The National Assembly has urged the Supreme Court to dismiss a suit filed by 11 governors of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) challenging the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State, describing the suit as frivolous, speculative, and procedurally defective.
In a preliminary objection dated April 22, 2025, obtained by The PUNCH, the federal legislature argued that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the case and demanded ₦1 billion in costs from the plaintiffs.
The PDP governors—representing Adamawa, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Bauchi, Akwa Ibom, Plateau, Delta, Taraba, Zamfara, and Bayelsa—filed suit SC/CV/329/2025, questioning the legality of President Bola Tinubu’s March 18 declaration of emergency in Rivers State. The proclamation suspended Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, Ngozi Odu, and all elected members of the State House of Assembly for six months. Rear Admiral Ibokette Ibas (retd.) was appointed as sole administrator.
The National Assembly ratified the declaration via a voice vote, a decision the governors argue is unconstitutional. They contend that the President lacks the power to suspend elected officials and replace them with unelected appointees under the guise of a state of emergency. The suit further claims that the Attorney-General’s threats to extend such suspensions to other states violate federal principles enshrined in the 1999 Constitution.
The governors are seeking multiple declarations from the Supreme Court, including:
That the President cannot suspend or interfere with the offices of governors or deputy governors.
That State Houses of Assembly cannot be lawfully suspended through emergency proclamations.
That such proclamations cannot be approved by a simple voice vote without a two-thirds majority.
A perpetual injunction restraining future interference with state governance through emergency measures.
Nullification of Official Gazette No. 47 of 2025, which contains the Rivers State emergency proclamation.
In its objection, the National Assembly cited several grounds for dismissal:
Failure to issue the 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.
Failure to obtain resolutions from the plaintiffs’ State Houses of Assembly authorizing the suit, as required under the Supreme Court (Original Jurisdiction) Act, 2002.
Lack of any direct threat or action attributable to the National Assembly, as the Attorney-General’s remarks during a March 19 press briefing were not made on its behalf.
Absence of a valid legal dispute or injury suffered by the plaintiffs that would establish locus standi.
Attempt to use the judiciary to dictate how the National Assembly exercises its constitutional powers, particularly regarding the use of voice votes for ratifying emergency declarations.
According to the affidavit supporting the objection, deposed by Godswill Onyegbu, a legal officer at the National Assembly, the plaintiffs’ claims are unfounded and represent an abuse of judicial process.
“The plaintiffs have not demonstrated any special legal injury distinct from that of the general public,” Onyegbu stated. “There is no dispute between the plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant warranting the intervention of this Court.”
The National Assembly maintains that the suit aims to curtail its constitutional duties and influence how it conducts future legislative approvals related to emergencies.
Ultimately, the federal legislature is requesting that the Supreme Court strike out the suit and award ₦1 billion in damages jointly and severally against the 11 PDP governors for what it describes as a waste of judicial time and resources.
