SERAP Asks Court To Nullify Suspension Of Fubara, Lawmakers

Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has urged a Federal High Court in Abuja to set aside the suspension of the democratically elected officials in Rivers State by President Bola Tinubu while proclaiming a state of emergency in the state.

SERAP is also asking the court for an order setting aside the appointment of Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas (Rtd) as the Sole Administrator of Rivers State.

The civil society organisation in the suit filed by three of its Volunteers’ Lawyers Network (SVLN) in Rivers State is also praying the court to stop Ibas from acting or continuing to act as the sole administrator of Rivers State in pursuance of his appointment as such by the 1st Defendant on 18th March 2025.

The plaintiffs, Yirabari Israel Nulog, Nengim Ikpoemugh Royal, and Gracious Sifumbukho, claimed they were registered voters and voted in the 2023 general elections.

The defendants in the suit, which is yet to be assigned to a judge, are the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) and Vice Admiral Ibas.

They also seek an injunction restraining the defendants, including their agents, representatives, or other persons acting on their behalf, from treating or continuing to treat the Governor, Deputy Governor, and Members of the House of Assembly of Rivers as having been suspended.

The plaintiffs are also seeking “A declaration that there is no provision in the Nigerian Constitution 1999 (as amended) that empowers the first Defendant to suspend the democratically elected Governor, Deputy Governor, and Members of the House of Assembly of Rivers State while exercising his powers to proclaim the State of Emergency in the State under section 305 of the Constitution.

“A declaration that by virtue of section 1(2) of the Nigerian Constitution 1999 (as amended), the Federal Republic of Nigeria shall not be governed, nor shall any person or group of persons take control of the Government of Nigeria or any part thereof, except in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.

“A declaration that by a purposeful construction and interpretation of the combined provisions of sections 1(2) 180, 176(1)(2), and 305 of the Nigerian Constitution 1999 as (amended), the 1st Defendant cannot lawfully suspend the democratically elected Governor, Deputy Governor, and Members of the House of Assembly of Rivers State while exercising his powers to proclaim a State of Emergency in Rivers State.

“A declaration that the suspension of the democratically elected Governor, Deputy Governor, and Members of the House of Assembly of Rivers State by the first Defendant on March 18, 2025 while proclaiming a state of emergency in the State is unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void.

“A declaration that the appointment by the 1st Defendant of the 3rd Defendant as the Sole Administrator of Rivers State consequent upon the suspension of the democratically elected Governor, Deputy Governor, and Members of the House of Assembly of Rivers State by the 1st Defendant on 18th March 2025 derogates from the provision of section 1(2) of the Nigerian Constitution 1999 (as amended) and therefore is unlawful unconstitutional, null, and void.”

In an affidavit attached to the suit, the plaintiffs maintained that the rule of law would be a mere figure of speech if the people’s right to participation could be arbitrarily suspended or violated.

They also claimed that democracy is an inherent element of the rule of law. Nigeria’s democracy should respect human rights and have the rule of law as its foundation.

The plaintiffs also insisted that the suspension is entirely inconsistent and incompatible with the letter and spirit of the Nigerian Constitution 1999 [as amended] and the country’s obligations under Article 13 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance.

They further argued that the combined provisions of sections 1(2), 14(1)(c), 176(1) (2) and 305(1) of the Nigerian 1999 Constitution create a delicate balance of rights and responsibilities, balancing the exercise of the President’s power against the people’s right to participation in their own government, and the notion of respect for the rule of law.

The plaintiffs averred, “Together, these Constitutional provisions presume that Presidential Powers under section 305 are to be exercised fairly, and the duty of fairness requires that the people’s right to participation and democracy should be upheld even in the context of a declaration of state of emergency in Rivers State.

“The combined effect of the provisions of sections 1(2), 14(1)(c), 176(1) (2) and 305(1) of the 1999 Constitution is that the suspension of democratically elected officials in Rivers state is unlawful and unconstitutional.

“Democracy works best when everyone participates. The right to participation is the bedrock of any democratic society.

“The suspension of the democratically elected officials in Rivers state has seriously undermined the ability of the Plaintiffs to participate more effectively in their own government, and the credibility and integrity of the country’s electoral process, as well as the notion of the rule of law.

“The rule of law ought to be protected to ensure that persons and institutions operate within the defined ambit of constitutional and statutory limitations.

“Where agencies of government are allowed to operate at large and at their whims and caprices in the guise of performing their statutory or constitutional duties, the end result will be anarchy and authoritarianism, leading to the loss of constitutionally guaranteed freedom and liberty.

“Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution is neither absolute nor superior to other provisions of the Constitution. Rather, it is expressly made subject to other constitutional provisions.

“The phrase ‘Subject to’ as a legislative device is used in a Constitutional provision or statutory enactment to make the provision of the section inferior, dependent on, or limited and restricted in application to the Section to which they are made subject to,” the plaintiff stated.