Rivers State of Emergency: PDP Govs Drag Tinubu, National Assembly To Supreme Court

The governors include those of Bauchi, Adamawa, Bayelsa, Enugu, Osun, Plateau, and Zamfara states filed the suit at the apex court, questioneling the powers the president has to carry out the suspension.
Tinubu had, declared a state of emergency in Rivers, after suspending both the Executive and Legislature in the state on March 18 and appointed a sole administrator to administer the area. 
The state legislature supported the president’s decision suspending both the House of Assembly and the Executive following the state of emergency. 
Joined as defendants in the suit are Tinubu and the National Assembly.
The plaintiffs filed the suit challenging the suspension, which they described as illegal and unconstitutional, through their Attorney-Generals, asking the Supreme Court to declare the action as void.

According to them,, “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, 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).
They 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).

PRAYERS

The opposition governors asked the Supreme Court for 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).”
They argued that Tinubu lacked the statutory powers to suspend a serving governor and his deputy and appoint a sole administrator in their stead and urged the Supreme Court to nullify the appointment of the sole administrator appointed to govern the state.
They further noted that the voice votes used by the National Assembly to ratify Tinubu’s actions was unconstitutional, hence the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State by the defendants did not comply with the constitutional requirements set out in Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
The plaintiffs further 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.
According to the governors, the National Assembly’s approval of the state of emergency via a voice vote was invalid, as  the Constitution mandates a two-thirds majority vote of members of each legislative chamber and asked the  Supreme Court for the following reliefs: “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.
“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.”