Seven state governors elected on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) have filed a suit before the Supreme Court of Nigeria challenging the suspension of the Rivers State governor, Siminalayi Fubara.
The governors of Bauchi, Adamawa, Bayelsa, Enugu, Osun, Plateau, and Zamfara are questioning the powers of the President to suspend a democratically elected governor.
They named President Bola Tinubu and the National Assembly as respondents in the suit.
Tinubu had in a nationwide broadcast on Tuesday, March 18, declared a state of emergency in Rivers State, citing protracted political crisis in the state. He suspended Governor Fubara, his deputy Ngozi Odu, and all the members of the House of Assembly and appointed an administrator to oversee the affairs of the state for an initial period of six months. The two chambers of the National Assembly subsequently ratified the suspension via voice votes.
But the seven state governors have termed the suspension as unconstitutional. In the suit filed through their Attorneys-General, the governors 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 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 governors sought a declaration that “the suspension of Governor Siminalayi 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)”.
They argued that President Tinubu lacks the statutory powers to suspend a serving governor and appoint a Sole Administrator in his stead.
They further urged the Supreme Court to nullify the appointment of the Sole Administrator appointed to govern the affairs of Rivers State.
They challenged the constitutionality of the voice votes used by the National Assembly to ratify President Tinubu’s actions.
They argued that the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State by the defendants did not comply with the constitutional requirements set out in Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
Furthermore, the appellants contended that the proclamation by President Tinubu failed to meet the stipulated conditions and procedures for such a declaration, stating that it was made for reasons beyond those specified in the Constitution.
They also argued that the National Assembly’s approval of the state of emergency via a voice vote was invalid, stressing that the Constitution mandates a two-thirds majority vote of members of each legislative chamber.
They prayed the Supreme Court for the following reliefs, “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”.
