The plaintiffs argue that President Tinubu’s March 18, 2025, declaration of emergency in Rivers State is unconstitutional, null, and void.
President Bola Tinubu and Rivers State Sole Administrator Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas have been summoned by a Federal High Court in Port Harcourt.
The court summoned them over the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State.
The suit, marked FHC/PH/CS/45/2025, was filed by the Incorporated Trustees of Peoples Life Improvement Foundation, Precious Elekima, and Inanna Wright Harry.
The plaintiffs are challenging the legality of the emergency rule and seeking the court’s interpretation of its constitutionality.
Among those named in the lawsuit are Senate President Godswill Akpabio, Speaker of the House of Representatives Tajudeen Abbas, the National Assembly, and the Attorney General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi.
Also joined in the suit are Rivers State Sole Administrator Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas, the Revenue and Fiscal Mobilisation Commission, and the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN).
The plaintiffs argue that President Tinubu’s March 18, 2025, declaration of emergency in Rivers State is unconstitutional, null, and void.
They claim it violates Article 13 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement Act) and Section 305(3)(b) of the Nigerian Constitution (as amended).
They are seeking a court order to prevent the Rivers State Administrator from appointing caretaker committees for the 23 local government councils, forming a state executive council, and awarding contracts or making any financial transactions from the state treasury.
The plaintiffs are also demanding the restoration of democracy in Rivers State by reinstating the suspended executive and legislative arms of government.
Additionally, they are asking the court to issue a perpetual injunction restraining President Tinubu from further suspending elected officials in the state.
The court has given the defendants 30 days to respond to the summons, warning that failure to do so could result in the case proceeding in their absence.
