PDP Governors during their meeting in Enugu
The National Assembly has countered the suit by the 11 Peoples Democratic Party, (PDP) governors against the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State and removal of Governor Siminalayi Fubara.
They filed the suit in the aftermath of President Bola Tinubu’s imposition of emergency rule on Rivers State and subsequent appointment of a sole administrator, Rear Admiral Ibokette Ibas (retd.).
However, the National Assembly, one of the parties to the suit before the Supreme Court, has declared that it was procedurally flawed and lacked merit. The Attorney-General of the Federation and the National Assembly are listed as the 1st and 2nd defendants in the suit.
In a preliminary objection dated April 22, 2025, the parliament is asking the apex court to award N1bn in costs against the plaintiffs for filing what it termed a “frivolous and speculative suit.”
The plaintiffs had, apart from challenging the Attorney General’s threat to remove more governors, 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.
The governors sought the 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 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 2nd Defendant and upon which the ominous threat by the 1st defendant against the Plaintiffs is predicated.”
However, the National Assembly, in its preliminary objection, contended that “A person who has a cause of action against a Legislative House shall serve a three-month’s notice to the office of the Clerk of the Legislative House disclosing the cause of action and reliefs sought.”
It further held that, “Considering the affidavit in support and the threats alleged, which did not come from the 2nd Defendant, there is no cause of action against it.
“This is a suit relating to an alleged threatened declaration or proclamation of State of emergency in the plaintiffs’ States by the Honourable Attorney General and Minister of Justice. This is allegedly as a result of the statement of the 1st Defendant in a press briefing held March 19, 2025, wherein he is said to have stated that after Rivers State,…it can be anybody’s turn tomorrow…,’ None of the alleged threat or statement is alluded to the 2nd Defendant or any of its officers.
“With the objection amongst others submitted, due process of instituting the action in the suit was not followed by the plaintiffs before taking this steps against the 2nd Defendants as 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.
“In the suit, the Plaintiffs seek to use the court to curtail the manner in which the 2nd defendant votes or make approval to ratify proclamations of State of Emergency declared pursuant to section 305 of the CFRN 1999, to get the 2/3 majority of their votes.
“It also seeks that the Court dictate how many roles are to be performed by the 2nd Defendant. The suit seeks to restrain the 2nd defendant from using voice votes to get majority approval for future or anticipated Proclamations of States of Emergency in the States of the Plaintiff.
“The suit also seeks by perpetual injunction, to restrain the second defendant’s Houses (Senate /House of Assembly) from carrying out their constitutional duties of approval of Proclamations of State of Emergency and seeks that the approval given by the 2nd Defendant on the 20th day of March, 2025, ratifying the proclamation of State of Emergency in Rivers State be set aside for being wrongfully approved.
“The 2nd Defendant/Applicant, having observed the several deficiencies in the suit of the Plaintiffs, which go contrary to the provisions of the laws and the jurisdiction of the Court, raises objection and submits that the 11 States (Plaintiffs) approached the Court wrongly and in abuse of court process.
“That the Plaintiffs’ States’ Houses of Assembly did not pass any resolution by a simple majority of the members present and sitting at the time of the resolution authorising the plaintiffs to institute this action.
“That the plaintiffs have not established any legal rights against the 2nd defendant to enjoy the equitable remedy of perpetual injunction. That the suit of the plaintiffs is speculative, unfounded, frivolous, and a vexatious waste of resources, time, and energy of the 2nd defendant.
“That the present court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain this matter as presently constituted against the 2nd defendants. That it is in the best interest of justice for the Court to dismiss or strike out this suit against the 2nd defendant with a cost of N1billion only, jointly and severally against the plaintiffs.”
