The Federal High Court in Port Harcourt has pushed forward a high-stakes constitutional case questioning the legality of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s suspension of elected leaders in Rivers State. The case, which has captured national attention, will now be heard on May 26, 2025, following a procedural request for more time by one of the parties involved.
At the heart of the legal battle is a suit filed by former federal legislator and ex-governorship aspirant, Dr. Farah Dagogo, who is contesting the constitutional validity of the President’s actions taken on March 18, 2025. The President had declared a state of emergency in Rivers State, citing concerns over public safety, and subsequently replaced Governor Siminalayi Fubara, Deputy Governor Professor Ngozi Odu, and the state legislature with an appointed administrator — Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas (Rtd.).
Dagogo’s legal challenge, filed under Suit No: FHC/PH/CS/50/2025, argues that the President exceeded his constitutional limits and acted without proper legal authority. He contends that there was no justification under Nigeria’s legal framework to suspend duly elected officials and impose a federally appointed administrator.
Only One Defendant Appears as Case Progresses Slowly.
During Monday’s court session, Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Cosmas Enweluzo, representing the plaintiff, confirmed that all five defendants had been served. However, only Vice Admiral Ibas was represented in court, through counsel Kehinde Ogunwumiju (SAN), who requested an extension to file a formal response.
Justice Adamu Turaki Mohammed, who presided over the hearing, granted the extension but issued a stern warning: the court will proceed on the next date with or without full participation from the defendants. Other named defendants include President Tinubu, Senate President Godswill Akpabio, House Speaker Tajudeen Abbas, and the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria — none of whom had submitted responses at the time of the hearing.
Lawyer Condemns What He Calls a Constitutional Violation.
Addressing journalists after the session, Enweluzo sharply criticized the federal government’s action, describing it as a direct affront to Nigeria’s democratic principles.
“The presidency has no constitutional power to unseat elected representatives by executive order,” Enweluzo said. “We must not allow arbitrary governance over millions of law-abiding citizens in Rivers State. This action is not only illegal — it is dangerous.”
He further dismissed the federal government’s justification for the emergency declaration, pointing to the absence of similar actions in states like Borno, Benue, and Plateau, where security issues have been more severe and prolonged.
More Read
Constitutional Crisis or Political Overreach?
Legal experts are watching the case closely, as it may set a precedent regarding the boundaries of executive power in Nigeria. If the court rules in favor of the plaintiff, it could reaffirm the inviolability of elected state governments, even during periods of federal concern.
Dagogo’s legal team insists the case isn’t about politics but about defending the Nigerian Constitution. “It’s a civic duty to challenge actions that sidestep democratic norms,” Enweluzo said.
As the next hearing approaches, all eyes remain on the judiciary to determine whether the President’s emergency actions will stand legal scrutiny or be overturned in favor of constitutional order.
