Facts have emerged on why President Bola Tinubu asked the Supreme Court of Nigeria to dismiss the suit filed by some Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Governors challenging the suspension of all the elected officials of Rivers State under an emergency rule.
ISUIKWUATO VOICE NEWSPAPER reported that President Tinubu, on March 18, declared a state of emergency in Rivers State and suspended the Governor, Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, Ngozi Odu, and all the State House of Assembly lawmakers.
President Tinubu, thereafter, appointed retired Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas as the sole administrator of Rivers State.
However, irked by the suspension of Governor Fubara and other elected officials in the State, eleven PDP State Governors filed a suit at the Supreme Court to challenge President Tinubu’s action.
The Governors include Ahmadu Fintiri of Adamawa State, Umo Eno, Akwa Ibom State, Bala Muhammed, Bauchi State, Douye Diri, Bayelsa State and Sheriff Oborevwori, Delta State.
The rest Governors are Peter Mbah, Enugu State, Ademola Adeleke, Osuntokun State, Seyi Makinde, Oyo State, Caleb Mutfwang, Plateau State, Agbu Kefas, Taraba State, and Dauda Lawal, Zamfara State.
The suing States were represented by their respective Attorneys-General. The Governors who were initially seven when they first filed the suit in March, later grew to eleven.
The PDP Governors’ did not sue President Tinubu directly as a defendant in the suit.
The President was sued him through the Attorney-General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi, as the first defendant.
The National Assembly, was joined as the second defendant for its role of swiftly approving the state of emergency. Including the suspension of Governor Fubara and others.
However, on May 9, a notice of preliminary objection was filed by the AGF to defend the President’s action. The AGF also challenged the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to entertain the suit.
PREMIUM TIMES report on Saturday, stated that the AGF asked the SC 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 AGF argued that suit is abuse of court process and maintained 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.
Also the Special Assistant to the President on Arbitration, Drafting and Regulations, Taiye Hussain Oluyede defended President Tinubu’s action in an affidavit he swore to and filed in support of the preliminary objection.
Oluyede 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 Fubara and others.
The presidential aide also defended the National Assembly’s approval of the emergency rule. This is as he stressed that they have reserved the constitutional power to only approve or reject the declaration.
Oluyede rejected the Governors’ argument on the lawmakers’ use of voice votes. He argued 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.
He claimed the Governors instituted the suit because they were “driven into panic mode by their own imaginary fears”. That President Tinubu could declare a state of emergency in their States in the future.
He stated that, “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 scandalize the President for political advantage of the plaintiffs.”
The Supreme Court has yet to fix a date for the hearing of the suit.
The prayers of the PDP Governors:
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 asked 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.
The Governors also urged the court to nullify the appointment of Mr Ibas as the Sole Administrator of Rivers State. This is on the basis that the President lacks the constitutional power to make such an appointment.
The plaintiffs argued that 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. They noted that the Constitution mandates a two-thirds majority vote from all members of each legislative chamber.