Tinubu Tells Supreme Court Why Fubara’s Suspension Must Stand

President Bola Tinubu’s administration has urged the Supreme Court to throw out the lawsuit challenging the suspension of Rivers State Governor, Siminalayi Fubara, insisting the move was lawful and justified. The federal government submitted five key arguments through the office of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), urging the apex court to dismiss the case filed by 11 Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governors.

The PDP governors are asking the court to determine whether President Tinubu has the power to suspend an elected governor and declare a state of emergency in Rivers State. This came after the president appointed Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas (rtd.) as a sole administrator to oversee the state’s affairs, suspending Governor Fubara and other executive and judicial officials. The move followed a prolonged political crisis between Governor Fubara and his predecessor, Nyesom Wike, who now serves as the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory. Critics have slammed Tinubu’s actions as unconstitutional and a threat to Nigeria’s democracy.

But in its defence, the federal government submitted a counter-affidavit and preliminary objection, citing the following five reasons why the case should be dismissed:

1. The case does not fall under the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction as defined in Section 232(1) of the 1999 Constitution.

2. There is no legal dispute between the federal government and the states involved.

3. The plaintiffs failed to establish a justiciable issue.

4. The governors have no legal standing (locus standi) to file the suit.

5. The case is hypothetical, academic, and constitutes an abuse of court process.

Despite the controversy, the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt has scheduled a hearing on the matter. On May 12, 2025, President Tinubu and other top defendants were absent and unrepresented in court. Only Vice Admiral Ibas appeared via his legal representative. As tensions continue to rise in Rivers, this legal battle could shape the interpretation of presidential powers in a democracy and redefine the balance between federal and state authority.