The National Assembly is seeking to have the Supreme Court dismiss a lawsuit filed by the PDP governors against the emergency declaration in River State, arguing the case is frivolous and lacks jurisdiction.

The National Assembly has approached the Supreme Court to dismiss the case filed by the governors under the aegis of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) against the declaration of the state of emergency in River State, stating that the case is frivolous and attempting to dictate how it plays its constitutional role.

The National Assembly, in its response to the suit filed by the PDP governors before the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the President’s action to declare a state of emergency, can lawfully suspend or interfere with the offices of a governor and deputy governor and replace them with an unelected appointee.

It asked the apex court to declare the suit frivolous and speculative and that the apex court does not have the jurisdiction to hear the suit, thus asking for an award of N1 billion fine against the state governors.

On March 18th 2025, President Bola Tinubu declared a state of emergency in Rivers State and suspended the State Governor, Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, Mrs Ngozi Odu, and the elected members of the State House of Assembly. The President also nominated Vice Admiral Ibokette Ibas (Rtd) as Administrator to take charge of the affairs of the state.

Following the declaration, both chambers of the National Assembly held a sitting and ratified the president’s proclamation through voice votes. The development, which generated criticism across the country, also got the opposition governors on their toes to challenge the declaration, naming the Attorney General of the Federation and the National Assembly as the first and second defendants, respectively.

In their suits  with no  (SC/CV/329/2025), the state governors  filed to obtain the Supreme Court’s interpretation and verdict on the President’s suspension of a sitting governor in Rivers State and know “Whether upon a proper construction and interpretation of the provisions of Sections 1(2), 5(2), 176, 180, 188 and 305 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria can lawfully suspend or in any manner whatsoever interfere with the offices of a Governor and the Deputy Governor of any of the component 36 States of the Federation of Nigeria and replace same with his unelected nominee as a Sole Administrator, under the guise of, or under, a Proclamation of a State of Emergency in any of the State of the Federation, particularly in any of the Plaintiffs States?”

However, in their defence, the National Assembly, in their preliminary objection, argued the case did not follow the due process in instituting the suit, noting that the plaintiffs did not give the required three-month pre-action notice to the Clerk of the National Assembly, as mandated under Section 21 of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act, 2017.

The national lawmakers also objected to the plaintiffs’ failure to get the resolutions of both chambers before filing their case, emphasising that they need the resolutions before filing their case before the apex court.

They further stated that they do not engage in business related to any future decisions to declare a state of emergency: “Considering the affidavit in support and the alleged threats, which did not originate from the second defendant, there is no cause of action against it.” This is a suit relating to an alleged threatened declaration or proclamation of a state of emergency in the plaintiffs’ states by the Honourable Attorney General and Minister of Justice.

“This is allegedly a result of the statement of the first defendant in a press briefing held March 19, 2025, wherein he is said to have stated that after Rivers State, it can be anybody’s turn tomorrow…’ None of the alleged threats or statements allude to the second defendant or any of its officers,” it argued.

The National Assembly further insisted that the suit against them failed to meet the requirements of the law, but instead, it looks like the plaintiffs are attempting to use the Supreme Court to interfere with how it exercises its constitution. Constitution.

“With the objection, amongst others, submitted, due process of instituting the action in the suit was not followed by the plaintiffs before taking these steps against the second defendants, as the plaintiffs failed to issue the requisite three months pre-action notice to the Clerk of the National Assembly and took no steps to obtain the resolutions of the Houses of Assembly of each of the states to enable the plaintiffs to each join to approach this busy court under the provision of the Supreme Court (Original Jurisdiction) Act 2002 on the matters.”

“The second defendant/applicant, having observed the several deficiencies in the suit of the plaintiffs which go contrary to the provisions of the laws and the jurisdiction of the court, objects and submits that the 11 states (plaintiffs) approached the court wrongly and in abuse of court process.”