PDP Governors Take Tinubu, Lawmakers to Supreme Court Over Proposed Emergency Rule in Rivers
Seven state governments, led by governors from the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), have taken President Bola Tinubu to the Supreme Court. They are challenging his decision to suspend Rivers State’s elected officials under an emergency rule.
PDP Governors Challenge Tinubu’s Emergency Rule
The states, through their Attorneys-General, argue that the president does not have the authority to suspend an elected governor and deputy governor under the guise of an emergency rule. They claim that the Nigerian constitution does not grant him such powers. Additionally, they insist that Tinubu’s action in suspending the state’s House of Assembly is unconstitutional.
The plaintiffs are asking the Supreme Court to rule the president’s actions illegal and overturn the suspension of Rivers State Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, and Assembly members. They believe this move violates the Nigerian constitution.
What Led to the State of Emergency?
On March 18, President Tinubu declared an emergency in Rivers State, citing security concerns. He pointed to explosions and pipeline vandalism linked to political tensions in the state. The crisis stems from a rift between Governor Fubara and his predecessor, Nyesom Wike, who is now the Minister of the FCT.
Following Tinubu’s decision, he suspended the governor, deputy governor, and Assembly members for six months and appointed Ibok-Ete Ibas as the sole administrator of Rivers State. The House of Representatives approved the emergency rule on March 20, and the Senate later followed with minor adjustments.
Supreme Court Battle
The seven states—Adamawa, Bauchi, Zamfara, Plateau, Bayelsa, Enugu, and Osun—want the Supreme Court to reverse the suspension of Rivers’ elected leaders. Notably, these states represent different regions of the country, showing broad opposition to the emergency rule.
Despite the PDP controlling 12 states, four of them—Oyo, Akwa Ibom, Delta, and Taraba—did not join the lawsuit. Interestingly, two of the seven suing states, Plateau and Adamawa, have experienced emergency rule in the past.
Legal Arguments Against the Emergency Rule
The plaintiffs argue that Tinubu has no legal right to suspend elected leaders and appoint a sole administrator. They claim the emergency proclamation does not meet constitutional requirements under Section 305 of the Nigerian Constitution. They also believe the National Assembly’s approval of the rule through a voice vote is invalid, as the constitution mandates a two-thirds majority.
Their legal requests include:
- Nullifying the emergency proclamation and the appointment of the sole administrator.
- Preventing Tinubu from suspending any other state governor or interfering with their duties.
- Declaring that the National Assembly’s approval of the emergency rule was unconstitutional.
A Legal Precedent in the Making?
Declaring a state of emergency is not new in Nigeria. The first recorded case happened in 1962 in the old Western Region. More recently, former President Goodluck Jonathan declared emergency rule in Adamawa, Borno, and Yobe in 2013 but allowed elected officials to remain in office. This contrasts with Tinubu’s move to remove Rivers’ leaders.
The lawsuit could set a major legal precedent. The Supreme Court will decide whether the seven states have the legal right to challenge the emergency rule. If the court allows the case to proceed, it will clarify whether the Nigerian Constitution permits the removal of elected officials under an emergency declaration.
