The Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a suit challenging President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of emergency rule in Rivers State earlier this year.
In a judgment delivered on Thursday, Justice James Omotosho held that the five plaintiffs led by Belema Briggs lacked the legal standing to institute the action.
President Tinubu had, on March 18, 2025, declared a six-month state of emergency in Rivers State, suspending Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, Ngozi Odu, and members of the State House of Assembly. He also appointed a sole administrator to oversee the state’s affairs during the period.
Dissatisfied with the decision, the plaintiffs dragged the president to court, alleging a breach of their fundamental rights and that of the people of the state.
However, Justice Omotosho ruled that the plaintiffs had no authority to act on behalf of Rivers residents, as they neither held political office nor secured the fiat of the state’s Attorney General to file the case. He added that none of them demonstrated any injury suffered beyond that of the general population.
The court further observed that the president’s justification that the emergency proclamation was necessary to forestall a breakdown of law and order was not contested by the plaintiffs. Omotosho described the suit as frivolous, baseless, and an abuse of court process.
He stressed that Tinubu acted within the provisions of the law governing emergency rule, noting that the plaintiffs’ claims of rights violations did not override the president’s constitutional powers in such circumstances.
Also see: INEC’s Stand on Ahoada East Bye-Election: A Win For Democracy
The judgment comes weeks after President Tinubu formally ended the emergency rule in Rivers State on September 18, 2025. At the time, he disclosed that more than 40 suits had been filed across various courts challenging the declaration, including one instituted by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) currently pending before the Supreme Court.
Justice Omotosho’s ruling underscores the judiciary’s position that only those directly affected, or constitutionally empowered, can validly question such executive decisions in court.
