A Federal High Court has scheduled March 9 to rule on a suit challenging Tinubu’s emergency powers in Rivers State.

The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed March 9 for judgment in a fresh suit challenging the legal authority of President Bola Tinubu to remove elected state officials during a state of emergency in Rivers State last year.

Justice James Omotosho fixed the date after counsel for the plaintiff, Nnamdi Nwokocha-Ahaaiwe, and the defence lawyer adopted their processes and presented their arguments for and against the suit.

The case, filed by the plaintiff, the Civil Society Observatory for Constitutional and Legal Compliance (CSOCLC), challenges explicitly the president’s actions following the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State.

The CSO argued that, while the president may declare an emergency under Section 305 of the Constitution, he lacked the power to suspend or remove elected executive and legislative officers, or to install an interim administrator.

Adopting their originating summons and reply briefs, plaintiffs’ counsel, Nnamdi Ahaaiwe, argued that the 1999 Constitution fully “covers the field” on emergency powers.

He contended that older laws, including the Emergency Powers (Jurisdiction) Act of 1962, cited in prior court rulings to limit jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, had expired before 1999, and were deliberately omitted from the Laws of the Federation as “spent,” and could not be revived or modified by executive order in 2025.

Ahaaiwe further submitted that no statute enlarges presidential powers beyond the Constitution’s explicit provisions, which omit authority to suspend elected officials.

Defence counsel for the president and co-defendants adopted their processes, including a preliminary objection asserting lack of jurisdiction based on prior rulings and the 2025 modification order.

Justice Omotosho, however, noted the similarity of the suit to previous cases he had dismissed, citing jurisdictional issues under the old Emergency Powers (Jurisdiction) Act of 1962.

The judge also referenced a Supreme Court decision from Dec. 15, 2025, which reportedly dismissed a related case on procedural grounds.

But Ahaaiwe acknowledged these previous rulings but insisted they were erroneous.

He argued that the 1962 Act was a “spent” law, deliberately omitted from statute books before the 1999 Constitution took effect.

Therefore, he contended that a 2025 presidential order modifying this non-existent law is “unconstitutional, null, and void.”

“The constitution has fully covered the field on emergency powers,” Ahaaiwe submitted, adding that “no executive proclamation can alter the express provisions of Section 305.”

The counsel for the 1st to 5th defendants, including the President and the Attorney-General of the Federation, relied on the same 1962 Act and the modification order to assert that only the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over such disputes, urging the court to strike out the case.

The plaintiffs had sought 26 reliefs, including a declaration that an appointed administrator, retired Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ekwe Ibas, cannot govern Rivers outside the provisions of the constitution.

The suit, which was heard, revived a critical constitutional debate previously thought settled.

The emergency, declared March 18, 2025, and endorsed by the National Assembly, suspended Fubara, his deputy, and state lawmakers for six months before ending September 17, 2025, with officials reinstated the following day.

The case tests lingering constitutional questions over federal intervention in state governance.

The Supreme Court ruling struck out a related suit by governors elected on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) on procedural grounds, including improper invocation of original jurisdiction.