0
0
The Federal Government has presented its defense before the Supreme Court, justifying the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State. The government argued that the move was necessitated by a complete breakdown of governance and growing threats to critical national economic infrastructure.
In response to a legal challenge filed by 11 states—primarily governed by the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)—the Federal Government maintained that it had no alternative but to act in the interest of national stability. The plaintiff states—Adamawa, Akwa Ibom, Bauchi, Bayelsa, Delta, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Plateau, Taraba, and Zamfara—asserted that the declaration of emergency rule in Rivers State was unconstitutional.
However, in a counter-affidavit sworn by Mr. Taiye Hussain Oloyede, Special Assistant to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the Federal Ministry of Justice, the Federal Government rejected these claims. “I am a Special Assistant to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, GCFR. By reason of that, I have been working in close contact with the Hon. Attorney-General of the Federation, the 1st defendant in this case. I have the authority of the President and Chief Akin Olujinmi, CON, SAN, counsel to the 1st defendant, to swear to this counter affidavit,” Oloyede stated.
Oloyede confirmed only paragraphs 1 and 8 of the plaintiffs’ affidavit, while denying the rest on the grounds that they were untrue.
He argued that the political crisis in Rivers State had paralyzed governance. “There was a very serious political crisis in Rivers State which led to a situation where the Governor and the House of Assembly could not work together,” he said. According to the affidavit, the Rivers State House of Assembly was fractured, with only four members aligned with Governor Siminalayi Fubara, while 27 opposed him. This division, he claimed, prevented the governor from presenting an Appropriation Bill, effectively halting the running of government affairs.
The Federal Government also accused Governor Fubara of exacerbating the crisis by demolishing the State House of Assembly building, thereby depriving the majority of lawmakers of a venue to conduct legislative duties. “The governor allowed only the four lawmakers loyal to him to meet in his office,” the affidavit stated.
Further instability was highlighted, including violence and attacks on key economic assets such as oil pipelines. The government claimed the governor failed to address these issues or denounce militant threats against his opponents.
Oloyede added that both the governor and the opposing lawmakers filed numerous legal actions, further deepening the crisis. He referenced a Supreme Court ruling stating, “A government cannot be said to exist without one of the three arms that make up the government of a state… the head of the executive has chosen to collapse the legislature to govern as a despot. As it is, there is no government in Rivers State.”
The affidavit also noted that President Tinubu and other elder statesmen made several unsuccessful efforts to mediate the crisis. “Despite interventions, including the Supreme Court judgment, no progress was made in resolving the impasse. To avoid further deterioration, President Tinubu declared a state of emergency on March 18, 2025,” Oloyede stated.
A certified true copy of the emergency proclamation was submitted as evidence. Oloyede dismissed claims that the President threatened to declare a state of emergency in any of the plaintiff states, calling such fears “imaginary.”
He also refuted the plaintiffs’ interpretation of Section 305(6) of the Constitution, clarifying that it does not mandate a physical count of votes by each house of the National Assembly. “The President acted within constitutional bounds. The National Assembly’s role is to approve or disapprove the declaration—nothing more,” he said.
Oloyede concluded by affirming the President’s commitment to the rule of law. “President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is a firm believer in the rule of law. There was a clear breakdown of public order and safety in Rivers State, necessitating extraordinary measures to restore peace and security.”
Meanwhile, the National Assembly, also named in the suit, has filed a preliminary objection dated April 22. It urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the suit due to procedural irregularities and lack of merit, and demanded N1 billion in legal costs from the plaintiffs, describing the case as “frivolous and speculative.”
The PDP governors are seeking constitutional clarification on whether the President has the authority to suspend or interfere with state governments and legislatures through emergency declarations. They argue such actions violate the principles of constitutional federalism and sections of the 1999 Constitution.
