…FG took extraordinary measure to restore peace– AGF
By Ikechukwu Nnochiri
ABUJA– The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, reserved its judgement on a suit that 11 states of the federation filed to challenge what they termed as President Bola Tinubu’s unconstitutional actions in Rivers State.
The states, which were controlled by the opposition Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, through their respective Attorneys-General, queried president Tinubu’s statutory powers to suspend a serving governor from office after the proclamation of emergency rule.
They prayed the apex court to declare that based on provisions of sections 1(2), 5(2), and 305 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, the president “has no powers whatsoever or vires 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 the state of the federation by the president, including the states of the federation represented by the plaintiffs.”
The plaintiffs equally prayed the court to declare that President Tinubu had no power 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).
As well as to declare that the suspension of Governor Siminalaye Fubara, his deputy and members of the Rivers State Assembly was unconstitutional, unlawful, illegal and utterly in gross violation of provisions of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.
Cited as 1st and 2nd defendants in the suit marked: SC/CV/329/2025, are the Attorney General of the Federation, AGF, and the National Assembly, NASS.
When the case was called up for hearing, the AGF, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, appeared in person to represent the Federal Government, while Mr. Charles Yohila, represented the NASS.
Mr. Eyitayo Jegede, SAN, led a team of lawyers that announced appearance for the PDP states.
A seven-man panel led by Justice Inyang Okoro reserved judgement after all the parties adopted their briefs of argument.
Meanwhile, before the matter was adjourned, Delta state, which was initially listed as the 5th plaintiff, formally withdrew from the case.
The withdrawal followed the defection of governor Sheriff Oborevwori of Delta state from the PDP to the ruling All Progressives Congress, APC.
Aside from Delta, other states behind the suit were; Adamawa, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Bauchi, Akwa Ibom, Plateau, Taraba, Zamfara, and Bayelsa.
Arguing the case for the plaintiffs, Jegede, SAN, clarified that his clients were not challenging the power of the president to proclaim a state of emergency, but “the extent to which the proclamation can be made to affect the offices of the Governor, Deputy Governor, and the State House of Assembly.”
On his part, the AGF, whose personal appearance on Tuesday underscored the sensitive nature of the case, urged the court to dismiss it for want of merit.
The AGF insisted that President Tinubu’s action was in the overall interest of Rivers state.
According to him, the state was engulfed in a political crisis that involved the governor, deputy governor and the lawmakers.
“No responsible government would sit back and allow the state to burn without taking any action,” Fagbemi, SAN, submitted, adding that Fubara’s suspension, along with his deputy and lawmakers, “was an extraordinary measure to check an extraordinary situation.”
The AGF, said: “My lords, the president had to act and act fast to safeguard the state.
“The starting point is the judgement of the Supreme Court, wherein your lordships held that as things were at that time, there was no government and governance in Rivers State.
“Therefore, the president had no choice but a duty to act in the best interest of the state.
“What he did was to suspend the protagonists, not remove them. Rivers was in an extraordinary situation, and that required taking extraordinary measures to restore peace and protect democracy,” the AGF contended.
His position was adopted by the NASS which also urged the court to dismiss the suit.
The NASS contended that the plaintiffs failed to fulfil the conditional precedent that would empower the Supreme Court to hear the suit it described as frivolous and speculative.
It was part of the contention of the 2nd defendant that the plaintiffs failed to issue the statutorily required three-month pre-action notice to its Clerk, as mandated under Section 21 of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act, 2017.
While praying the apex court to dismiss the suit as “unfounded, frivolous and a vexatious waste of resources, time and energy of the 2nd defendant,” the NASS prayed for a cost of N1billion to be awarded, jointly and severally, against the plaintiffs.
The Supreme Court said it would communicate the judgement date to the parties.
Other members of the seven-man panel that heard the case on Tuesday, were; Justices Chioma Nwosu-Iheme, Haruna Tsammani, Obarinde Ogbuinya, Stephen Adah, Habeeb Abiru and Mohammed Idris.
It will be recalled that President Tinubu had on March 18, declared a state of emergency in Rivers state after he slammed governor Fubara, his deputy and lawmakers in the state with a six-month suspension.
President Tinubu appointed Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas to pilot affairs of the state within the period, as a Sole Administrator.
The president’s decisions received legislative backing from both the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Dissatisfied with the development, the PDP states lodged the case before the Supreme Court.
The post Rivers: Supreme Court reserves judgement on PDP Govs’ suit against Tinubu appeared first on Vanguard News.
