivers State.
They listed the President , the Attorney General of the Federation, Vice Admiral Ibok-Ette Ibas (retired) and the Nigerian Navy as defendants.
The plaintiffs queried the emergency declaration, the suspension of elected officials including Governor Siminalayi Fubara, the appointment of an administrator and among others, prayed the court to void them.
In the judgment yesterday, Justice Omotosho upheld the preliminary objection raised by the defendants and dismissed the suit.
In holding that the plaintiffs lacked locus standi, Justice Omotosho held that they could not, on their own file a suit to address the interest of all the residents of a state, moreso when none of the suspended officials was made a party to the suit.
The judge found that the plaintiffs, who claimed to be residents of Rivers did not show that they were more affected by the decision than the elected officials, who were suspended or other residents of the state, nor obtained the permission of the state’s Attorney General before approaching the court.
In holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the suit, Justice Omotosho held that it was the law that issues arising or connected with a declaration of state of emergency is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by virtue of Section 1 (1) and (2) of the Emergency Powers (Jurisdiction) Act, 1962.
He added that the same statute has been modified by the Emergency Powers (Jurisdiction) Act (Modification) Order, 2025.
The judge faulted the plaintiffs’ claim that, as voters, their fundamental rights to enjoy democratic government was taken away from them by the emergency declaration, which they argued amounted to coup against Rivers’ residents.
He said: “The plaintiffs’ claim that their fundamental rights were breached as a result of these actions holds no water, as Section 45 (1) of the Constitution permits the derogation of rights in the interest of public order and public safety.
“The facts before the court all show that Rivers State was on the brink of anarchy, and allowing matters to flow in the normal course was only going to lead to severe breakdown of law and order.
“Consequently, it was necessary that in the interest of public safety and public order that the President suspended the Governor, Deputy Governor and members of the Rivers State House of Assembly and also appoint the 3rd defendant, who is a retired Naval officer to ensure peace in the state,” he said.
Justice Omotosho also faulted the plaintiffs’ contention that conditions precedent to warrant a declaration of state of emergency were not available as at March 18 when the proclamation was made.
He said: “To begin this discourse, it is important to examine if the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria has powers to declare a state of emergency in any state in Nigeria as this is the starting point for the suspension of the Governor, the Deputy Governor and the members of the House of Assembly of Rivers State.
“The President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is the custodian of executive powers in Nigeria. He is vested with enormous powers to discharge his duties including the duty to ensure the safety of lives and properties within the country.
“One of the distinct powers of the President is the power to proclaim a state of emergency in Nigeria, throughout the federation or in a part of the Federation.
“This power is enshrined in Section 305 (3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
“A state of emergency is usually not a planned event and it is not an event which the law can fully capture as there are several instances which may necessitate the declaration of a state of emergency, such as natural disaster, religious crisis or a political crisis among others.
“An imminent threat or present danger to the Federation of Nigeria or a part of it is a ground for declaring a state of emergency as done in this case.
“Once the proclamation of the state of emergency is ratified by the National Assembly, the power to administer the emergency area vests exclusively in the President.
“He (the President) is then empowered to take measures to restore peace and order to the affected area, including the appointment of the 3rd defendant as Sole Administrator and stationing of the 4th defendant in strategic locations in the state as the case may be.
“The findings of this court, with regards to the facts before it, shows that there were reasonable grounds for the President to declare a state of emergency in Rivers State.
“The Governor, Deputy Governor and Members of the House of Assembly were suspended for a period of time and not removed from office and the President exercised his discretion in appointing a Sole Administrator as he saw fit.
“All these actions were aimed at ensuring peace and security in the state.
“The issue raised by the plaintiffs that the President did not secure the required two third majority of the members of each house of the National Assembly is not what can be resolved through affidavit evidence, but by a writ of summons where witnesses will be called and cross examined,” the judge said.
The two other decisions were rulings on the suits filed by two groups. One was by The Incorporated Trustees of Rivsbridge Peace Initiative.
It had six defendants – the President, the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), the Accountant General of the Federation (AG-F), the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas (retired).
The suit had queried Ibas’ appointment and sought to among others, restrain the President, the AGF and the AG-F from releasing from belonging to Rivers State in the Consolidated Revenue Funds to Ibas.
The second suit filed by Pilex Centre for Civic Education Initiative and Courage Nsirimovu had Ibas as the sole defendant.
The suit which also queried the legitimacy of Ibas’ appointment, prayed the court to, among others, restrain the administrator from appointing sole administrators for the state’s 23 local government areas.
In the two rulings, Justice Omotosho upheld the objection raised by lawyers to the defendants, including Kehinde Ogunwumiju (SAN), who represented Ibas and dismissed the suits on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and want of locus standi.
The judge expressed displeasure at the conduct of lawyers to the plaintiffs’, who he noted, failed to conduct adequate research before filing the suits.
Justice Omotosho said: “I must not fail to say here that counsel to the plaintiffs ought to make proper research regarding his case before filing same.
“He must make diligent research as to which court has jurisdiction and the necessary parties in that suit before filing his action.
“Counsel has the duty to be professional in making such research rather than spending time spreading misinformation or painting the wrong picture on social media and other broadcast media.
“This court is saddled with a lot of cases including commercial, civil and criminal matters, which makes its time very precious.
“Filing suits which are void ab initio is inimical to the course of justice and the court can suo motu non suit such void suit in order to save its time.
“| therefore hold that a void process cannot activate the jurisdiction of this court.
“In final analysis, the suit of the plaintiffs is outside the subject matter jurisdiction of this court, the plaintiffs themselves lack locus standi to maintain this action.
“Even if this court could exercise jurisdiction over this matter, the weight of evidence tilts heavily in favour of the defendants.
“Consequently, this suit is hereby dismissed in its entirety,” the judge said.
