In a remarkable twist in the ongoing legal and political battle surrounding the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State, the National Assembly has formally responded to the lawsuit filed by 11 Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governors. The National Assembly, in its preliminary objection filed on April 22, 2025, has asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the suit, calling it “procedurally flawed” and “without merit.” It has also demanded that the plaintiffs be ordered to pay N1 billion in legal costs for what it described as a “frivolous” case.
On March 18, 2025, President Bola Tinubu declared a state of emergency in Rivers State, citing the need to address the state’s alleged political instability. The declaration led to the suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy Ngozi Odu, and the entire State House of Assembly. In their place, Rear Admiral Ibokette Ibas (retd.) was appointed as the sole administrator to oversee the affairs of the state for an initial six-month period.
The National Assembly swiftly ratified this declaration through a voice vote, which did not require the two-thirds majority approval typically necessary for such proclamations. However, the PDP governors from 11 states, including Adamawa, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Bauchi, Akwa Ibom, Plateau, Delta, Taraba, Zamfara, and Bayelsa, have filed a suit at the Supreme Court challenging the legality of the suspension of an elected governor and legislature under the guise of a state of emergency.
The PDP governors have raised several constitutional questions in their lawsuit. They argue that the suspension of democratically elected officials and their replacement with an unelected administrator violates the 1999 Constitution. Specifically, they challenge the President’s authority to remove governors and deputy governors, claiming this goes against constitutional provisions and principles of federalism.
Furthermore, the governors are questioning the National Assembly’s approval of the emergency declaration through a voice vote, claiming it should have been passed with the constitutionally required two-thirds majority of all members in both chambers.
In addition to seeking to nullify the state of emergency proclamation, the governors have called for a perpetual injunction preventing the President, the National Assembly, or any other authority from making similar emergency declarations that interfere with the functioning of state governments.
The National Assembly, in its response to the lawsuit, asserts that the plaintiffs’ case is without merit. The Assembly argues that the suit should be dismissed on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, improper procedural steps, and failure to follow due process. The National Assembly claims the plaintiffs did not serve 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.
Furthermore, the National Assembly contends that the plaintiffs did not secure resolutions from their respective State Houses of Assembly, which is a necessary step before approaching the Supreme Court in such matters. Without these resolutions, the National Assembly claims the governors have no legal grounds to proceed with the case.
The Assembly also argues that the lawsuit is speculative and a waste of judicial resources. In its preliminary objection, the National Assembly pointed out that the suit improperly seeks to dictate how it exercises its constitutional role, particularly regarding the use of voice votes to ratify state of emergency declarations.
This legal battle is not only a constitutional challenge but also a political one, with far-reaching implications for the relationship between the federal government and state governments in Nigeria. The outcome of this case could set a significant precedent for future declarations of state emergencies, especially in politically sensitive states like Rivers.
Moreover, the legal dispute has reignited debates over federalism and the balance of power between the federal government and state authorities. Critics of the state of emergency in Rivers argue that such drastic actions set a dangerous precedent for political interference in state governance.
As the case moves forward, the Supreme Court will have to address several key constitutional questions, including the extent of presidential power in declaring states of emergency and the legality of using voice votes to ratify such proclamations. In the meantime, the National Assembly has demanded that the PDP governors pay N1 billion in legal costs, further intensifying the political tension surrounding this issue.
The legal showdown between the National Assembly and the PDP governors over the Rivers State emergency rule marks a crucial moment in Nigeria’s constitutional and political landscape. With both sides staking significant claims, the final ruling will likely shape the future of state-federal relations and could redefine the contours of executive power in Nigeria. As the case progresses, Nigerians will be watching closely to see how the Supreme Court resolves these critical constitutional questions.