1 week Ago By Our Reporters
By Our Reporters By Clement A. Oloyede, John Chuks Azu (Abuja) & Mumini Abdulkareem (Ilorin) Rivers State’s Sole Administrator, Ibok-Ete Ibas has stirred controversy over his recent appointments, which include administrators for the 23 local government areas (LGAs) of the state, as well as the chairman and members of the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission (RSIEC). These appointments have raised questions about the legality of his role, with legal experts pointing out potential constitutional violations.
The appointments were made public in a special government announcement signed by the Secretary to the State Government, Prof. Ibibia Lucky Worika, on Wednesday. Along with these appointments, Ibas also approved the creation of chairmen and members for the Civil Service and Local Government Service Commissions.
This has led to growing concerns over the scope of his authority and whether he intends to conduct local government elections during his six-month tenure. Court order halts LG appointments Adding to the growing controversy, on April 8, 2025, the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt, presided over by Justice Adam Turaki Mohammed, issued an interim restraining order barring Ibas from executing his recent appointments. The court’s decision followed an ex parte motion filed on March 28 by the PILEX Centre for Civic Education Initiative, led by Courage Msirimovu, which sought to halt the local government appointments.
Despite the court order, Prof. Worika went ahead with the announcement, reaffirming that the appointments would take effect from April 7, 2025. The statement issued by the government maintained that Ibas had approved the appointments of administrators for all the 23 LGAs, as well as the reconstitution of some boards of agencies and commissions previously suspended.
This disregard for the court’s ruling has prompted further legal challenges, with critics questioning Ibas’ respect for judicial authority and the rule of law. The sole administrator’s recent actions come after he dismissed all political appointees of the suspended Governor Siminalayi Fubara and appointed Prof. Worika as the Secretary to the State Government.
Ibas also proposed a new 2025 budget, focusing on urgent development initiatives including healthcare, education, infrastructure, and job creation. He stated that this move was necessary following a Supreme Court ruling that called for a fresh budgetary appropriation for the state. According to Ibas, the new budget aims to address critical sectors such as medical facilities, educational infrastructure and vulnerable population support, in addition to expanding agricultural and technological investments to stimulate economic growth.
But reacting to this, the House of Representatives said the sole administrator does not have the constitutional mandate or power to make laws for the running of the oil-rich state. The deputy spokesman for the House, Philip Agbese, said the speaker, Tajudeen Abbas, was consulting with the leadership of the House to set up a committee to monitor the conduct of Ibas. “Should the administrator exceed his authority, the House will take necessary actions, including the possibility of a vote of no confidence, to ensure accountability and adherence to the rule of law,” he said.
Legal experts react However, lawyers have expressed strong concerns about the constitutional legality of Ibas’ actions. Taiye Oniyide (SAN) argued that the sole administrator’s role should have been strictly limited to overseeing the state’s administration without making significant appointments or changes that go beyond his mandate. Oniyide emphasised that while the administrator could have focused on administrative duties like ensuring the payment of salaries, his appointment of new officials for the LGAs and commissions suggests he may intend to extend his stay beyond the prescribed six-month period, undermining the state’s constitutional process.
“His actions are complicating matters and giving the impression that he might remain beyond the interim period,” Oniyide added. “It could become a setback, especially if these appointments conflict with the authority of the elected governor, Fubara, when he returns.” Salman Jawondo (SAN) also criticised the appointments, arguing that the newly appointed electoral officers are supposed to be screened by the state assembly, which Ibas cannot do unilaterally.
Jawondo further pointed out that the sole administrator’s actions contradict a Supreme Court ruling that had established the legal framework for the appointment of sole administrators. “If he is acting under the authority of the federal government, he should not overstep his boundaries,” Jawondo said. “Fubara, as an elected governor, does not need to concern himself with these appointments because they are unconstitutional.
” Dayo Akinlaja (SAN) remarked that under the current circumstances, it is the responsibility of the National Assembly to make laws for Rivers State. Akinlaja argued that given the ongoing legal proceedings regarding the suspension of democratic institutions in the state, the sole administrator should be more cautious in making decisions that could be deemed unlawful. “It is only proper for the sole administrator to tread carefully in dealing with the state’s affairs, especially with the current legal challenges,” Akinlaja stated.
Abeni Mohammed (SAN) echoed similar sentiments, emphasising that it is the National Assembly’s prerogative to legislate for Rivers State. He labelled the sole administrator’s actions as illegal, stating that it was improper for an unelected individual to assume such significant powers without proper constitutional backing. Civil rights lawyer, Deji Adeyanju, added his voice, describing Ibas’ appointment of local government administrators as a blatant disregard for the constitution.
He pointed to Section 17 of the 1999 Constitution, which enshrines the principles of good governance and rule of law, as well as Section 287, which mandates obedience to judicial decisions. “It is alarming that the sole administrator, who is not recognised by law, would flout a valid court order,” Adeyanju stated. “Such actions undermine public trust in government institutions and set a dangerous precedent for executive overreach.
” Marshal Abubakar Esq also weighed in, stressing that while Section 307 of the Constitution allows for certain emergency measures, it does not grant unelected officials the power to make such far-reaching appointments. He called for Ibas’ actions to be thoroughly examined in the context of the constitution, which does not authorise him to appoint others to administrative roles. “If we follow the court order, these appointments are unconstitutional and lack any legal standing,” Abubakar emphasised.
11 PDP govs challenge Fubara’s suspension before Supreme Court Meanwhile, 11 governors of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) have approached the Supreme Court to challenge the legality of the president’s suspension of Rivers State’s democratically elected governor, Siminalayi Fubara. The lawsuit also challenges the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State, which was announced by President Bola Tinubu. While earlier reports indicated that the suit had been filed before the Supreme Court, it was gathered that the suit was only formally lodged on Tuesday.
The plaintiffs in the case include the governors of Adamawa, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Bauchi, Akwa Ibom, Plateau, Delta, Taraba, Zamfara and Bayelsa states. The governors, through their state Attorneys General, based the suit on eight key grounds. They are seeking the apex court’s determination on whether the president has the constitutional power to suspend a democratically elected state government.
The plaintiffs further contend that the manner in which President Tinubu declared a state of emergency in Rivers State violates the 1999 Constitution. In their prayers, the plaintiffs ask the court to decide whether, under a proper construction and interpretation of Sections 1(2), 5(2), 176, 180, 188, and 305 of the 1999 Constitution, the president can lawfully suspend or interfere with the offices of a state governor or deputy governor. They question whether such actions can be justified under the guise of, or pursuant to, a state of emergency proclamation and whether the president can replace elected officials with an unelected nominee, such as a sole administrator.
Additionally, the plaintiffs request that the court determine whether, according to Sections 1(2), 4(6), 11(4) and (5), 90, 105, and 305 of the Constitution, the president has the power to suspend the state house of assembly under the pretext of a state of emergency. The plaintiffs also ask the court to examine whether the president’s subsequent threat to suspend the offices of governors and deputy governors across the Federation, including in the plaintiffs’ states, is in contravention of the Constitution. They argue that such threats contradict Sections 1(2), 4(6), 5(2), 11(2), and (3) and undermine the principles of constitutional federalism.
The respondents in the case are required to appear in court within 14 days of receiving the summons, inclusive of the day of service. Unlock AI's potential! Get top prompts for content, blogs, social media, research, draft proposals and more. Boost creativity start using AI tools today! Click here to learn how it works.
Start Affiliate Marketing Today! Learn step-by-step how to set up a blog, find programs, create links, and earn money—beginner-friendly guide inside! Click here to learn how it works. Amazon KDP (Kindle Direct Publishing): This step-by-step guide will walk you through everything you need to know—from setting up your account to publishing and marketing your books for maximum earnings. Click here to learn how it works.
Join Daily Trust WhatsApp Community For Quick Access To News and Happenings Around You..
