Former federal lawmaker and 2023 Rivers State governorship aspirant, Dr. Farah Dagogo, has described the transfer of his case against President Bola Tinubu and others from Port Harcourt to Abuja as "forum shopping" and an abuse of court process.

In an interview with Daily Post, Dagogo, who is currently pursuing a law program, faulted Order 49 Rule 2 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019, which was used as the basis for the transfer of the case concerning the suspension of elected officials in Rivers State.

"The transfer constitutes a classic case of forum shopping, which has been repeatedly and unequivocally condemned by the Supreme Court of Nigeria," Dagogo stated, explaining that forum shopping refers to the deliberate attempt by a litigant to move their case to a jurisdiction perceived to be more favorable.

Dagogo cited several Supreme Court rulings, including Dingyadi v. INEC (2010) and Saraki v. Kotoye (1990), which condemned the practice of abandoning cases in one court to refile in another under the guise of a fresh suit.

The former lawmaker questioned the sequence of events leading to the transfer, noting that the defendants, including the President and leaders of the National Assembly, did not appear in court, yet the case was transferred at the request of the Attorney-General.

"A party who fails to submit to jurisdiction but subsequently seeks procedural advantage by initiating a transfer undermines the principle of fairness," he argued.

Dagogo clarified that his suit is an action in rem, not in personam, and is aimed at testing the legality of the emergency proclamation under Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution. He emphasized that the case has no correlation to the political imbroglio between Governor Siminalayi Fubara and his predecessor, Nyesom Wike.

"While political reconciliation may resolve interpersonal or administrative issues, it does not render the legal challenge moot," Dagogo stated, adding that unchecked constitutional infractions may later crystallize into harmful precedents.

"If this action is not judicially examined, a future President could invoke similar powers to suspend elected governments arbitrarily across the Federation, thereby endangering constitutional democracy," he warned.

The case continues to draw attention as it raises significant questions about the constitutional limits of presidential powers and the independence of the judiciary in Nigeria.