The National Assembly has urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the suit filed by 11 governors of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), challenging the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State.
The federal legislature, in its preliminary objection, contended that the suit was procedurally flawed and lacked merit.
According to reports from the Punch, the National Assembly in a document dated April 22, 2025 argued that the court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the suit and called for the plaintiffs to be penalised with a ₦1 billion fine for filing a “frivolous and speculative” case.
The National Assembly contends that the suit should be dismissed for failing to meet legal standards.
The suit, filed by the PDP governors, seeks to challenge President Bola Tinubu’s powers to suspend a democratically elected state institution and replace it with an unelected one.
Remember that On March 18, 2025, President Tinubu declared a state of emergency in Rivers State, suspending Governor Siminalayi Fubara, Deputy Governor Ngozi Odu, and all elected members of the State House of Assembly for an initial six-month period.
Following the suspension, Tinubu appointed Rear Admiral Ibokette Ibas (retd.) as the sole administrator to oversee the state’s affairs.
The National Assembly had ratified the President’s declaration through a voice vote, but the PDP governors are challenging both the powers of the President and the process used to approve the state of emergency.
In suit number SC/CV/329/2025, the PDP governors from Adamawa, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Bauchi, Akwa Ibom, Plateau, Delta, Taraba, Zamfara, and Bayelsa States approached the Supreme Court to challenge the President’s authority to suspend a democratically elected state government and replace it with an unelected appointee.
The plaintiffs seek the Court’s determination on several constitutional issues, including whether the President can lawfully suspend or interfere with the offices of a governor and deputy governor, and whether the National Assembly’s approval of the state of emergency through a voice vote contravenes constitutional requirements for a two-thirds majority.
The plaintiffs in the suit are seeking the following declarations:
- That the President cannot lawfully suspend or interfere with the offices of governors and deputy governors or replace them with unelected appointees under the guise of a state of emergency.
- That the National Assembly cannot approve a state of emergency declaration by a simple voice vote without a two-thirds majority.
- A perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with state offices through state of emergency proclamations.
- 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.
However, in its preliminary objection, the National Assembly faulted the plaintiffs’ suit and urged the Supreme Court to dismiss it, arguing that the court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the case, particularly against the second defendant (NASS).
Declaring that it holds a memorandum of conditional appearance, the National Assembly argued that due process was not followed in instituting the suit, emphasising 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.
It stated, “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.”
Additionally, NASS 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 their officers, the suit has no business with them.
