Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja, on Friday, fixed March 9 for judgment in a fresh suit challenging the legal authority of President Bola Tinubu to remove elected state’s officials during a state of emergency.
Justice 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, Civil Society Observatory for Constitutional and Legal Compliance (CSOCLC), specifically contests the president’s actions following the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State last year.
The NGO 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 and install an interim administrator.
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 prevous 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, which include the President and the Attorney-General of Federation, relied on the same 1962 Act and the modification order to assert that only the Supreme Court holds original jurisdiction over such disputes, urging the court to strike out the case.
The plaintiffs had sought 26 reliefs, including a declaration that Rivers cannot be governed by an appointed administrator, retired Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ekwe Ibas, outside the provisions of the constitution.
The suit, which was heard, revived a critical constitutional debate previously thought settled.
Court to deliver judgment in fresh suit challenging president’s emergency power
Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja, on Friday, fixed March 9 for judgment in a fresh suit challenging the legal authority of President Bola Tinubu to remove elected state’s officials during a state of emergency.
Justice 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, Civil Society Observatory for Constitutional and Legal Compliance (CSOCLC), specifically contests the president’s actions following the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State last year.
The NGO 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 and install an interim administrator.
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 prevous 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, which include the President and the Attorney-General of Federation, relied on the same 1962 Act and the modification order to assert that only the Supreme Court holds original jurisdiction over such disputes, urging the court to strike out the case.
The plaintiffs had sought 26 reliefs, including a declaration that Rivers cannot be governed by an appointed administrator, retired Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ekwe Ibas, outside the provisions of the constitution.
The suit, which was heard, revived a critical constitutional debate previously thought settled.
