President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and Federal Attorney General Prince datef Fagbemi (SAN) failed to send legal representatives to the Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday to demand a lawsuit aimed at evacuating the Chief Executive of the River State in order to remove Ibiral Ibiral Ibiral Ibiral Ibiral Ibok-Ete Ekwe Ibas (Rtd).
In the recovery lawsuit, both President Tinob and AGF were not represented, although the general prosecutors of Lagos, Bielsa, Talaba and Edo countries were present.
The plaintiff’s attorney, Mr. Chimezie Enuka, told the court that all defendants had properly served with the original procedures and the hearing notice, except for the attorneys in Zamfara and Bauchi states.
After an agreement was reached between the attorneys in attendance, Judge James Omotosho postponed the hearing until June 11, 2025 and ordered a new hearing notice to all defendants.
The lawsuit is marked FHC/ABJ/CS/572/2025 and was initiated by Abuja-based lawyer Johnmary Jideobi. He is seeking a court decision to declare all actions and rulings as unconstitutional and unconstitutional as Deputy Admiral Ibas as the sole administrator of the River State.
The plaintiff also sought a permanent injunction to prevent President Tinob from interfering with the term of elected governor and appointing any sole executive in Nigeria.
The plaintiff argued that the president had no constitutional power to dismiss, suspend or tamper with the terms of formally elected governors and lieutenant governors, and that Ibas, who appointed the IBA, was the sole executive of the Rivers State, was unconstitutional. The lawsuit aims to shelve the March 18, 2025 suspension of Rivers and Lieutenant Governors and subsequent appointment of the IBA.
Gideby insists that while President Tinob has constitutional power to declare a state of emergency in some cases, he has no right to suspend elected officials. He also expressed concern about the president’s actions that could lead to dangerous precedents undermining Nigeria’s democratic and legal framework.
The plaintiff urged the court to intervene and asserted that allowing such action would lead to anarchy and threaten the country’s rule of law. The matter will still be heard on June 11, 2025.
