Nine Months After, Supreme Court Dismisses PDP Governors Suit Against Rivers State Emergency Rule

By Suleiman Anyalewechi

The Supreme Court of Nigeria on Monday December 15, 2025, dismissed the suit filed by the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, Governors Forum challenging the declaration of a State of emergency in Rivers State.

The Source reports that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu had on March 18,2025 in the wake of the political crises in Rivers state , between  Governor Siminalayi Fubara and Nyesom Wike-backed House of Assembly, suspended democratic governance for six months ,after proclaiming emergency rule.

But irked by the development, which not a few strongly believed  fell short of constitutional requirements, the umbrella body of the then eleven PDP Governors in April ,2025   filed an application  seeking the interpretation  of the provision of Session 305 of the 1999 Constitution which dwells on the powers of the president to declare emergency rule.

The plaintiffs in their application among others had prayed the court to declare unconstitutional, illegal  null and void the action of the President in sacking the Governor ,and other democratic institutions in Rivers state, after declaring a state of emergency.

Strangely, and curiously too, the country’s apex court could not take action on the suit, until the expiry of the emergency rule on September 18 2025.

In a split judgement of six-to-one the Supreme  Court held that the plaintiffs (the PDP Governors Forum) lacked the locus standi to institute a legal action against the President’s action in Rivers State.

In the lead judgment delivered by Justice Mohammed Idris, the Supreme Court held that PDP Governors failed to establish the existence of any dispute between them and the Federal Government headed by President Tinubu as far as the emergency rule declaration in Rivers state is concerned.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that in the face of  the inability of the PDP Governors to prove any actionable cause, the Court cannot, therefore, exercise its original jurisdiction to hear and determine the application.

Instructively, the judgment is coming nine clear months after the application was filed, raising concerns about the ability and readiness of the country’s judicial system to play its expected critical roles in the advancement of democratic norms in the country.