The Supreme Court, on Monday, struck out a suit that 11 states of the federation filed to challenge what they termed President Bola Tinubu’s unconstitutional actions in Rivers State.
The states, which were controlled by the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) through their respective attorneys-general, queried President Tinubu’s statutory powers to suspend a serving governor from office after the proclamation of emergency rule.
They prayed the apex court to declare that based on the provisions of Sections 1(2), 5(2), and 305 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, the president “has no powers whatsoever or vires 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 the state of the federation by the president, including the states of the federation represented by the plaintiffs.”
The plaintiffs equally prayed the court to declare that President Tinubu had no power 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).
As well as to declare that the suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy and members of the Rivers State Assembly was unconstitutional, unlawful, illegal and utterly in gross violation of the provisions of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.
Cited as 1st and 2nd defendants in the suit marked SC/CV/329/2025 were the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and the National Assembly (NASS).
In its judgment on Monday, a seven-man panel of Justices of the Supreme Court, in a split decision of six to one, struck out the case for want of competence.
The apex court panel, in its majority verdict, held that the plaintiffs failed to establish any cause of action that led to the activation of its original jurisdiction.
Justice Mohammed Idris, who delivered the lead judgment, added that the states were unable to show that there was any actionable dispute between them and the federation to require the apex court to exercise its original jurisdiction.
While deciding the case on Monday, the Supreme Court, in its majority judgement that was delivered by Justice Mohammed Idris, held that Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, imbued the president with the power to deploy extraordinary measures with a view to restoring normalcy where emergency rule was declared.
It held that the said Section 305 was not specific on the nature of the extraordinary measures, thus granting the President the discretion on how to proceed with any situation at hand.
Besides, the panel upheld preliminary objections the two defendants filed to challenge the competence of the suit.
The apex court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish any cause of action that led to the activation of its original jurisdiction.
More so, the panel stressed that the Supreme Court could only be called upon to adjudicate as a court of first instance where there is a dispute between the federation and any state or states.
More so, the panel stressed that the Supreme Court could only be called upon to adjudicate as a court of first instance where there is a dispute between the federation and any state or states.
It held that the subject matter of the litigation did not qualify as a dispute between the federal government and any of the plaintiffs on record.
Consequently, it also dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction.
DISSENTING JUDGMENT
However, a member of the panel, Justice Obande Ogbuinya, gave a dissenting verdict.
Justice Ogbuinya held that upon his careful examination of the case of the plaintiffs, he was satisfied that it succeeded in part.