The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved judgment in the suit filed by 10 Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)-controlled states challenging President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State.

A seven-member panel of Justices, led by Justice Inyang Okoro, announced the decision after all parties adopted their written addresses and processes. The apex court said the date for delivery of judgment would be communicated to the parties in due course.

The plaintiffs in the suit marked SC/CV/329/2025 are the Attorneys General of 10 PDP-governed states, namely: Adamawa, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Bauchi, Akwa Ibom, Plateau, Taraba, Zamfara, and Bayelsa. Delta State, initially part of the suit, formally withdrew during Tuesday’s proceedings.

Background of the Case

The case stems from President Tinubu’s March 18, 2025 declaration of a six-month state of emergency in Rivers State following a prolonged political crisis between Governor Siminalayi Fubara and members of the state House of Assembly.

The President’s proclamation suspended the governor, his deputy, and all state lawmakers, appointing Vice Admiral Ibok Ibas (rtd) as a Sole Administrator to oversee the state during the emergency period a move that sparked nationwide debate and legal backlash.

PDP States’ Argument

Lead counsel for the plaintiffs, Eyitayo Jegede (SAN), told the court that the action was not intended to challenge the President’s general power to declare a state of emergency, but to test the limits of that power under the 1999 Constitution.

Jegede argued that Tinubu’s decision to suspend duly elected state officials and install a sole administrator amounted to an unconstitutional overreach, as the constitution does not empower the President to dissolve or replace democratically elected organs under the guise of emergency rule.

He urged the court to determine whether the President’s procedure in declaring the emergency complied with sections 305(1)-(6) of the 1999 Constitution and whether the National Assembly properly exercised its oversight role in approving the proclamation.

Federal Government’s Defence

Opposing the suit, Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), urged the court to dismiss the case, describing it as “speculative, premature, and lacking in merit.”

Fagbemi insisted that the President acted within his constitutional duty to restore order and protect democracy amid the escalating political tension in Rivers.

“Rivers was in an extraordinary situation that required extraordinary measures to restore peace and protect democracy,” Fagbemi argued, insisting that the affected officials were not removed but temporarily suspended to allow for stability and governance continuity.

He accused the plaintiffs of attempting to “be more Catholic than the Pope,” maintaining that Tinubu’s intervention was a lawful response to a crisis that threatened national security and governance.

National Assembly’s Position

Counsel to the National Assembly, Charles Yohila, aligned with the AGF’s position, arguing that both chambers of the legislature acted in accordance with constitutional provisions in approving the President’s proclamation.

He urged the court to dismiss the PDP states’ suit, saying the matter was politically motivated and lacking a justiciable constitutional question.

Next Steps

After taking submissions from all sides, Justice Okoro stated that the court had reserved its judgment and would notify parties of the ruling date.

The case has drawn intense national attention, as it could set a major constitutional precedent on the scope of presidential powers during a state of emergency particularly regarding whether elected state officials can be lawfully suspended or replaced by federal appointees.

If the Supreme Court rules in favour of the plaintiffs, it could significantly limit executive authority in emergency governance. Conversely, a ruling for the Federal Government would expand presidential powers in handling state-level crises deemed to threaten national stability.