The Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a lawsuit seeking to halt the National Assembly from approving the budget and appointments made by the Rivers State Government under its current sole administration.
Justice James Omotosho delivered the ruling on Friday, stating that the motion was no longer relevant as the actions it sought to prevent had already been carried out.
Specifically, he noted that the Senate had passed the ₦1.485 trillion 2025 budget for Rivers State on June 25, which had been submitted by the state’s sole administrator, Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas (retd.), who was appointed by President Bola Tinubu following the six-month suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara.
The judge emphasized that since the budget had already been approved, the court could not restrain an act that had been completed.
He further explained that many of the arguments raised in the motion were already part of the main case, which would be addressed during the substantive hearing.
The matter was adjourned to October 20 for continuation of proceedings.
The case, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1190/2025, was filed by a group of Rivers State indigenes and the Registered Trustees of Hope Africa Foundation. The other plaintiffs include Oziwe Amba, Julius Bulous, George Ikeme, Amachelu Orlu, and Odioha Wembe. They listed the National Assembly and its clerk as the first and second defendants.
In their motion, the plaintiffs requested an interlocutory injunction to stop the National Assembly from approving or supporting any legislative activity related to Rivers State, including appointments and budgets, arguing that the budget forwarded by Mr Ibas was unconstitutional.
They claimed it was approved via a “voice vote,” a method not recognized by the constitution for such matters.
The motion, filed on June 24—five days after the main suit—also argued that the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State was unconstitutional as it lacked proper legislative backing.
Representing the National Assembly and its clerk, counsel Mohammed Galadima opposed the motion, calling it baseless and misleading.
In their affidavit, the defendants insisted there was no illegality in their actions and denied violating the constitution.
They argued that the plaintiffs’ claims were unfounded and designed to misrepresent the facts.
They further warned that granting the injunction would disrupt governance in Rivers State and was not in the interest of justice.
Justice Omotosho had earlier scheduled July 18 for the ruling, which ultimately led to the dismissal of the motion.