Why courts are bound to decide legality of emergency rule – Falana

By Femi Falana SAN

Following the cessation of the exigency regularisation successful Rivers State connected September 17, 2025, President Bola Tinubu restored the suspended Governor Siminalayi Fubara

and different elected officials. In a connection connected the juncture of the lifting  of the exigency rule, President Tinubu acknowledged that galore Nigerians opposed his determination and dragged him to court. In a veiled notation to the ineligible debacle, the President said:

“I americium not unaware that determination were a fewer voices of dissent against the proclamation, which led to their instituting implicit 40 cases successful the courts successful Abuja, Port Harcourt, and Yenagoa, to invalidate the declaration. That is the mode it should beryllium successful a antiauthoritarian setting. Some cases are inactive pending successful the courts arsenic of today.”

It is pertinent to recall  the lawsuit of Attorney-General of Plateau State v Attorney-General of the Federation (2006) 3 NWLR (Pt. 967) 346, wherever the Plaintiff had challenged  the law validity of the 6-month exigency regularisation and the suspension of elected Governor, Deputy-Governor and legislators by the President. The Supreme Court heard the lawsuit aft the expiration of the exigency rule.

In striking retired the lawsuit for privation of jurisdiction, the Supreme Court stated that the claims were seeking alleviation for idiosyncratic persons who were not parties to the enactment and that the suit raised nary unrecorded contented arsenic the authorities of exigency had ended, rendering the claims world and speculative. In the lawsuit of Attorney-General of Ekiti State v Attorney-General of the Federation (unreported), the apex tribunal toed the aforesaid enactment by washing disconnected its hands similar Pontius Pilate. As the lawsuit was filed connected behalf of the authorities government, the apex tribunal said that it was not authorised by the sole administrator!

No doubt, immoderate of the pending cases person challenged the suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara and different elected officials during the play of exigency regularisation successful Rivers State. To that extent, those reliefs are apt to beryllium struck retired connected the crushed that they person go world and speculative pursuing the restoration of the suspended antiauthoritarian structures.

 However, the bulk of the pending cases seek  a law mentation of the President’s powers to suspend elected authorities officials and enforce exigency regularisation and the legality of appointing a sole head to govern a authorities during the play of suspension. They besides situation the legality of suspending a authorities legislature and different authorities enforcement bodies nether exigency rule. Essentially,  the cases question the mentation the mentation of sections 1(2), 5(2), 11, 176, 180, 188, and 305 of the Nigerian Constitution.

Other cases pertain to the dissolution of authorities enforcement bodies and the removal of officials whose presumption had not expired, assignment of members of statutory boards by a sole administrator, arsenic good arsenic the behaviour of section authorities elections without giving capable announcement to governmental parties contrary to the judgement of the Supreme Court connected the matter.  It is indisputable that these are unrecorded issues that should beryllium speedily heard and determined by the courts.

From the facts and circumstances of exigency regularisation successful Rivers State, it is indubitably wide that the cases arising from this peculiar exigency regularisation are distinguishable from the lawsuit of Attorney-General of Plateau State v Attorney-General of the Federation (supra). To that  these cases are not spent.

After all,  the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr. Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) had said that the declaration of a authorities of exigency successful Rivers State was a “clear signal” to different crisis-ridden states that the national authorities would not tolerate breaches of the Constitution. The courts tin not spend to disregard the veiled menace of the national authorities portion the sword of Damocles continues to bent menacingly connected the heads of elected governors.

On different occasion, Mr. Fagbemi SAN had urged critics of the authorities of exigency successful Rivers State to let the judiciary to decide  the matter. In his ain words,  “Let america refrain from unnecessary commentary. Either you marque a nationalist comment, oregon you let the tribunal to bash its work. Since the tribunal is already involved, let’s beryllium patient.”

The Bola Tinubu medication has thrown a situation to the judiciary. The Courts indispensable it up without immoderate further delay. In different words, notwithstanding the restoration of democ...