The National Assembly has urged the Supreme Court to throw out a legal challenge brought by 11 governors from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) over the alleged plan to declare a state of emergency in Rivers State.
In its preliminary objection, the National Assembly argued that the suit was “procedurally flawed and lacked merit.”
It asked the court to dismiss the case on grounds that it lacked jurisdiction and requested that N1 billion be awarded against the plaintiffs as damages for filing what it called “a frivolous and speculative suit.”
The objection stressed that due process was not followed. “With the objection amongst others submitted, due process of instituting the action in the suit was not followed by the plaintiffs before taking this step against the second defendants,” the NASS noted.
It pointed out that the plaintiffs failed to serve the statutorily 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.
According to the legislation, “a person who has a cause of action against a Legislative House shall serve a three months’ notice to the office of the Clerk of the Legislative House disclosing the cause of action and reliefs sought.”
The Assembly also argued that the governors failed to obtain resolutions from their respective State Houses of Assembly, which is a key requirement for approaching the Supreme Court under its original jurisdiction, as provided for in the Supreme Court (Original Jurisdiction) Act, 2002.
Responding to alleged threats raised in the plaintiffs’ filing, which referenced a statement made by the Attorney-General during a press briefing, the National Assembly asserted that it had no involvement.
“Considering the affidavit in support and the threats alleged, which did not come from the second defendant, there is no cause of action against it,” the Assembly said.
“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 threat or statement is alluded to the second defendant or any of its officers.”
The 11 PDP governors, representing Adamawa, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Bauchi, Akwa Ibom, Plateau, Delta, Taraba, Zamfara, and Bayelsa, had filed the suit to question whether the President has the constitutional authority to dissolve a democratically elected state institution and appoint unelected officials under the guise of a state of emergency.
But the National Assembly argued further that the plaintiffs were improperly trying to use the court to interfere with how it exercises its constitutional duties, particularly in relation to the use of voice votes to approve states of emergency under Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution.
Describing the suit as “speculative and an abuse of court process,” the Assembly added.
“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, raises an objection and submits that the 11 states (plaintiffs) approached the court wrongly and in abuse of court process.”
The objection, backed by six legal grounds, claimed the plaintiffs lacked both a cause of action and the legal standing (locus standi) to bring the suit.
Supporting the objection, Godswill Onyegbu, a legal officer in the National Assembly’s Directorate of Legal Services, deposed in an affidavit that the plaintiffs had not followed due process.
He argued: “The plaintiffs did not obtain the required resolutions from the Houses of Assembly in their respective states to authorise the suit under the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction.”
“There is no cause of action against the second defendant, as no threat emanated from the second defendant’s office.”
He further stated: “The plaintiffs lacked the locus standi to institute this suit as none of the plaintiffs had shown that it has suffered anything far and above any other persons or people of Rivers State.”
“There are no disputes involving questions of law or fact upon which the existence or extent of a legal right depends between the parties. The plaintiffs have not established any legal rights against the second defendant to warrant equitable relief such as a perpetual injunction,” Onyegbu said.
Calling on the court to strike out the suit entirely, he added: “That the plaintiffs’ states’ houses of assembly did not pass any resolution by a simple majority of the members present and sitting at the time of the resolution authorising the plaintiffs to institute this action.”
“That the plaintiffs have not established any legal rights against the second defendant to enjoy the equitable remedy of perpetual injunction. That it is in the best interest of justice for the court to dismiss or strike out this suit against the second defendant with a cost of N1 billion only, jointly and severally against the plaintiffs.”
