President Bola Tinubu has asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the suit filed by some states controlled by Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governors challenging his suspension of all the elected officials of Rivers State under an emergency rule.
PREMIUM TIMES reported that Mr Tinubu, on 18 March, declared the state of emergency and suspended Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, Ngozi Odu, and all the state lawmakers.
|
|
The president immediately appointed Ibok-Ete Ibas as the sole administrator of the oil-rich state.
Irked by the suspension of Governor Fubara and other elected officials in the state, the 11 states filed the suit to challenge the president’s action.
|
|
|
|---|
They include Adamawa State led by Governor Ahmadu Fintiri, Akwa Ibom led by Governor Umo Eno, Bauchi led by Governor Bala Muhammed, Bayelsa led by Governor Douye Diri, and Delta led Sheriff Oborevwori.
The rest are Enugu State led by Peter Mbah, Osun led by Ademola Adeleke, Oyo led by Seyi Makinde, Plateau led by Caleb Mutfwang, Taraba led by Agbu Kefas, and Zamfara led by Dauda Lawal.
Like Mr Fubara, the governors were all members of the PDP as of the time of the filing of the suit.
However, Governor Oborevwori of Delta State has since defected to the All Progressives a Congress (APC) – President Tinubu’s party. Mr Umo of Akwa Ibom has also declared support for Mr Tinubu for second term, and is rumoured to be planning a switch to the ruling party.
It is unclear yet if the political re-alignment in the two states would culminate in their withdrawal from the suit, which touches on a fraught and divisive issue considered as one of Mr Tinubu’s most far-reaching political steps so far in the two years of his administration.
The suing states, represented by their respective attorneys-general, were initially seven when they first filed the suit in March, but later grew to 11.
The president was not sued directly as a defendant in the suit.
The plaintiffs sued him through the Attorney-General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi, the first defendant.
The National Assembly, given its role of swiftly approving the state of emergency, including the suspension of Governor Fubara and others, was sued as the second defendant.
Tinubu’s seeks dismissal of the governors’ suit
A notice of preliminary objection filed on 9 May by the AGF to defend the president’s action challenged the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to entertain the suit.
Obtained by PREMIUM TIMES on Saturday, the filing asked the court to dismiss the suit on the grounds that the suit did not fit into the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court which under Section 232 (1) of the Nigerian constitution is exercisable only in a dispute between the Federation of Nigeria and a State or between states.
The attorney-general claimed the plaintiffs (the states) have not disclosed any dispute between them and the Federation and did not also disclose any cause of action, citing previous court judgements.
Mr Fagbemi, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, argued that the suit is abuse of court process and maintaining that the plaintiffs have no locus standi to institute the suit which he described as “hypothetical, academic speculative.”
“In the premises, we urge the Supreme Court to uphold this contention and dismiss the plaintiffs’ suit,” Mr Fagbemi said in the notice.
Taiye Hussain Oloyede, the Special Assistant to the President on Arbitration, Drafting and Regulations, defended Mr Tinubu’s action in an affidavit he swore to and filed in support of the preliminary objection.
He stated that the feud between the now suspended governor and the state lawmakers and as well as the attacks on oil facilities in the state were justifiable reasons for the declaration.
He argued that the political crises and attacks on oil facilities amounted to break down of order and public safety which necessitated the president’s declaration and suspension of Mr Fubara and others.
The presidential aide also defended the National Assembly’s approval of the emergency rule, stressing that they have reserved the constitutional power to only approve or reject the declaration.
He rejected the governors’ argument on the lawmakers’ use of voice votes, arguing that the constitution did not stipulate that the resolution of two-thirds majority shall be by physical counting of votes by each House of the National Assembly.
Mr Oloyede claimed the governors instituted the suit because they were “driven into panic mode by their own imaginary fears” that Mr Tinubu could declare a state of emergency in their states in the future.
“It is in the interest of justice to dismiss this (plaintiffs) suit with punitive cost as the same has been brought not to redress any alleged wrong, but to harass and scandalise the president for political advantage of the plaintiffs,” he told the court.
The Supreme Court has yet to fix a date for the hearing of the suit.
Inside the suit
In their suit, which drew the president’s event preliminary objection, plaintiffs raised eight fundamental legal questions before the Supreme Court.
They primarily challenged the powers of the president under the constitution to suspend an elected governor and appoint a sole administrator under the pretext of declaring a state of emergency.
They prayed the court to declare that the president has no power to suspend a democratically elected House of Assembly of a state pursuant to Sections 192 (4) (6) and 305 of the Nigerian constitution.
The plaintiffs also adked the court to declare the suspension of Mr Fubara, his deputy and the state assembly “unconstitutional, unlawful, illegal and utterly in gross violation” of the provisions of the Nigerian constitution.
READ ALSO: Niger stakeholders urge Tinubu to redress imbalance in NCDC Board, Management
The governors also urged the court to nullify the appointment of Mr Ibas as the sole administrator of Rivers on the basis that the president lacks the constitutional power to make such an appointment.
The plaintiffs argued that Mr Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State did not comply with the constitutional requirements set by Section 305.
The governors further argued that the National Assembly’s approval of the state of emergency via a voice vote was invalid, noting that the constitution mandates a two-thirds majority vote from all members of each legislative chamber.
