Democracy on Trial: Court to Decide Constitutionality of RSIEC Appointments Under Rivers Emergency Rule
This post has already been read at least 1154 times!
Nigeria’s democratic institutions are once again under scrutiny as a high-stakes legal contest unfolds at the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt, where prominent civic activists and legal advocates are challenging the legality of recent appointments to the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission (RSIEC). The case is fast becoming a litmus test for the extent of federal authority under emergency rule and the resilience of democratic governance in subnational jurisdictions.
The plaintiffs in the suit—Incorporated Trustees of Peoples Life Improvement Foundation, His Royal Majesty Precious Elekima, and Hon. Inanna Wright Harry—have taken the federal government and its agents to court in a bid to halt the confirmation of new RSIEC nominees submitted by the Sole Administrator of Rivers State, Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas (rtd), who was appointed following the declaration of a state of emergency in March 2025.
Contents
Emergency Rule and a Shifting Power Structure
The conflict traces its roots to the March 2025 presidential proclamation of a state of emergency in Rivers State, a controversial move that effectively suspended the state’s democratic structures and handed over executive and legislative powers to a centrally-appointed sole administrator. Critics viewed the action as a politically motivated assault on subnational autonomy, while federal authorities justified it as necessary to restore order amid escalating security breakdowns and political unrest.
As part of the sweeping changes under emergency rule, Vice Admiral Ibas announced a fresh list of nominees to the RSIEC, effectively dissolving the existing electoral body headed by retired Justice Adolphus Enebeli—a move the plaintiffs argue lacks constitutional backing and is an illegal intrusion into state electoral affairs.
With local government elections already scheduled for August 9, 2025, the new nominations, if confirmed, could alter the political landscape of the state and cast doubt on the credibility of the polls.
The Constitutional Questions Before the Court
Central to the plaintiffs’ case is the assertion that the appointments contravene the Nigerian Constitution, which vests authority for constituting state electoral bodies in the state governments. They contend that neither the Senate President, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, nor the National Assembly possesses the constitutional jurisdiction to confirm such appointments in a state placed under emergency rule—particularly when the existing commission remains validly constituted.
Legal counsel for the plaintiffs, Ebere R. Ugwuja, warned that the federal government’s actions pose a grave threat to the separation of powers and the rule of law.
“This is not just about Rivers State,” Ugwuja said. “It is about the sanctity of Nigeria’s constitutional democracy. The sole administrator has no power to unilaterally reconstitute an electoral body, and any attempt to confirm those appointments by the federal legislature amounts to contempt of court and an affront to judicial oversight.”
The plaintiffs are seeking an interlocutory injunction restraining the federal government from proceeding with the confirmations, arguing that doing so would cause irreparable damage to the electoral process and the principle of participatory democracy in Rivers State.
Judicial Precedents and Legal Arguments
The suit cites several landmark cases, including Military Administrator, FHA v. Aro (1991), which upholds judicial intervention where there is a substantial risk of unconstitutional acts being executed. Additional precedents—Kufeyi v. Kogbe (1961) and Egbe v. Onogun (1972)—are invoked to justify maintaining the status quo where unresolved constitutional questions are at play.
According to court documents, the plaintiffs argue that allowing the appointments to proceed would not only disenfranchise voters but would also open the floodgates to federal overreach in other states.
“The Constitution is clear on the autonomy of state electoral processes,” said Ugwuja. “To permit the confirmation of these nominees would be to legalize impunity and undermine constitutional federalism.”
Disregard for Due Process?
Despite a formal letter dated May 13, 2025, addressed to the Senate leadership requesting a suspension of confirmation proceedings pending the court’s decision, sources indicate that the federal legislature may be moving forward regardless. Observers say such actions could spark a constitutional crisis and erode public trust in both federal institutions and the electoral process.
Political analysts and civil society watchdogs have warned that the case could have sweeping implications. A ruling in favor of the federal government could set a precedent for similar interventions in other states under emergency rule, effectively allowing the executive arm to sidestep state legislatures and courts. On the other hand, a judgment upholding the plaintiffs’ claims may reinforce constitutional safeguards and limit executive excesses.
A Precedent-Setting Moment
This legal confrontation has quickly become a focal point in the broader national discourse on democratic resilience, federalism, and the rule of law. Across civil society, the unfolding court case is being seen not merely as a regional dispute but as a defining moment for Nigeria’s constitutional order.
“The future of our democracy hangs in the balance,” said civil rights advocate Ngozi Onuma of the Citizens Governance Forum. “We must not allow any form of authoritarianism to disguise itself as emergency governance. What happens in Rivers State will reverberate throughout the country.”
Awaiting the Court’s Ruling
The Federal High Court is expected to rule soon on the request for an injunction. Legal proceedings are scheduled to continue in the coming weeks, with both sides gearing up for what could be a lengthy constitutional battle.
For now, Rivers State remains suspended between constitutional uncertainty and political instability—its electoral future in the hands of the judiciary. As citizens wait anxiously, the case is a stark reminder that the price of democracy is eternal vigilance.
This post has already been read at least 1154 times!
