President Tinubu Tells Supreme Court No Governance In Rivers When He Imposed State Of Emergency
President Bola Tinubu told the Supreme Court Tuesday that there was no governance in Rivers State when he imposed state of emergency on the state.
President Bola Tinubu told the Supreme Court Tuesday that there was no governance in Rivers State when he imposed state of emergency on the state.
Tinubu also, reminded the apex court that it had confirmed the absence of governance in Rivers State in one of its judgements, adding that the proclamation got the backing of the National Assembly.
He spoke through a joint affidavit filed on May 20 at the Supreme Court by the Senior Special Assistant to the President of the State House, and the Federal Ministry of Justice, Mr. Taiye Hussain Oloyede.
According to Tinubu, the Executive and the State House of Assembly were mired in conflict with many suits to wit.
The affidavit was for the President, the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, Rivers State Administrator, Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas and the suspended Governor Similayi Fubara.
The affidavit was in response to another application before the apex court seeking to nullify the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State.
The latest suit was filed by Yirabari Israel Nulong, Nengim Ikpoemugh Royal and Gracious Eyoh-Sifumbukho.
The affidavit further noted that the President acted to prevent anarchy in the state.
The affidavit was for the President, the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, Rivers State Administrator, Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas and the suspended Governor Similayi Fubara.
The affidavit was in response to another application before the apex court seeking to nullify the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State.
The latest suit was filed by Yirabari Israel Nulong, Nengim Ikpoemugh Royal and Gracious Eyoh-Sifumbukho.
The affidavit further noted that the President acted to prevent anarchy in the state.
The defendants further stated that the fact, leading to the proclamation of the state of emergency were captured in the address of the President to the nation.
“I am also aware that, following the said proclamation, the President assumed responsibility for the administration of Rivers State and formally appointed the 3rd Defendant as Sole Administrator to oversee the affairs of the state during the emergency period, and the 3rd Defendant assumed responsibility for day to-day administration and oversight in Rivers State following the proclamation.
“The depositions in paragraphs 3(b),(c), (d), (f} and (g) of the JE Affidavit are true. The deposition in paragraph 3(e) is true, but only to the extent that after the inauguration of the members of the executive and legislative organs of the Rivers State Government (‘the RSG’), an intractable conflict ensued between both organs.
“The deposition in paragraphs 3(h) and 3(i) of the JE Affidavit are untrue and misleading. As at 18 March 2025, when the 1st Defendant issued the Proclamation, the executive and legislative organs of the RSG were still mired in conflict and there was no indication that the impasse was about to be resolved.
“Indeed, so intractable was the conflict that it paralysed the organs of government in the state and jeopardised public safety and order.
“In the proclamation itself, the 1st Defendant stated that there is a clear and present danger of an imminent breakdown of public order and public safety in Rivers State and that the crisis, if left unchecked, could degenerate, leading to massive loss of lives and property in the State,” Oloyede added.
Oloyede further said the two chambers of the National Assembly approved the declaration of the state of emergency, adding that although the Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, opposed the proclamation, many scholars and jurists said the President’s decision was in line with 1999 Constitution and current case law.
“I am also aware that, following the said proclamation, the President assumed responsibility for the administration of Rivers State and formally appointed the 3rd Defendant as Sole Administrator to oversee the affairs of the state during the emergency period, and the 3rd Defendant assumed responsibility for day to-day administration and oversight in Rivers State following the proclamation.
“The depositions in paragraphs 3(b),(c), (d), (f} and (g) of the JE Affidavit are true. The deposition in paragraph 3(e) is true, but only to the extent that after the inauguration of the members of the executive and legislative organs of the Rivers State Government (‘the RSG’), an intractable conflict ensued between both organs.
“The deposition in paragraphs 3(h) and 3(i) of the JE Affidavit are untrue and misleading. As at 18 March 2025, when the 1st Defendant issued the Proclamation, the executive and legislative organs of the RSG were still mired in conflict and there was no indication that the impasse was about to be resolved.
“Indeed, so intractable was the conflict that it paralysed the organs of government in the state and jeopardised public safety and order.
“In the proclamation itself, the 1st Defendant stated that there is a clear and present danger of an imminent breakdown of public order and public safety in Rivers State and that the crisis, if left unchecked, could degenerate, leading to massive loss of lives and property in the State,” Oloyede added.
Oloyede further said the two chambers of the National Assembly approved the declaration of the state of emergency, adding that although the Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, opposed the proclamation, many scholars and jurists said the President’s decision was in line with 1999 Constitution and current case law.
What's Your Reaction?
