By Damilola Adeleke

A Supreme Court ruling from 2006 prevents Siminalayi Fubara, the suspended governor of Rivers State, from seeking redress at the apex court. However, he may approach the Federal High Court, though legal experts believe a swift resolution is unlikely.

On March 19, President Bola Tinubu announced the six-month suspension of Fubara, his deputy Ngozi Odu, and all state lawmakers in a national broadcast. He also appointed retired Vice-Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas as the state’s administrator. While Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution allows the president to declare a state of emergency under specific conditions, legal analysts argue that suspending a sitting governor, deputy governor, and lawmakers exceeds constitutional powers.

A similar case occurred in 2004 when then-President Olusegun Obasanjo declared a state of emergency in Plateau State, suspending Governor Joshua Dariye and the state legislature. The Plateau government and the House of Assembly challenged the decision at the Supreme Court, but the court ruled that they lacked the legal standing to sue since the appointed administrator had not authorized the case. The ruling established a precedent that prevents Fubara from filing a lawsuit on behalf of Rivers State, as he no longer holds executive authority under the emergency rule.

The Supreme Court also clarified in Plateau State v. Attorney-General of the Federation that it has original jurisdiction only in disputes between the federal and state governments under Section 232(1) of the 1999 Constitution. It does not hear cases filed by individuals in their personal capacity. This means Fubara cannot personally challenge his suspension at the Supreme Court. Other governors from the opposition People’s Democratic Party (PDP) plan to take the matter to court, but Fubara himself is not listed as a plaintiff.

While the Supreme Court is not an option, Fubara could turn to the Federal High Court, which has jurisdiction over constitutional matters, fundamental rights enforcement, and federal government disputes. He may argue that his suspension violates his rights or seek a judicial review of the president’s actions. However, legal experts warn that the case would likely face strong opposition from the federal government and could take years to resolve—by which time the six-month suspension would have ended.