&w=64&q=75)
Some governors elected on the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) platform have dragged President Bola Tinubu and the National Assembly to the Supreme Court, challenging the six-month suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara and his Deputy, Ngozi Nma Odu.
The seven governors include Bala Mohammed (Bauchi), Ahmadu Fintiri (Adamawa), Douye Diri (Bayelsa), Peter Mbah (Enugu), Ademola Adeleke (Osun), Caleb Mutfwang (Plateau), and Dauda Lawal Dare (Zamfara).
In a suit filed through their attorneys generals, the governors termed the suspension as unconstitutional, questioning what powers the President has to carry out such action (suspension).
Citing sections 1(2), 5(2), and 305 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the complainants urged the Supreme Court to declare that “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 in any state of the federation, including the states represented by the plaintiffs.”
ALSO READ: FLASHBACK: Wike condemned godfatherism, advised Ambode to resist Tinubu's influence
With reference to Sections 192 (4) (6) and 305 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), the governors also urged the apex court to declare that the President has no powers to suspend a democratically elected House of Assembly of a state.
The plaintiffs sought the 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).”
Governors demand reversal of Tinubu's decisions on Rivers
The seven governors strongly argued that President Tinubu lacks the constitutional powers to suspend a serving governor and appoint a Sole Administrator in his stead.
They asked the apex court to declare the appointment of the Sole Administrator to govern the affairs of Rivers State null and void.
The litigants also challenged the constitutionality of the voice votes used by the National Assembly to ratify the President’s actions.
They further argued that the defendants erred under the constitutional requirements set out in Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) to have declared a state of emergency in Rivers State.
The appellants contended that Tinubu's proclamation 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.
The seven governors 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.
ALSO READ: Tinubu gets 90-day ultimatum to end Rivers crisis or risk democratic breakdown
“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.”