N’Assembly urges Supreme Court to dismiss PDP suit on Rivers emergency, seeks ₦1 bn costs in fiery constitutional showdown.
ABUJA, Nigeria – President Bola Tinubu’s March 18, 2025 declaration of a six-month state of emergency in Rivers State—suspending Governor Siminalayi Fubara, Deputy Governor Ngozi Odu and the entire State House of Assembly—has triggered an unprecedented constitutional clash between the National Assembly and eleven PDP governors.
The governors’ suit (SC/CV/329/2025) alleges unconstitutional overreach; in turn, the National Assembly’s April 22 preliminary objection challenges jurisdiction, highlights procedural lapses and demands ₦1 bn costs for what it deems a “frivolous” action. This report dissects the legal arguments, political undercurrents and wider implications for Nigerian federalism.
Context of the Emergency Declaration
On 18 March 2025, President Tinubu invoked Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution to declare a state of emergency in Rivers State, citing both political crisis and pipeline vandalism that disrupted Nigeria’s oil lifeline.
He suspended the governor, deputy governor and all lawmakers, installing Rear Admiral Ibokette Ibas (retd.) as sole administrator for six months.
The emergency stemmed from a combustible mix of legislative deadlock—threats to impeach Governor Fubara—and militant attacks on the Trans Niger Pipeline that had triggered a security crisis in the Niger Delta.
Constitutional Basis: Section 305 Explained
Section 305 empowers the President to act when “there is a clear and present danger…breakdown of public order…or failure of a State Government to discharge its functions”.
The clause requires presidential proclamation and ratification by a two-thirds majority in both chambers of the National Assembly.
Tinubu’s move, which was approved by voice vote, bypassing roll-call verification of the constitutionally mandated supermajority, has come under fire from opponents.
Emphatically, critics argue this broad discretion risks executive abuse, undermining Nigeria’s federal balance and democratic principle that state executives cannot be unilaterally removed by Abuja.
PDP Governors’ Lawsuit: Allegations of Unconstitutionality
Eleven PDP governors—from Adamawa to Bayelsa—filed SC/CV/329/2025 at the Supreme Court, challenging Tinubu’s power to suspend elected state officials and dissolve a democratically elected House of Assembly. They raise six constitutional questions, notably:
- Whether the President can lawfully suspend governors under emergency powers.
- If a voice vote suffices for N’Assembly ratification versus the two-thirds requirement.
- Whether such proclamations violate principles of federalism and the separation of powers.
The plaintiffs seek a perpetual injunction against federal interference in state offices and nullification of Official Gazette No. 47 of 2025, which published the Rivers emergency proclamation.
National Assembly’s Preliminary Objection
In a blistering preliminary objection dated 22 April 2025, N’Assembly contends:
Lack of jurisdiction: The Supreme Court cannot entertain a suit against a legislative house without a three-month pre-action notice under Section 21 of the Legislative Houses (Powers & Privileges) Act 2017.
Procedural defects: Plaintiffs failed to obtain resolutions from their State Houses of Assembly, a prerequisite for invoking original jurisdiction under the Supreme Court (Original Jurisdiction) Act 2002.
No cause of action against NASS: Alleged threats came from the Attorney-General’s office, not from any N’Assembly officer.
Abuse of process: The suit seeks to dictate N’Assembly’s internal voting procedures—an intolerable intrusion into its constitutional prerogatives.
Consequently, N’Assembly demands ₦1 bn in costs, branding the lawsuit “speculative,” “frivolous” and “vexatious”.
Political Implications and Power Play
This duel transcends legal technicalities. PDP governors frame the case as a defence of democracy and federalism, warning against an imperial presidency that can bench state leaders at will.
The APC-dominated N’Assembly, however, portrays its objection as a guardrail against judicial overreach and misuse of the apex court to settle political scores.
Analysts warn a ruling in favour of the governors could limit future emergency declarations but cement judicial primacy in federal disputes; conversely, a dismissal would embolden executive latitude at the expense of state autonomy.
Public Reaction and Legal Commentary
Public interest lawyers have canvassed international support, arguing Section 305 must not be a trojan horse for centralising power.
Conversely, some communities welcomed federal intervention as necessary to restore order amid crippling vandalism and political stalemate.
The Nigerian Bar Association has labelled the emergency “unconstitutional,” reinforcing the governors’ stance that elected officials cannot be dissolved without clear legislative backing.
Analysis: Federalism Under Fire
This showdown poses existential questions: Can the Nigeria of 2025 tolerate sweeping emergency powers wielded via voice vote? Does the judiciary possess the courage to check both executive impulses and legislative complicity?
The National Assembly’s objection leans on procedural strictures, yet sidesteps substantive debate on whether the emergency was justified or proportionate.
Critics decry hollow proceduralism and demand the Court engage the core issue: Does section 305 authorise suspension of state executives for political infractions as easily as for insurrection?
Conclusion
As the Supreme Court schedules hearings, Nigeria watches a constitutional drama with far-reaching stakes for its federal structure.
A verdict for the governors may restrain executive overreach; a win for N’Assembly affirms the government’s power to unilaterally reshape state leadership under emergency.
Either way, the battle will redefine the contours of power between Abuja and the states.
