President Bola Ahmed Tinubu informed the Supreme Court of Nigeria that he declared a state of emergency in Rivers State on March 18, 2025, due to a complete collapse of governance, cautioning that the crisis posed a significant threat to public order and safety.
President Tinubu, alongside the Attorney-General of the Federation, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas, and suspended Governor Siminalayi Fubara, submitted a counter-affidavit on May 20, contending that the emergency rule was constitutionally valid.
“There is a clear and present danger of an imminent breakdown of public order and public safety in Rivers State,” the affidavit stated, highlighting what it described as an “intractable conflict” between the executive and legislative arms of the state government.
The affidavit, filed on behalf of the Presidency by Taiye Hussain Oloyede, Senior Special Assistant to the President, and a representative of the Federal Ministry of Justice, described a state on the brink of chaos in response to a legal suit filed by Yirabari Israel Nulong, Nengim Ikpoemugh Royal, and Gracious Eyoh-Sifumbukho, who are urging the court to nullify the emergency proclamation.
“As at 18 March 2025, when the 1st Defendant issued the Proclamation, the executive and legislative organs of the Rivers State Government were still mired in conflict and there was no indication that the impasse was about to be resolved,” the court document stated.
“Indeed, so intractable was the conflict that it paralysed the organs of government in the state and jeopardised public safety and order.”
Oloyede noted that the President’s action was taken under constitutional powers and with the approval of both chambers of the National Assembly. Following the declaration, Admiral Ibas was appointed as Sole Administrator to oversee governance in the state.
While the Nigerian Bar Association and several civic groups have publicly opposed the move, citing constitutional overreach and democratic backsliding, the Presidency maintains that the emergency declaration was made in accordance with the 1999 Constitution and relevant legal precedents.
The case is currently before the Supreme Court, and legal analysts warn that the outcome could significantly impact federal-state relations and presidential authority during times of political crisis.
