Why President Tinubu declared Emergency rule in Rivers State – Fed Govt tells Supreme Court

Why President Tinubu declared Emergency rule in Rivers State – Fed Govt tells Supreme Court

The Federal Government has presented its justification to the Supreme Court for declaring a state of emergency in Rivers State, attributing the move to a collapse in governance and escalating threats to vital national economic infrastructure.

In its submission, the government maintained that the intervention was unavoidable given the grave circumstances.

This defense was filed in response to a lawsuit initiated by 11 states mostly governed by the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) which are challenging the legality of the emergency declaration.

The states involved are Adamawa, Akwa Ibom, Bauchi, Bayelsa, Delta, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Plateau, Taraba, and Zamfara. The plaintiffs contend that the Federal Government acted outside the bounds of the law.

Disputing the claims, the Federal Government, through an affidavit submitted by Mr. Taiye Hussain Oloyede, Special Assistant to the President and the Federal Ministry of Justice, described an escalating political crisis in Rivers State.

The affidavit states that the instability prompted President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to declare a state of emergency on March 15, 2025.

According to the government, critical infrastructure including oil pipelines was increasingly targeted by acts of vandalism, and militant groups issued violent threats against perceived opponents of the governor, while the state’s leadership allegedly failed to respond effectively.

The Federal Government further accused Governor Similayi Fubara of exacerbating the crisis by ordering the demolition of the State House of Assembly complex.

It claimed that legislative functions had ground to a halt, with only four lawmakers convening in the governor’s office, while 27 others were unable to fulfill their constitutional duties.

Additionally, the government cited ongoing legal battles between the governor and lawmakers as further evidence of dysfunction. It noted that the governor had failed to present an Appropriation Bill, thereby paralyzing the state’s financial operations.

The demolition of the assembly complex, it added, was corroborated by classified security reports.

Oloyede, in the affidavit, said: “I am a Special Assistant to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, GCFR. By reason of that, I have been working in close contact with the Hon. Attorney-General of the Federation, the 1st defendant in this case.
“Further by reason of the same position, I know the facts of this case and I have the authority of the President and Chief Akin Olujinmi, CON, SAN, counsel to the 1st defendant, to swear to this counter affidavit.
“I have read through the affidavit in support of the plaintiffs originating summons. I admit paragraphs 1 and 8 of the affidavit in support of the originating summons.

“I deny paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5,6, 7,9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, #7, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32 of the affidavit in support of the originating summons on the ground that they are not true.
“By reason of my job as Special Assistant to President Ahmed Bola Tinubu, GCFR, I know the facts and circumstances that happened in Rivers State, which culminated in the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State by President Bola Ahmed Bola Tinubu on 18th March, 2025.
“It is a matter of common knowledge that there was a very serious political crisis in Rivers State which had led to the Governor of Rivers State and the House of Assembly not being able to work together.

“The State House of Assembly was crisis ridden such that members of the House were divided into two with four members working with the governor while 27 members were opposed to the governor while one was loyal to the Speaker of the House.
“As a result, the governor was not able to present any Appropriation Bill to the House to be passed for the governor to be able to access funds for the running of the affairs of Rivers State.

“Further to paragraph 10 above, by reason of the non-presentation of Appropriation Bill to the Rivers State House of Assembly for passage, governance had run to a standstill.

“The crisis escalated to the point that the governor demolished the House of Assembly of the State thus depriving the 27 members opposed to him from having official accommodation where they could meet to carry out their duties as a House of Assembly.

“The governor however allowed the four members he considered loyal to him to be meeting in his office.

“There was violence in the state with attacks on critical economic assets of the State including vandalization of oil pipelines, with the Governor not taking any steps to address the occurrences.
 “Militants were openly threatening fire and brimstone against those they perceived as enemies of the governor with the governor not doing anything even as little as denouncing and disowning them.

“President Bola Ahmed Tinubu intervened in the dispute between the governor and the members of the State Assembly and other political players in the state with a view to resolving issues amicably for them, but the parties stuck to their individual positions to the detriment of peace and development in the state.

  “Again, many well-meaning and respected Nigerians also intervened in the crisis with a view to settling it but the Governor and members of the State Assembly gave no room for the crisis to be resolved.
“Even after the delivery of the Supreme Court judgment referred to above, matters still remained the same in the State with no efforts made by the parties to resolve the crisis to allow governance to resume.
 “Therefore, to avoid further deterioration, President Ahmed Bola Tinubu had to declare a state of emergency in Rivers State to stop the drift to greater violence.

“The foregoing facts were captured in the address made by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to the nation while declaring the state of emergency in Rivers State. A certified true copy of the proclamation of emergency is attached as Exhibit A.
“Contrary to the depositions at paragraphs 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 of the plaintiffs’ affidavit, the President has neither said nor threatened that he would declare a state of emergency in any of the plaintiffs’ states but the plaintiffs have only been driven into panic mode by their own imaginary fears.
“Contrary to the depositions at paragraphs 18, 19, 20, 21, 22,23 and240f. 4/9 plaintiffs’ affidavit, I have read Section 305(6) of the 1999 Constitution as amended and I know that there is no stipulation therein that the resolution of two third majority prescribed therein shall be by physical counting of the votes by each house of the National Assembly.”