The Supreme Court has reserved judgement in a suit filed by governors elected on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), challenging the 18 March declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State by President Bola Tinubu.
A seven-member panel led by John Inyang Okoro on Tuesday reserved judgement after parties adopted their processes.
|
|
Tuesday’s hearing comes more than one month after the six-month-long emergency rule lapsed on 17 September.
Many Nigerians criticised the Supreme Court and the entire Nigerian judiciary for failing to hear tens of suits filed to challenge the president’s action while the emergency rule was in place. The perceived lethargy to hear the case was attributed to the judiciary’s undue reverence for Mr Tinubu or fear of being in his bad book if striking down the emergency rule became unavoidable.
|
|
|
|---|
The plaintiffs, whose suit the Supreme Court finally heard on Tuesday – a month and five days after the emergency rule ended – are the attorneys-general of 11 states then under the control of the PDP, while the defendants are the federal government and the National Assembly. The number of PDP governors has since declined to eight, with the recent defection of Governors Sheriff Oborevwori of Delta State and Peter Mbah of Enugu State to the All Progressives Congress (APC), followed by Governor Duoye Diri’s resignation from the PDP.
After President Tinubu declared the state of emergency, suspending Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, and the state assembly, the PDP-led states challenged the action at the Supreme Court, arguing it violated Section 305 of the Nigerian Constitution. The AGF, in a preliminary objection, questioned the court’s jurisdiction to hear the suit.
Hearing
At Tuesday’s proceedings, the fifth plaintiff, Delta State, withdrew from the suit. The counsel for the federal government, Lateef Fagbemi, Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), did not oppose the withdrawal.
Stay Ahead with Premium Times
Follow us on Google News and never miss breaking stories, investigations, and in-depth reporting.
Add as a preferred source on Google
The lawyer representing the plaintiffs, Eyitayo Jegede, a SAN, said the case did not challenge the President’s power to proclaim a state of emergency. He said it rather questioned the extent to which the proclamation could affect the offices of the governor, deputy governor, and State House of Assembly.
Responding to the court’s question on whether there was a threat warranting the proclamation, Mr Fagbemi defended the president’s decision.
He noted that Rivers State was facing a crisis involving the governor and executives, which prompted the president’s action. He added that the governor, deputy governor, and the House of Assembly of Rivers were not removed but suspended as part of extraordinary measures to restore decorum.
Mr Fagbemi further noted that the President had a duty to act as he did and urged the court to dismiss the suit in its entirety.
Counsel for the National Assembly, Charles Yoila, aligned with the AGF’s submission and urged the court to dismiss the case.
After hearing the parties, the court reserved judgement till a date to be communicated to the parties.
Lifting the emergency rule on 17 September, Mr Tinubu reinstated Governor Fubara, the deputy governor, and state lawmakers to their positions.
He acknowledged the controversy surrounding the declaration but said its aim of restoring peace in the state had been achieved.
Background
Mr Tinubu declared the emergency rule on 18 March, citing prolonged political instability, constitutional breaches, and security threats.
He placed the governor, 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 response, 11 PDP-led states, Adamawa, Bauchi, Zamfara, Plateau, Bayelsa, Enugu, Osun, Akwa Ibom, Delta, Taraba, and Oyo, filed a suit at the Supreme Court.
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.”
Discover more from Premium Times Nigeria
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
More News
