President Bola Tinubu and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), were noticeably absent on Thursday at the Federal High Court in Abuja during the scheduled hearing of a suit challenging the appointment of Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ekwe Ibas (rtd) as Sole Administrator of Rivers State.
Justice James Omotosho had fixed April 10 for the hearing of the suit, which was filed by Abuja-based legal practitioner, Mr. Johnmary Jideobi. The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/572/2025, seeks to nullify all actions taken by Ibas in his capacity as sole administrator, declaring them unconstitutional and without legal effect.
The plaintiff is also asking the court to restrain President Tinubu—either personally or through any agents, officers, or representatives—from removing, suspending, or interfering with the tenures of the elected governor and deputy governor of Rivers State, or any other state in the country.
When the matter was called up for hearing, neither President Tinubu nor the AGF were present in court, nor were they represented by legal counsel. However, counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Chimezie Enuka, informed the court that all parties—except the Attorneys-General of Zamfara and Bauchi States—had been duly served with the originating processes and hearing notices.
In agreement with all appearing counsel, Justice Omotosho adjourned the case until June 11 for hearing, and directed that fresh hearing notices be served on all the defendants.
The list of defendants includes President Tinubu (1st defendant), the Attorney-General of the Federation (2nd), and the Attorneys-General of the 36 states (3rd to 39th).
Among the key reliefs sought by the plaintiff is a perpetual injunction restraining President Tinubu from appointing any sole administrator to any state government, for any reason.
In the originating summons filed by a legal team led by Enuka, the court is asked to determine whether, based on Sections 1, 5(2), 180, 188, 189, 305, and 306 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the President has any constitutional power to remove or interfere with the tenure of a duly elected governor or deputy governor and replace them with an appointee such as a sole administrator.
The plaintiff further asked the court to declare that only the specific constitutional circumstances outlined in Sections 180, 188, 189, and 306 justify the removal or interruption of a governor’s tenure, and that no other interpretation—such as the imposition of a sole administrator—is valid under the law.
