Rivers Crisis Deepens as Court Endorses Tinubu-Backed Emergency Budget

The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has declined a legal bid to halt the approval process of the Rivers State 2025 budget, dismissing an interlocutory motion aimed at restraining the National Assembly from legislating on the state’s financial affairs. The case, brought by a group of concerned citizens from Rivers State, including the King Regent of Diobu, Oziwe Amba, and civil society organization Hope Africa Foundation, was ruled upon by Justice James Omotosho on Friday.

According to iReporter Online, the judge explained that the relief sought by the plaintiffs had already been overtaken by events, as the budget in question had been passed by the Senate on June 25. He emphasized that the judiciary could not nullify or halt actions that had already occurred. The plaintiffs had approached the court in a move to prevent the National Assembly from further engaging in legislative activities related to the Rivers State Government during a period of emergency administration.

The backdrop to the legal tussle stems from President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State on March 18, which led to the suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara and the appointment of Ibokette Ibas as the sole administrator of the state for an initial period of six months. In the wake of this federal directive, the National Assembly assumed all legislative functions in the state, including the approval of the 2025 budget and other executive appointments.

According to iReporter Online, the plaintiffs challenged the legality of the emergency declaration and Ibas’s appointment in a broader suit filed on June 19. In the motion for interim relief dated June 24, they asked the court to restrain the National Assembly from any further legislative endorsement on Rivers State matters. During the hearing on July 10, counsel for the plaintiffs, Ambrose Owuru, argued that the declaration of emergency did not meet the constitutional threshold outlined in Section 305, which mandates a two-thirds majority vote for approval—a process he alleged was circumvented through a mere voice vote in the Senate.

He further asserted that any subsequent legislative actions, including the budget approval, were constitutionally defective. In contrast, Mohammed Galadima, counsel for the National Assembly, defended the legislature’s conduct, asserting that all processes followed due legislative protocols and that any disruption would pose a serious threat to governance and stability in the state.

In delivering his verdict, Justice Omotosho ruled that the application was both belated and redundant, since the budget had already been passed. He also clarified that the arguments presented would be better suited for examination during the substantive hearing of the main suit. Accordingly, the court dismissed the application and scheduled the continuation of the main case for October 20, 2025.

According to iReporter Online, the ruling marks a critical turn in the ongoing constitutional confrontation over the imposition of emergency rule in Rivers State, as the legality of federal intervention and the administrator’s authority remain under judicial scrutiny.