The governors of states controlled by the People’s Democratic Party have filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court contesting Siminalayi Fubara’s six-month suspension as governor of Rivers State.
After declaring a state of emergency in the state on March 18 and appointing a sole administrator, President Bola Tinubu dismissed Fubara, his deputy, Ngozi Odu, and the members of the Rivers House of Assembly for six months.
Meanwhile, the lawmakers agreed with the president’s decision to suspend.
The governors of the states of Bauchi, Adamawa, Bayelsa, Enugu, Osun, Plateau, and Zamfara, however, questioned the president’s authority to impose such a ban.
Tinubu and the National Assembly are named as respondents in the lawsuit.
The seven state governors who termed the suspension as unconstitutional, through their Attorney-Generals, urged the Supreme Court to declare that “the President has no powers whatsoever or authority 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 any state of the federation, including the states represented by the plaintiffs,” based on the provisions of Sections 1(2), 5(2), and 305 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
The governors also urged the apex court to declare that the President has no powers 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).
The appellants (seven state governors) sought a declaration that “the suspension of Governor Siminalaye Fubara, his deputy, and members of the Rivers State House of Assembly was unconstitutional, unlawful, and in gross violation of the provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).”
The governors argued that Tinubu lacks the statutory powers to suspend a serving governor and appoint a sole administrator in their stead.
READ ALSO: Drama at Hearing As Senator, Ezekwesili Engage in Heated War of Words
The governors urged the Supreme Court to nullify the appointment of the sole administrator appointed to govern the state.
They contested the National Assembly’s use of voice voting to approve Tinubu’s policies as unconstitutional.
They contended that the defendants’ proclamation of a state of emergency in Rivers State was in violation of the criteria outlined in Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
Furthermore, the litigants contended that the proclamation by the President failed to meet the stipulated conditions and procedures for such a declaration, stating that it was made for reasons beyond those specified in the Constitution.
They also argued that the National Assembly’s approval of the state of emergency via a voice vote was invalid, stressing that the Constitution mandates a two-thirds majority vote of members of each legislative chamber.
They prayed to the Supreme Court for the following relief: “An order nullifying the proclamation of a state of emergency in Rivers State made by the first defendant and wrongfully approved by the second defendant.
“An order restraining the defendant, by himself, his servants, agents, and privies, from implementing the unlawful suspension of the governor and deputy governor of Rivers State.
READ ALSO: Customs Transfer Seized Foreign Currency to EFCC in Ogun
“An order restraining the defendant, by himself, his servants, agents, and privies, from interfering in any manner whatsoever with the execution by the governor and deputy governor of Rivers State of their constitutional and statutory duties, as well as their electoral mandate.
“An order restraining the defendant from attempting the suspension of any other governor of any state in Nigeria, particularly the plaintiffs, or from interfering with or undermining their constitutional and statutory duties.”
