Mohamed Garba
In a legal showdown that could reshape federal-state relations, the National Assembly has sharply countered a lawsuit filed by 11 PDP governors, calling the challenge “frivolous and speculative” and seeking an award of N1bn in costs. The dispute centers on President Bola Tinubu’s controversial declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State and the subsequent suspension of the democratically elected state government.
On March 18, 2025, President Tinubu declared a state of emergency in Rivers State, suspending Governor Siminalayi Fubara, Deputy Governor Ngozi Odu, and all members of the State House of Assembly for an initial period of six months. In the wake of the suspension, Tinubu swiftly appointed Rear Admiral Ibok Ette Ibas (retd.) as the sole administrator to steer the state’s affairs. The National Assembly ratified this presidential action through a voice vote—a process that is now at the heart of the controversy.
The lawsuit, registered under suit number SC/CV/329/2025, was initiated by governors from Adamawa, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Bauchi, Akwa Ibom, Plateau, Delta, Taraba, Zamfara, and Bayelsa States. The plaintiffs contend that the President’s use of a state of emergency to suspend the existing state institutions—and the reliance on a voice vote in the National Assembly to validate the proclamation—grossly undermines Nigeria’s constitutional framework and principles of federalism.
Central to the litigation are six constitutional questions posed by the PDP governors. They challenge: the President’s authority to suspend or interfere with the offices of state governors and deputy governors; the legality of replacing elected governors with an unelected administrator under a state of emergency; the propriety of suspending a State House of Assembly without adhering to the constitutionally mandated process, which, according to the plaintiffs, should require a two-thirds majority vote rather than a mere voice vote.
The governors further argue that the Attorney-General’s overt threats—asserted during a press briefing on March 19, 2025—amount to an unconstitutional overreach of executive power, thereby threatening the delicate balance between federal and state governments.
In a preliminary objection filed on April 22, 2025, the National Assembly leveled a series of legal and procedural criticisms aimed at the suit. The objection asserts that rhe case is procedurally flawed since the PDP governors failed to provide the mandatory three-month pre-action notice to the Clerk of the National Assembly, as required under Section 21 of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act, 2017; the plaintiffs did not secure the necessary resolutions from their respective State Houses of Assembly—a prerequisite under the Supreme Court (Original Jurisdiction) Act, 2002.
The suit improperly seeks to dictate the internal procedures of the National Assembly, specifically its use of voice votes to ratify declarations of emergency.
Quoting from the objection, National Assembly officials argued that “due process was not followed in instituting the suit” and emphasized that the plaintiffs lacked the legal standing (locus standi) to bring action against the legislature. Moreover, the NASS contended that no legitimate threat to the National Assembly’s constitutional role had materialized, thereby undermining the grounds of the lawsuit.
The lawsuit’s outcome could have far-reaching implications for Nigeria’s constitutional order and the balance of powers between federal and state authorities. While the PDP governors insist that the state of emergency in Rivers State sets a dangerous precedent for executive overreach, the National Assembly maintains that the legal action is not only procedurally unsound but also an abuse of the judicial process intended to curtail its constitutional functions.
Legal experts note that if the Supreme Court dismisses the suit as urged by the National Assembly, it will not only reaffirm the current emergency measures in Rivers State but also solidify the use of procedural safeguards as a barrier against litigating political actions without prior due process.
As both sides prepare for what promises to be a landmark judicial confrontation, all eyes are on the Supreme Court to determine whether the president’s emergency powers—and the mechanisms by which they were approved—can withstand scrutiny under the 1999 Constitution and principles of federalism.
