FUBARA’S SUSPENSION: SUPREME COURT DISMISSES PDP GOV’S LAWSUIT AGAINST TINUBU
Read Time:4 Minute, 57 Second
BY JENN NOMAMIUKOR
The Supreme Court, on Monday, dismissed a lawsuit that 11 states in the federation brought against President Bola Tinubu. The states argued that his actions in Rivers State were not allowed by the constitution.
The states, which were run by the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) through their attorneys–general, questioned President Tinubu’s legal authority to remove a current governor from office after declaring emergency rule.
They asked the highest court to say that according to sections 1(2), 5(2), and 305 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, the president does not have any power or authority to stop a democratically chosen governor and deputy governor of a state in Nigeria’s federal system. They said this is done under the excuse of declaring a state of emergency in the state, which includes the states represented by the people bringing the case.
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 were the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and the National Assembly (NASS).
In its judgement on Monday, a seven-man panel of Justices of the Supreme Court, in a split decision of six to one, struck out the case for want of competence.
The apex court panel, in its majority verdict, held that the plaintiffs failed to establish any cause of action that led to the activation of its original jurisdiction.
Justice Mohammed Idris, who delivered the lead judgement, added that the states were unable to show that there was any actionable dispute between them and the federation to require the apex court to exercise its original jurisdiction.
He said that the Supreme Court can only be asked to act as a court of first instance when there is a disagreement between the federation and one of its states.
The court said the issue in the case didn’t involve a disagreement between the federal government and any of the people who filed the lawsuit.
It’s important to remember that the panel, led by Justice Inyang Okoro, had set aside its decision on October 21 after all the parties had submitted their arguments.
But before the case was ready for the final decision, Delta State, which was listed as the fifth plaintiff at first, officially left the case.
This happened because the governor of Delta State, Sheriff Oborevwori, left the PDP and joined the ruling All Progressives Congress, APC.
Other than Delta, the states involved in the lawsuit were Adamawa, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Bauchi, Akwa Ibom, Plateau, Taraba, Zamfara, and Bayelsa.
Some of the state governors who filed the suit have since left the PDP.
Mr. Eyitayo Jegede, SAN, who was representing the plaintiffs, said the group did not go to the Supreme Court to question the president‘s ability to declare a state of emergency.
Instead, they wanted to know how much of an impact the emergency proclamation could have on the governor, deputy governor, and the State House of Assembly.
The Attorney General of the Federation argued that President Tinubu’s decision was in the best interest of Rivers State.
He said the state was dealing with a serious political problem involving 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 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 condition 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 N1 billion to be awarded, jointly and severally, against the plaintiffs.
Other members of the seven-man panel that heard the case 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 that was struck out on Monday.
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
0
0