Rivers Emergency Rule: Supreme Court strikes out PDP states’ suit, backs Tinubu

The Supreme Court on Monday struck out a suit challenging the emergency rule imposed on Rivers State earlier in the year.

Join the Premium Times WhatsApp Community For Quick Access To News and Happenings Around You.

Open in WhatsApp

The emergency rule lapsed on 18 September, but the suit filed by 11 states, which were all under the control of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), had continued. The Supreme Court heard the parties on 21 October and reserved judgement.

In a 6-1 majority judgement delivered on Monday, the Supreme Court upheld the preliminary objections raised by the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and the National Assembly, sued as the respondents in the suit.

Upholding the preliminary objections, Mohammed Idris, who delivered the lead majority judgement, ruled that the suit was incompetent.

Stay Ahead with Premium Times

Add as a preferred source on Google

He ruled that plaintiffs failed to establish any cause of action to activate the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

He held that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate the existence of an actionable dispute between them and the federation to warrant the exercise of the court’s original jurisdiction.

Consequently, Mr Idris, delivering the lead judgement, struck out the suit for want of jurisdiction.

Still, the court ruled that the suit would still have failed even if the court had jurisdiction to hear the case.

Tribune reported that the Supreme Court upheld the president’s authority under the Nigerian constitution to proclaim a state of emergency, and that during such a period, the president may suspend elected officials, provided any such suspension is for a limited duration.

The court ruled that presidential power to declare a state of emergency in a state is meant to prevent a breakdown of law and order or a descent into chaos and anarchy.

The court also held that section 305 of the Nigerian constitution empowers the president to adopt extraordinary measures to restore normalcy where a state of emergency has been declared.

He noted that the provision does not specify the exact nature of those extraordinary measures, thereby, vesting the president with the discretion on how to act in such circumstances.

Dissenter says no

However, in a dissenting judgement, a member of the seven-member panel, Obande Ogbuinya, held that the suit of the plaintiffs succeeded in part.

He agreed that the president has the power to declare a state of emergency but held that such power cannot be used to suspend elected state officials, including governors, deputy governors, and members of state legislatures.

Background

The judgement followed a suit filed by 11 states, which were all under the control of PDP at the time, challenging the state of emergency President Tinubu imposed on Rivers State on 18 March, citing prolonged political instability, constitutional breaches, and security threats.

He placed Governor Siminalayi Fubara, the deputy governor and members of the state House of Assembly, on a six-month suspension.

The president appointed Ibok-Ete Ibas, a retired vice-admiral, as sole administrator to govern the state while the emergency rule lasted.

In their suit, the PDP-led states argued the action violated Section 305 of the Nigerian Constitution.

The aggrieved states, some of which have since switched to other parties, are Adamawa, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Bauchi, Akwa Ibom, Plateau, Delta, Taraba, Zamfara, and Bayelsa. While the governors of Enugu, Osun, Delta, Akwa Ibom, and Bayelsa have joined the ruling All Progressives Congress, that of Osun has joined the Accord.

The plaintiffs joined the AGF, representing the federal government, and the National Assembly as defendants.

The AGF, in a preliminary objection, questioned the court’s jurisdiction to hear the suit.

The Supreme Court heard the case and reserved judgement in October.

The plaintiffs said the declaration did not comply with Section 305 of the Nigerian Constitution, which regulates emergency powers. They sought to have the emergency rule and the appointment of the sole administrator declared null and void.

In response, the federal government filed a preliminary objection, questioning the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to hear the suit.

It argued that the matter did not fall within the court’s original jurisdiction because it did not involve a dispute between the federation and a state or between states. It also said the plaintiffs lacked legal standing, describing the suit as “hypothetical, academic, and speculative.”