Peoples Democratic Party governors have instituted a suit before the Supreme Court, challenging the six-month suspension of the Rivers State Governor, Siminalayi Fubara.
President Bola Tinubu suspended Fubara, his deputy Ngozi Odu, and members of the Rivers House of Assembly for six months after declaring a state of emergency on March 18 and appointing a sole administrator.
President Bola Tinubu suspended Fubara, his deputy Ngozi Odu, and members of the Rivers House of Assembly for six months after declaring a state of emergency on March 18 and appointing a sole administrator.
Meanwhile, the legislatures, on their part, supported Tinubu’s decision to implement the suspension.
However, the governors of Bauchi, Adamawa, Bayelsa, Enugu, Osun, Plateau, and Zamfara states questioned the powers the president has to carry out the suspension.
Mentioned as respondents in the suit are Tinubu and the National Assembly.
The PDP governors, who termed the suspension as unconstitutional, through their attorneys general, urged the Supreme Court to declare that “the president has no powers whatsoever or authority to suspend a democratically elected governor and deputy governor of a state in the Federation of Nigeria under the guise of or pursuant to the proclamation of a state of emergency in any state of the federation, including the states represented by the plaintiffs,” based on the provisions of Sections 1(2), 5(2), and 305 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
The PDP governors also urged the apex court to declare that the president has no powers to suspend a democratically elected House of Assembly of a state pursuant to Sections 192 (4) (6) and 305 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
The appellants sought a declaration that “the suspension of Governor Siminalaye Fubara, his deputy, and members of the Rivers State House of Assembly was unconstitutional, unlawful, and in gross violation of the provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).”
The PDP governors opined that Tinubu lacks the statutory powers to suspend a serving governor and appoint a sole administrator in their stead.
The governors petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the appointment of the sole administrator designated to manage the state.
They questioned the validity of Tinubu’s acts, which were ratified by the National Assembly through voice votes.
They maintained that the defendants’ proclamation of a state of emergency in Rivers State violated the constitutional provisions outlined in Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
Furthermore, the claimants asserted that the president’s proclamation did not follow the required requirements and processes for such a declaration, claiming that it was issued for reasons other than those mentioned in the Constitution.
They also claimed that the National Assembly’s acceptance of the state of emergency via voice vote was unlawful, citing the Constitution, which requires a two-thirds majority vote of members of each legislative body.
They governors prayed the Supreme Court to grant the following relief: “An order nullifying the proclamation of a state of emergency in Rivers State made by the first defendant and wrongfully approved by the second defendant.
“An order restraining the defendant, by himself, his servants, agents, and privies, from implementing the unlawful suspension of the governor and deputy governor of Rivers State.
“An order restraining the defendant, by himself, his 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 restraining the defendant from attempting the suspension of any other governor of any state in Nigeria, particularly the plaintiffs, or from interfering with or undermining their constitutional and statutory duties.”
