State of emergency: Why PDP govs’ suit should be dismissed – NASS

From Godwin Tsa, Abuja

The National Assembly (NASS) has challenged the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to hear the suit filed by 11 Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governors against the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State.

NASS argued that the plaintiffs’ suit was procedurally flawed, lacked merit and should be dismissed.

In its preliminary objection to the suit dated April 22, NASS is asking for N1 billion as cost against the plaintiffs for filing what it termed a frivolous and speculative suit.

President Bola Tinubu had declared a state of emergency in Rivers State on March 18 and suspended Governor Siminalayi Fubara, Deputy Governor Ngozi Odu and all elected members of the State House of Assembly for an initial period of six months.

However, the National Assembly, in its preliminary objection picked some legal holes in the suit, while arguing that the plaintiffs failed to issue the statutorily required three-month pre-action notice to the Clerk of the National Assembly, as mandated under Section 21 of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act, 2017.

NASS stated that “a person who has a cause of action against a Legislative House shall serve a three-month notice to the Office of the Clerk of the Legislative House, disclosing the cause of action and reliefs sought.”

In addition, it argued that the plaintiffs did not secure resolutions from their respective State Houses of Assembly, a prerequisite for approaching the Supreme Court under its original jurisdiction provisions outlined in the Supreme Court (Original Jurisdiction) Act, 2002.

Citing alleged threats referenced in the plaintiffs’ suit, which borders on a statement attributed to the Attorney-General during a press briefing, NASS noted that since the threat did not emanate from them or its officers, the suit has no business with them.

It equally contended that the plaintiffs failed to issue the requisite three months pre-action notice to the Clerk of the National Assembly and took no steps to obtain the resolutions of the Houses of Assembly of each of the states to enable the plaintiffs each join to approach this busy court pursuant to the provision of the Supreme Court (Original Jurisdiction) Act 2002 on the matters.

Following the suspension, President Tinubu appointed Rear Admiral Ibokette Ibas (retd) as the sole administrator to oversee the state’s affairs during the suspension period. The National Assembly ratified the President’s declaration through a voice vote.

However, miffed by the action, the PDP governors, in suit number SC/CV/329/2025, approached the Supreme Court to challenge the President’s powers to suspend a democratically elected state institution and replace it with an unelected one.

Plaintiffs in the suit are the governors of Adamawa, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Bauchi, Akwa Ibom, Plateau, Delta, Taraba, Zamfara and Bayelsa states.

The Attorney-General of the Federation and the National Assembly are listed as the first and second defendants, respectively, in the suit.

All the 11 states in the suit asked the apex court to determine six constitutional questions, including whether the President of Nigeria can lawfully suspend or interfere with the offices of a governor and deputy governor and replace them with an unelected appointee under the guise of a state of emergency proclamation.

They further requested the court to determine whether the Attorney-General’s threat, acting on behalf of the President, to suspend the offices of governors and deputy governors by virtue of such proclamations contravenes the provisions of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and principles of constitutional federalism.

The plaintiffs also questioned whether the National Assembly could approve a state of emergency proclamation, including suspension of state executives and legislatures by a simple voice vote rather than the constitutionally required two-thirds majority of all members of each chamber.

In their reliefs, the plaintiffs sought declarations that the President cannot lawfully suspend or interfere with the offices of governors and deputy governors or replace them with unelected nominees under a state of emergency.

They argued that President Tinubu cannot lawfully suspend a state House of Assembly under such circumstances.

They further contended that the Attorney-General’s threats to suspend state officials were unconstitutional and violated the principles of federalism and that the National Assembly cannot approve such proclamations through voice votes without a two-third majority.

Additionally, they prayed for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with state offices through the state of emergency proclamations.

The plaintiffs sought an order nullifying the state of emergency proclamation in Rivers State as published in Official Gazette No. 47 of 2025.

The governors are asking for “An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from suspending or approving the suspension or in any way interfering with the offices of the Governor, the Deputy Governor and /or the House of Assembly of any of the plaintiffs states by way of a proclamation of state of emergency or in any manner whatsoever or by any method howsoever.

“An order setting aside and nullifying the Official Gazette No.47 of 2025, State of Emergency (Rivers State) Proclamation, 2025 made by the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and wrongfully approved by the second defendant and upon which the ominous threat by the first defendant against the plaintiffs is predicated.”