Legal Hurdles For Siminalayi Fubara: Can The Suspended Rivers State Governor Challenge His Fate?

Scope 04 Apr 2025

A Legal Obstacle Stands Between Fubara and Justice

Let’s talk about a tough situation here. Back in 2006, the Supreme Court made a ruling that now acts as a roadblock for Siminalayi Fubara, the suspended governor of Rivers State, in his quest to enforce his rights through the courts. According to reports from TheCable, while Fubara is restricted from directly approaching the court, there is still a possibility of filing a case at the Federal High Court. But here’s the kicker—experts say it’s not going to be a quick fix. Legal battles like this often drag on, and time isn’t exactly on Fubara’s side.

How Did We Get Here?

It all began on March 19, 2025, when President Bola Tinubu took to the national stage to announce the suspension of Governor Fubara, his deputy Ngozi Odu, and every single member of the Rivers State House of Assembly. In his live address, the president justified the decision by pointing to the escalating political unrest in the state, which prompted the declaration of a state of emergency. This move effectively sidelined Fubara, who belongs to the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), as part of the emergency measures designed to bring stability back to the region.

Under Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the president has the authority to declare a state of emergency under specific circumstances. But here’s where it gets complicated—legal experts are now questioning whether the suspension of a sitting governor, deputy governor, and lawmakers goes beyond what the constitution allows. This scenario feels eerily familiar to a similar event back in 2004 when President Olusegun Obasanjo declared a state of emergency in Plateau State due to violent ethnic and religious clashes. That move led to the suspension of Governor Joshua Dariye and the state legislature, with retired General Chris Alli stepping in as the sole administrator.

Read also:
Level Up Your Streaming A Guide To Building A Thriving Gaming Channel

Lessons from the Plateau State Case

When the Plateau State government and assembly challenged President Obasanjo’s actions at the Supreme Court, their case was quickly dismissed due to jurisdictional issues. The court ruled that the appointed administrator had complete control over the state and hadn’t authorized anyone to challenge the president’s decision in court. Justice Idris Kutigi delivered the lead judgment, stating that the plaintiffs lacked the necessary legal standing (locus standi) to file the case on behalf of the state. The court further clarified that without a legal dispute between the administrator and the federal government, it didn’t have the jurisdiction to hear the case.

This legal precedent now means that Fubara can’t challenge his suspension through the Rivers State government because he no longer holds executive authority during the state of emergency. The 2006 ruling reinforces this, stating that any attempt to sue on behalf of the state government would be invalid since the current administrator holds full control.

Can Fubara Take a Personal Stand?

In the landmark case of Plateau State v. Attorney-General of the Federation, the Supreme Court made it clear that under Section 232(1) of the 1999 Constitution, it only has original jurisdiction over disputes between the federal government and a state—not cases filed by individuals in their personal capacity. The court struck out all reliefs sought on behalf of Dariye, the deputy governor, members of the House of Assembly, and state commissioners, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain their personal grievances. This sets a clear precedent: Fubara cannot personally approach the Supreme Court to challenge his suspension.

What About the Federal High Court?

Other governors elected under the PDP platform have chosen to take their fight to the Supreme Court to challenge the declaration of emergency rule, but notably, Fubara isn’t listed as a plaintiff. So, if the Supreme Court isn’t an option, could the Federal High Court provide a viable alternative? The Federal High Court does have jurisdiction over cases involving the enforcement of fundamental rights, constitutional interpretation, and disputes involving the federal government.

Section 251, particularly subsection (r) of the 1999 Constitution, empowers the court to hear cases where the federal government or any of its agencies is a party. This raises the question: Can Fubara challenge his suspension by arguing that it violates his fundamental rights or seek judicial review, claiming that his suspension exceeds presidential powers? While the Federal High Court might offer a potential route for legal action, success would hinge on whether Fubara’s legal team can convincingly prove that the president acted beyond his constitutional powers.

But here’s the reality check—lawyers warn that even if Fubara files a case, it’s likely to face strong objections from the federal government. And given the slow pace of the legal system, the case could drag on for years. By the time a resolution is reached, the six-month suspension period may already have expired.