The decision by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governors to challenge the suspension of Rivers State Governor, Siminalayi Fubara, in the Supreme Court has reignited a critical debate on Nigeria’s federalism and the balance of power between the federal government and state authorities.
The PDP governors are contesting the six-month suspension imposed on Governor Fubara, his deputy, Ngozi Odu, and members of the Rivers State House of Assembly. They argue that this move is unconstitutional and a violation of democratic principles.
Constitutional Breach and Federal Overreach
The governors contend that the suspension of duly elected officials and the appointment of a Sole Administrator for Rivers State represent an unconstitutional overreach of federal power. Citing sections 1(2), 5(2), and 305 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), they maintain that President Bola Tinubu exceeded his legal authority in declaring a state of emergency and suspending elected officials.
Their legal challenge, filed in the Supreme Court, seeks to clarify the constitutional limits of presidential authority and prevent the executive from arbitrarily removing state officials. The PDP governors argue that such actions undermine Nigeria’s democratic institutions and the principle of state autonomy within the federal system.
Supreme Court Petitions
In their legal submissions, the governors are requesting several key rulings:
- Nullification of the State of Emergency – The governors argue that the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State did not meet the constitutional requirements. They assert that the conditions necessary for such a declaration were absent, making the decision unlawful.
- Reversal of the Suspension – They urge the Supreme Court to declare the suspension of Governor Fubara, his deputy, and members of the Rivers State House of Assembly null and void, citing a lack of constitutional backing for the move.
- Injunction Against the President’s Actions – The PDP governors seek a court order restraining President Tinubu, his agents, and representatives from implementing the suspension or interfering with the governance of Rivers State.
- Prevention of Future Suspensions – The governors are also requesting an injunction to prevent the President from unilaterally suspending any other state governor, particularly those from opposition parties.
- Invalidation of the Sole Administrator Appointment – The appointment of a Sole Administrator to govern Rivers State is another issue the governors are challenging. They argue that the Constitution does not grant the President the power to appoint an unelected official to replace an elected governor and deputy governor.
Legislative Concerns and Due Process
The PDP governors have also raised concerns over the role of the National Assembly in approving the state of emergency declaration. They argue that the approval process was flawed, as it was conducted through a voice vote rather than the constitutionally required two-thirds majority of both legislative chambers.
Their legal team insists that bypassing due process in such a crucial decision sets a dangerous precedent and threatens the stability of Nigeria’s democratic governance.
Broader Implications for Nigerian Democracy
This legal battle extends beyond Rivers State, as its outcome will shape the broader conversation on executive overreach and the sanctity of Nigeria’s federal structure. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the PDP governors, it could reinforce the autonomy of state governments and set limits on presidential powers regarding state affairs.
Conversely, if the court upholds the suspension, it could embolden future administrations to take similar actions against opposition governors, potentially weakening the democratic framework of the nation.
As the case proceeds, all eyes will be on the Supreme Court to deliver a ruling that will not only determine the fate of Governor Fubara and his administration but also influence the trajectory of governance and constitutional law in Nigeria.
