The legal representatives of former federal lawmaker Farah Dagogo from Rivers State have formally protested the transfer of his lawsuit challenging the Federal Government’s declaration of a State of Emergency in Rivers State. The suit, originally filed at the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt, was controversially relocated to the Abuja Division following a directive from the Attorney-General of the Federation.
The move has sparked significant legal debate, with Dagogo’s lead counsel, Chief Cosmas Enweluzo, SAN, describing the transfer as a violation of judicial independence and a breach of due process. In a strongly worded letter addressed to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court and copied to the presiding judge in Port Harcourt, the legal team insisted that the Attorney-General’s request to shift the case was unlawful and undermined public confidence in Nigeria’s judiciary.
Chief Enweluzo emphasized, “The Attorney-General, being a party to the suit representing the President, lacks the statutory authority to unilaterally dictate the forum for adjudication. Allowing this sets a dangerous precedent amounting to forum shopping and abuse of court process.”
The legal team further argued that since the implications of the State of Emergency directly affect Rivers State residents, the Port Harcourt Federal High Court is the most appropriate venue for hearing the case. “The effects of the emergency rule and the actions of the appointed Sole Administrator are being felt locally. This court is best positioned to understand and adjudicate the matter,” the letter stated.
President Bola Tinubu declared the State of Emergency in Rivers State on March 18, 2025, citing threats to national assets and security concerns. Following the declaration, Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, and the entire Rivers State House of Assembly were suspended. Retired Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas was appointed as Sole Administrator of the state, effectively assuming executive control.
In response, Dagogo filed a suit on April 9, 2025, challenging the constitutionality of the President’s actions under the emergency rule. The case was initially presided over by Justice Turaki Mohammed at the Port Harcourt Federal High Court and was adjourned to May 26, 2025, for further proceedings.
However, prior to the scheduled hearing, the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court approved the Attorney-General’s request to transfer the case to Abuja, a move strongly contested by Dagogo’s lawyers as lacking legal basis and undermining the independence of the judiciary.
Legal experts and observers have raised concerns that centralizing all cases challenging the emergency rule in Abuja could marginalize affected communities, reducing their access to justice. This could also set a precedent where the Federal Government influences jurisdiction to its advantage in politically sensitive cases.
The legal team’s letter concluded with a call for the Chief Judge to reconsider the transfer, urging the judiciary to uphold its integrity and independence. “We implore the judiciary to resist any attempts to politicize the administration of justice. The people of Rivers State deserve a fair hearing in the court closest to the affected community.”
This development comes amid heightened tensions in Rivers State, where the emergency rule remains a contentious issue. Political analysts suggest that the case will significantly impact the balance of power between the Federal Government and states, as well as the future application of emergency powers in Nigeria.
The declaration of a State of Emergency is a constitutional tool meant for extreme situations threatening national security or order. However, its use in Rivers State has been criticized by opposition parties, civil society, and legal scholars, who argue that it undermines democratic governance and the autonomy of the state.
Dagogo’s lawsuit represents a critical legal challenge questioning the legitimacy and scope of the President’s emergency powers. The transfer of the case to Abuja, the seat of federal authority, raises questions about the fairness of trial venues in politically sensitive matters.
As the legal battle unfolds, it highlights ongoing tensions between the judiciary’s independence and executive influence in Nigeria’s democratic system. The judiciary’s response to the transfer request will be closely watched by legal professionals, civil rights groups, and the general public.
The protest by Dagogo’s legal team against the transfer of his case to Abuja underscores the need for impartial adjudication and respect for judicial independence in Nigeria. The case not only tests constitutional limits on emergency powers but also the integrity of Nigeria’s legal institutions in handling politically charged disputes.