The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has scheduled July 18, 2025, to deliver a ruling on a motion seeking to restrain the National Assembly from further approving appointments or budget proposals for the Rivers State Government under the current sole administration led by Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas (rtd).
Vice Admiral Ibas was appointed Sole Administrator of Rivers State by President Bola Tinubu, following the six-month suspension of the incumbent governor, Siminalayi Fubara.
The presiding judge, Justice James Omotosho, fixed the ruling date after hearing arguments presented by Ambrose Owuru, counsel to the applicants, and Mohammed Galadima, representing the defendants—the National Assembly and its Clerk.
The legal dispute, filed under suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/1190/2025, was initiated by a coalition of concerned indigenes of Rivers State, along with the Registered Trustees of Hope Africa Foundation. Other plaintiffs include King Oziwe Amba, Chief Julius Bulous, Chief George Ikeme, Chief Amachelu Orlu, and Prince Odioha Wembe.
The plaintiffs are asking the court to grant an interlocutory injunction that would restrain the National Assembly and its Clerk—listed as the 1st and 2nd defendants—from any further participation in legislative processes involving the Rivers State Government.
This includes approving budgets, endorsing appointments, or engaging in any official dealings with the current administration in the state.
They argue that the proposed 2025 budget and other actions taken by the current administration were illegally and unconstitutionally presented to the National Assembly by the sole administrator, Ibas, and were subsequently passed using a “voice vote” procedure—a method they claim is not recognized under the 1999 Constitution.
In a supporting affidavit, the plaintiffs alleged that since the filing of the substantive suit on June 19, and the motion for interlocutory injunction on June 24, the National Assembly has continued to endorse what they described as “illegal appointments and budgetary allocations” forwarded by the administrator, despite widespread protests and growing unrest in the state.
They further accused the federal legislature of failing to comply with the constitutional process required to declare a state of emergency, arguing that the emergency status in Rivers State lacked the mandatory two-thirds majority vote, and that the use of a voice vote was a deliberate subversion of constitutional order.
According to them, unless restrained, the defendants would continue to enable what they described as the unconstitutional administration of Rivers State, thereby violating their right to be governed by a democratically elected government.
They claimed that several committees have already been constituted by the National Assembly to disburse and manage state funds under the current arrangement.
In response, counsel to the National Assembly, Mohammed Galadima, urged the court to dismiss the motion, arguing that it lacked merit and was founded on misrepresentations and deliberate falsehoods.
He contended that the plaintiffs’ claims were entirely unsubstantiated, and that the National Assembly had acted strictly within the confines of the law.
The defendants insisted that no part of their legislative conduct violated the Constitution, and rejected the assertion that the ongoing administration in Rivers State was illegal.
They further argued that the plaintiffs’ claim of being denied the right to be governed by an elected government was misleading, as the federal government had acted within its powers to intervene.
Galadima warned that granting the interlocutory injunction would severely disrupt governance and create unnecessary confusion in the administration of Rivers State, potentially prejudicing national interests and public order.
Meanwhile, the Nigerian Senate had, on June 25, passed the Rivers State 2025 Appropriation Bill, approving a total of ₦1.485 trillion after a third reading on the Senate floor.
As the legal and constitutional debate unfolds, all eyes now turn to July 18, when the court is expected to rule on the crucial motion that could temporarily halt legislative backing for Rivers State’s current administration pending resolution of the substantive suit.