Title: Tinubu asks Supreme Court to dismiss PDP governors suit against Rivers emergency rule Date Published: 11 May 2025 Description:  Eleven governors from the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) have filed a suit at the Supreme Court challenging President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State and the subsequent suspension of its elected officials.The governors are seeking to nullify what they describe as an unconstitutional usurpation of democratic governance by the president. They argue that the March 18 suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara, Deputy Governor Ngozi Odu, and the entire Rivers State House of Assembly is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Nigerian Constitution.BackgroundOn March 18, 2025, President Tinubu declared a state of emergency in Rivers State, citing political instability and attacks on oil infrastructure. He immediately suspended all elected officials in the state and appointed Ibok-Ete Ibas as the sole administrator.The move sparked outrage among PDP governors, who contend the president has no constitutional authority to suspend elected state officials or appoint a sole administrator under the guise of emergency powers.Governors Behind the SuitThe suit was initially filed by seven PDP-controlled states but later expanded to 11. These include:Adamawa (Governor Ahmadu Fintiri)Akwa Ibom (Governor Umo Eno)Bauchi (Governor Bala Mohammed)Bayelsa (Governor Douye Diri)Delta (Governor Sheriff Oborevwori)Enugu (Governor Peter Mbah)Osun (Governor Ademola Adeleke)Oyo (Governor Seyi Makinde)Plateau (Governor Caleb Mutfwang)Taraba (Governor Agbu Kefas)Zamfara (Governor Dauda Lawal)While Governor Oborevwori has since defected to the All Progressives Congress (APC) and Governor Eno has publicly supported President Tinubu’s second-term bid, both states remain parties to the suit.Legal ClaimsIn their suit, filed through their respective attorneys-general, the governors raised eight constitutional questions, primarily challenging the president’s powers under Section 305 of the Constitution. They argue that:The president lacks the authority to suspend a sitting governor or dissolve a state assembly.The appointment of a sole administrator is unconstitutional and undemocratic.The declaration of the state of emergency failed to meet the legal requirements set out in the Constitution.The National Assembly’s approval of the emergency rule via voice vote is invalid, as the Constitution mandates a two-thirds majority of all members.The governors ask the court to declare the president’s actions “unconstitutional, unlawful, illegal and in gross violation” of the Nigerian Constitution.Federal Government’s ResponseOn May 9, the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), filed a preliminary objection, urging the Supreme Court to dismiss the suit for lack of jurisdiction.The AGF argued that:The case does not fall within the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction as defined in Section 232(1) of the Constitution.There is no direct dispute between the Federation and the states.The plaintiffs have no locus standi, and the suit is speculative and academic.Mr. Fagbemi described the case as an “abuse of court process,” insisting that the PDP governors are acting on imaginary fears that similar emergency declarations could occur in their states.Presidential DefenseAn affidavit in support of the preliminary objection was filed by Taiye Hussain Oloyede, Special Assistant to the President on Arbitration, Drafting, and Regulations. He defended the emergency declaration, citing a breakdown of public order and security in Rivers State, including political tensions and attacks on oil infrastructure.Oloyede also defended the National Assembly’s use of voice voting, arguing that the Constitution does not require votes to be physically counted to meet the two-thirds threshold.He accused the governors of filing the case for political gain, stating: “It is in the interest of justice to dismiss this suit with punitive costs as it has been brought not to redress any alleged wrong, but to harass and scandalise the president.”Next StepsThe Supreme Court has yet to fix a date for the hearing. Legal analysts say the outcome could have far-reaching implications for executive power, federalism, and constitutional interpretation in Nigeria. Attached Images: 999f6cf72b058c5ad6fa580d683944396fc396fcfb61df3a4d02031c81d21650.jpeg Attached Video: None