The National Assembly has asked the Supreme Court to throw out the lawsuit filed by 11 governors from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), who are challenging the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State by President Bola Tinubu.
In a preliminary objection dated April 22, 2025, the National Assembly argued that the suit is procedurally flawed, lacks merit, and should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It also called for a N1 billion cost against the plaintiffs for what it described as a “frivolous and speculative suit.”
President Tinubu had declared a state of emergency in Rivers State on March 18, 2025, suspending Governor Siminalayi Fubara, Deputy Governor Ngozi Odu, and the entire State House of Assembly for six months. Rear Admiral Ibokette Ibas (retd.) was appointed as sole administrator. The National Assembly ratified the declaration via a voice vote.
The 11 PDP governors—representing Adamawa, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Bauchi, Akwa Ibom, Plateau, Delta, Taraba, Zamfara, and Bayelsa—filed suit SC/CV/329/2025, seeking to challenge the legality of the President’s action and the National Assembly’s approval process.
The governors asked the court to decide, among other things, whether the President can suspend elected state officials and replace them with unelected administrators under the guise of an emergency. They also questioned whether the National Assembly could legally approve such a proclamation with a voice vote instead of the constitutionally mandated two-thirds majority.
Their suit sought several declarations and a perpetual injunction to stop similar actions in the future, as well as an order nullifying the state of emergency in Rivers State published in Official Gazette No. 47 of 2025.
However, the National Assembly, in its objection, argued that:
-
The suit was improperly filed without the required three-month pre-action notice to the Clerk of the National Assembly, as required by law.
-
The plaintiffs did not obtain consent from their State Houses of Assembly, which is necessary for invoking the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction.
-
The claims of threats referenced in the suit were directed at the Attorney-General, not the National Assembly, making the federal legislature irrelevant to the case.
-
The suit improperly seeks to dictate how the National Assembly exercises its constitutional duties, such as using voice votes for approving emergency declarations.
The National Assembly further argued that the case is speculative and constitutes an abuse of the judicial process. It emphasized that the plaintiffs were trying to restrict legislative discretion and impose procedural requirements not mandated by the Constitution.
It urged the Supreme Court to strike out the suit on six legal grounds, including lack of a valid cause of action and failure to follow due process.