Supreme Court struck out PDP States’ suit against Rivers Emergency Rule.
NaijaOnPoint Nigeria reports that the Supreme Court on Monday struck out a suit challenging the state of emergency imposed on Rivers State earlier in the year, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter.
Although the emergency rule lapsed on 18 September, the suit filed by 11 states then all controlled by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) remained before the court. Parties were heard on 21 October, after which judgement was reserved.
In a 6–1 majority decision delivered on Monday, the apex court upheld preliminary objections raised by the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and the National Assembly, who were named as respondents.
Delivering the lead judgement, Justice Mohammed Idris held that the suit was incompetent, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to establish any cause of action capable of invoking the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction.
According to him, the states did not demonstrate the existence of an actionable dispute between themselves and the federation to warrant the court’s intervention. He consequently struck out the suit for want of jurisdiction.
Justice Idris further held that the case would still have failed on the merits even if the court had jurisdiction to entertain it.
Citing reports by Tribune, the court affirmed the president’s constitutional authority to proclaim a state of emergency, noting that such powers may include the suspension of elected officials, provided the suspension is for a limited period.
The court ruled that the power to declare a state of emergency is intended to avert a breakdown of law and order or prevent a descent into chaos and anarchy. It added that Section 305 of the Constitution empowers the president to take extraordinary measures to restore normalcy once an emergency has been declared.
Justice Idris noted that the Constitution does not spell out the precise nature of such extraordinary measures, thereby vesting the president with discretion on how to act in emergency situations.
Dissenting opinion
In a dissenting judgement, Justice Obande Ogbuinya held that the plaintiffs’ case succeeded in part.
While agreeing that the president has the power to declare a state of emergency, he ruled that such power does not extend to suspending elected state officials, including governors, deputy governors and members of state legislatures.
Background
The judgement arose from a suit filed by 11 PDP-controlled states challenging the state of emergency imposed on Rivers State by President Bola Tinubu on 18 March. The president cited prolonged political instability, constitutional breaches and security threats.
As part of the proclamation, Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy and members of the Rivers State House of Assembly were suspended for six months, while a retired vice-admiral, Ibok-Ete Ibas, was appointed as sole administrator.
The states argued that the action violated Section 305 of the Nigerian Constitution, which governs emergency powers. They sought a declaration nullifying the emergency rule and the appointment of the sole administrator.
The plaintiff states were Adamawa, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Bauchi, Akwa Ibom, Plateau, Delta, Taraba, Zamfara and Bayelsa. Since the suit was filed, governors of Enugu, Delta, Akwa Ibom and Bayelsa have defected to the All Progressives Congress, while the Osun governor joined the Accord Party.
The AGF, representing the federal government, and the National Assembly were joined as defendants. In its preliminary objection, the federal government challenged the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, arguing that the suit did not involve a dispute between the federation and a state or between states, and that the plaintiffs lacked the legal standing to sue.
It also described the case as hypothetical, academic and speculative.