In a significant judicial ruling, Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a legal challenge brought against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu regarding his proclamation of a state of emergency in Rivers State on March 18, 2025. The declaration, which sparked widespread debate, resulted in the temporary suspension of the Rivers State Governor, Siminalayi Fubara, and members of the Rivers State House of Assembly for a period of six months. Additionally, it led to the appointment of an administrator tasked with overseeing the governance of the state during this period. The suit, initiated by Belema Briggs and four other plaintiffs, sought to contest the legality of the emergency rule but was struck down by the court on grounds that the plaintiffs lacked the legal standing to bring the case forward.
The judgment, delivered on Thursday, October 2, 2025, highlighted several critical points that underpinned the court’s decision. Justice Omotosho emphasized that the plaintiffs—Belema Briggs and the four others—did not possess the requisite legal authority to institute the suit. According to the judge, only the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate matters of this nature, particularly those challenging the proclamation of a state of emergency by the President of Nigeria. The court’s reasoning was rooted in the constitutional framework governing such declarations, which places significant authority in the hands of the President, subject to specific legal and procedural checks.
Justice Omotosho further clarified that none of the plaintiffs demonstrated a personal stake or injury that distinguished their grievances from those of the general populace of Rivers State. Specifically, the court noted that the plaintiffs did not claim membership in the State Executive Committee or the Rivers State House of Assembly, nor did they allege any unique harm suffered as a result of the emergency declaration. This lack of personal or direct injury was a pivotal factor in the court’s determination that the plaintiffs lacked locus standi—the legal standing required to bring the case.
Another critical aspect of the ruling was the court’s observation that the plaintiffs failed to secure the fiat, or formal authorization, of the Rivers State Attorney General to initiate the suit on behalf of the state or its people. In Nigerian legal practice, such authorization is often necessary for cases that purport to represent the interests of a state or its citizens, particularly in matters involving constitutional or public interest litigation. The absence of this authorization further weakened the plaintiffs’ case, rendering it procedurally defective.
The court also addressed the substantive claims made by the plaintiffs, particularly their assertion that President Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency constituted a breach of their fundamental rights. Justice Omotosho dismissed this argument, holding that the President acted within the bounds of the law. The judge pointed out that Tinubu had invoked the appropriate legal framework for declaring a state of emergency, as provided under Nigerian law, to address what he described as a looming breakdown of law and order in Rivers State. Notably, the plaintiffs did not present evidence to contradict or dispute the President’s stated rationale for the emergency rule, further undermining their case.
Justice Omotosho described the suit as “frivolous and baseless,” emphasizing that the plaintiffs had not obtained the mandate or consent of the broader population of Rivers State before filing the case on their behalf. This point underscored the court’s view that the suit lacked the necessary public backing or legitimacy to challenge such a significant executive action. The judge’s ruling reinforced the principle that legal actions of this nature require a clear demonstration of authority, standing, and evidence to succeed.
The backdrop to this legal battle was the controversial proclamation of a state of emergency in Rivers State on March 18, 2025. President Tinubu’s decision was reportedly driven by escalating tensions and a perceived threat to public order in the state, though specific details of the events leading to the declaration were not extensively outlined in the court’s judgment. The emergency rule resulted in the suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara and the state legislature, a move that sparked significant political and public debate. The appointment of an administrator to manage the state’s affairs during the six-month period was seen as an attempt to stabilize the situation, but it also raised questions about the balance of power between the federal government and state authorities.
The dismissal of the suit represents a significant victory for President Tinubu and his administration, as it upholds the legality of his actions in Rivers State. However, it also highlights the challenges faced by private citizens or groups seeking to challenge executive actions in Nigeria’s judicial system. The requirement of locus standi and the need for authorization from state officials, such as the Attorney General, serve as significant hurdles for public interest litigation. These legal principles ensure that only those with a direct stake or proper authority can challenge governmental actions, preventing frivolous or poorly substantiated lawsuits from clogging the judicial system.
The ruling also sheds light on the broader constitutional framework governing states of emergency in Nigeria. Under the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the President has the authority to declare a state of emergency in a state or the entire country under specific circumstances, such as a breakdown of public order or a national crisis. Such declarations typically require the approval of the National Assembly, though the specifics of this process were not detailed in the court’s judgment. The fact that the plaintiffs did not challenge the procedural aspects of Tinubu’s proclamation—such as whether it was ratified by the National Assembly—further weakened their case.
For the people of Rivers State, the dismissal of the suit means that the emergency rule and its consequences, including the suspension of their elected officials, remain in effect for the duration specified by the President. The appointment of an administrator, while intended as a temporary measure, has likely altered the political dynamics in the state, raising questions about governance, accountability, and the restoration of democratic processes once the emergency period concludes.
The case also underscores the delicate balance between federal authority and state autonomy in Nigeria’s federal system. Rivers State, as one of Nigeria’s key economic hubs due to its oil wealth, has often been a focal point for political and legal disputes. The imposition of a state of emergency in such a strategically important state is a rare and significant action, one that is likely to have far-reaching implications for both the state and the country as a whole.
Looking forward, the dismissal of the suit may prompt further legal or political actions by those opposed to the emergency rule. While the Federal High Court has ruled that the plaintiffs in this case lacked standing, it remains possible that other parties—such as members of the suspended Rivers State House of Assembly or the Governor himself—could mount a fresh challenge, potentially at the Supreme Court, as suggested by Justice Omotosho. Such a move would likely depend on whether the necessary legal and procedural requirements, including locus standi and authorization, can be met.
In conclusion, the Federal High Court’s dismissal of the suit against President Tinubu’s proclamation of a state of emergency in Rivers State reaffirms the legal and constitutional hurdles that must be overcome to challenge executive actions in Nigeria. Justice Omotosho’s ruling emphasizes the importance of locus standi, proper authorization, and substantive evidence in such cases. While the decision upholds the President’s authority to act in the interest of maintaining law and order, it also highlights the complexities of Nigeria’s federal system and the challenges of balancing executive power with democratic governance. As Rivers State navigates the remainder of the emergency period, the broader implications of this ruling for Nigeria’s political and legal landscape will likely continue to unfold.
