The National Assembly has urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the lawsuit filed by 11 Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governors challenging the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State, describing the case as procedurally flawed, speculative, and lacking in merit.
In a preliminary objection dated April 22, 2025, and obtained on Sunday, the federal legislature argued that the apex court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case, particularly as it relates to the National Assembly, which is named as the second defendant.
The National Assembly further demanded that the court award ₦1 billion in costs against the plaintiffs — governors of Adamawa, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Bauchi, Akwa Ibom, Plateau, Delta, Taraba, Zamfara, and Bayelsa — for what it termed a frivolous abuse of judicial process.
The suit, marked SC/CV/329/2025, seeks to challenge President Bola Tinubu’s March 18 declaration of a six-month state of emergency in Rivers State, which included the suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara, Deputy Governor Ngozi Odu, and all members of the State House of Assembly. The President subsequently appointed retired Rear Admiral Ibokette Ibas as sole administrator of the state — a move ratified by the National Assembly through a voice vote.
In their suit, the governors are asking the Supreme Court to determine whether the President can lawfully suspend duly elected state officials and replace them with unelected appointees under the guise of emergency rule. They are also challenging the legality of using a voice vote, rather than a constitutionally mandated two-thirds majority, to approve such a proclamation.
However, in its objection, the National Assembly contended that the plaintiffs failed to comply with legal preconditions. Specifically, they did not issue the required three-month pre-action notice to the Clerk of the National Assembly, as stipulated by Section 21 of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act, 2017. Nor did they secure the necessary resolutions from their respective state Houses of Assembly to initiate action under the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction provisions.
“The suit is a clear abuse of court process, speculative in nature, and an attempt to weaponise the judiciary to interfere with legislative procedure,” the National Assembly stated, adding that none of the alleged threats in the case — particularly those made by the Attorney-General — originated from the legislature or its officers.
In an affidavit filed in support of the objection, Godswill Onyegbu, a legal officer in the National Assembly’s Directorate of Legal Services, insisted that the plaintiffs lacked locus standi. He noted that none of the governors had shown that their individual states had suffered any injury as a result of the Rivers State proclamation.
Onyegbu also questioned the legal foundation of the suit, asserting that no dispute exists between the plaintiffs and the National Assembly and that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter in its current form.
“The plaintiffs have not established any legal rights against the second defendant to warrant equitable relief such as a perpetual injunction,” the affidavit read. “The suit is unfounded, frivolous, and a vexatious waste of judicial time and public resources.”
The National Assembly, therefore, prayed the court to either dismiss or strike out the case against it and award ₦1 billion in costs against the plaintiffs — jointly and severally — in the interest of justice.
The legal showdown over the Rivers State emergency declaration marks a pivotal moment in Nigeria’s democratic governance, testing the boundaries of presidential powers, federalism, and the independence of legislative procedures.
Comments