Seven state governments led by governors belonging to the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) have sued President Bola Tinubu at the Supreme Court over his suspension of Rivers State’s democratically elected officials under an emergency rule he recently imposed on the oil-rich state.
The states, through their respective Attorneys-General, urged the court to declare that the president “has no powers whatsoever” to suspend a democratically elected governor and deputy governor of a state under the guise of proclamation of a state of emergency in any state of the federation.
|
|
Vanguard Newspaper reported that the plaintiffs equally argued that nothing in the constitutional provisions cited by Mr Tinubu to impose a state of emergency in a state empowered him to suspend a democratically elected House of Assembly of the state.
Therefore, they urged the Court to declare as illegal and unconstitutional the president’s suspension of Rivers State Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy and members of the Rivers State Assembly under the guise of implementing an emergency rule. The plaintiffs want the Supreme Court to declare the action as utterly in gross violation of provisions of the Nigerian constitution.
|
|
|
|---|
Emergency rule
PREMIUM TIMES reported that Mr Tinubu declared a state of emergency in the South-southern state on 18 March.
The president also suspended Governor Fubara, Deputy Governor Ngozi Odu, and all the House of Assembly members for an initial six months.
The president consequently appointed Ibok-Ete Ibas as the sole administrator of the state.
He cited the recent “disturbing” incidents in the state, including explosions and vandalisation of petroleum pipelines linked to the political crises in the state, as the basis for his action.
The disturbing incidents also included the political crises in the South-southern state triggered by a rift between Mr Fubara and his predecessor, Nyesom Wike, the minister of the FCT.
On 20 March, the House of Representatives approved the declaration of a state of emergency in the south-southern state.
The Senate would later follow suit, approving the emergency rule with minor changes.
Supreme Court challenge
But seven states – Adamawa, Bauchi, Zamfara, Plateau, Bayelsa, Enugu and Osun – now want the Supreme Court to reverse the suspension of the elected officials under the emergency rule.
Incidentally, each of Nigeria’s six geo-political zones is represented among the plaintiffs in a country where political affiliation is easily distorted by religious and ethnic considerations.
Apart from Rivers State itself, there are four other PDP states, which did not join the suit.
Of the 36 states of the federation, PDP controls 12, including Rivers State, which although is being led by a sole administrator.
The four PDP states, which did not join the suit, are Oyo, Akwa Ibom, Delta and Taraba.
The seven suing states, two of which had been under an emergency rule in the past – Plateau (2004) and Adamawa (2013) – joined the National Assembly along with President Tinubu as a co-defendant.
The plaintiffs argued, among others, that President Tinubu lacked statutory powers to suspend a serving governor and deputy governor and appoint a sole administrator to replace them.
In broader terms, the plaintiffs argued that the emergency rule proclammation by Mr Tinubu and backed by the National Assembly did not comply with the constitutional requirements under section 305 of the Nigerian constitution.
They contended that President Tinubu’s proclamation failed to meet stipulated constitutional conditions and procedures, as it was, in their view, issued for reasons beyond the scope of the constitutional provisions.
They argued that the National Assembly’s approval of the state of emergency through a voice vote, was invalid, in the face of unequivocal constitutional provision that such an approval required mandatory two-third majority vote of members of each of the legislative chambers of the National Assembly.
They prayed for, among other orders of the Supreme Court, an order “nullifying the proclamation of a state of emergency in Rivers state made by the 1st defendant (Mr Tinubu) and wrongfully approved by the 2nd defendant (the National Assembly).”
They also urged the Supreme Court to nullify the appointment of a Sole Administrator to superintend over Rivers State.
They equally asked the court to set aside the approval of the emergency rule by the National Assembly through voice votes, as same, they argued, failed to meet constitutional requirements.
Other prayers of the plaintiffs include: “An order of this honourable court restraining the defendant, by himself, servants, agents and privies from implementing the unlawful suspension of the governor and deputy governor of Rivers state.
“An order of this honourable court restraining the defendant, by himself, servants, agents and privies from interfering in any manner whatsoever with the execution by the governor and deputy governor of Rivers state of their constitutional and statutory duties, as well as their electoral mandate.
“An order of this honourable court restraining the Defendant from attempting the suspension of any other governor of any state in Nigeria, particularly the plaintiffs and any governor not belonging to the ruling political party, or in any manner whatsoever attempting to interfere with or undermine their constitutional and statutory duties.”
Precedent-setting?
Proclamation of emergency rule in Nigeria’s federating units is an old development that dates back to 1962 when if was first recorded in the old Western Region leading to the removal of the Premier of the region at the time.
But breaking from the practice of removing elected officials under a proclamation of emergency rule implemented by then-President Olusegun Obasanjo in Plateau State in 2004 and Ekiti State in 2006, then-President Goodluck Jonathan kept the democratic structures and the elected officials in place when he issued such a declaration in North-east states of Adamawa, Borno and Yobe over Boko Haran insurgencies in 2013.
However, opinions remain divided on the constitutionality of the emergency rule removal of elected officials under the 1999 Constitution, as there has been no judicial precedent on the issue.
Some pundits have argued that while it was constitutional under the Constitution that was in place when the premier of the Western Region was removed under an emergency rule in 1962, such is unconstitutional under the current 1999 Constitution.
The suit by the seven PDP states will be precedent-setting if it overcomes the likely challenge to their locus standi (legal right to sue), which the defendants are most likely to put forward in a preliminary objection against the hearing of the suit by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court will have to decide if the seven states can sue to challenge the emergency rule in Rivers State when they are not directly affected by the proclamation by the president.
Discover more from Premium Times Nigeria
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
