Connect with us


BIG STORY

Rivers Emergency Rule: National Assembly Counters PDP Governors’ Lawsuit, Demands N1bn

Published

on

The National Assembly has urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the suit filed by 11 Peoples Democratic Party governors challenging the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State.

The federal legislature, in its response, contended that the plaintiffs’ suit was procedurally flawed and lacked merit.

The National Assembly said this in a preliminary objection dated April 22, 2025, (obtained by The Punch on Sunday).

It argued that the court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the suit and should award N1bn in costs against the plaintiffs for filing what it termed a “frivolous and speculative suit.”

President Bola Tinubu had declared a state of emergency in Rivers State on March 18, 2025, suspending Governor Siminalayi Fubara, Deputy Governor Ngozi Odu, and all elected members of the State House of Assembly for an initial period of six months.

Following the suspension, Tinubu appointed Rear Admiral Ibokette Ibas (retd.) as the sole administrator to oversee the state’s affairs during the suspension period.

The National Assembly ratified the President’s declaration through a voice vote.

It was gathered that the PDP governors, in suit number SC/CV/329/2025, approached the Supreme Court to challenge the President’s powers to suspend a democratically elected state institution and replace it with an unelected one.

The plaintiffs in the suit are the governors of Adamawa, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Bauchi, Akwa Ibom, Plateau, Delta, Taraba, Zamfara, and Bayelsa States.

The Attorney-General of the Federation and the National Assembly are listed as the 1st and 2nd defendants, respectively, in the suit.

All 11 states in the suit asked the apex court to determine six constitutional questions, including whether the President of Nigeria can lawfully suspend or interfere with the offices of a governor and deputy governor and replace them with an unelected appointee under the guise of a state of emergency proclamation.

They further requested the court to determine whether the Attorney-General’s threat, acting on behalf of the President, to suspend the offices of governors and deputy governors by virtue of such proclamations contravenes the provisions of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and principles of constitutional federalism.

The plaintiffs also questioned whether the National Assembly could approve a state of emergency proclamation, including suspension of state executives and legislatures by a simple voice vote rather than the constitutionally required two-thirds majority of all members of each chamber.

In their reliefs, the plaintiffs sought the declarations that the President cannot lawfully suspend or interfere with the offices of governors and deputy governors or replace them with unelected nominees under a state of emergency.

They argued that the President cannot lawfully suspend a State House of Assembly under such circumstances.

They further contended that the Attorney-General’s threats to suspend state officials are unconstitutional and violate the principles of federalism and that the National Assembly cannot approve such proclamations through voice votes without a two-third majority.

Additionally, they prayed for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with state offices through state of emergency proclamations.

The plaintiffs sought an order nullifying the state of emergency proclamation in Rivers State as published in Official Gazette No. 47 of 2025.

The governors are asking for “An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from suspending or approving the suspension or in any way interfering with the offices of the Governor, the Deputy Governor and /or the House of Assembly of any of the Plaintiffs States by way of a Proclamation of State of Emergency or in any manner whatsoever or by any method howsoever.

“An order setting aside and nullifying the Official Gazette No.47 of 2025, State of Emergency (Rivers State) Proclamation, 2025 made by the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and wrongfully approved by the 2nd Defendant and upon which the ominous threat by the 1st defendant against the Plaintiffs is predicated.”

However, the National Assembly, in its preliminary objection, faulted the plaintiffs’ suit and urged the Supreme Court to dismiss it, arguing that the court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the case, particularly against the second defendant, (NASS).

Declaring that it holds a memorandum of conditional appearance, the National Assembly argued that due process was not followed in instituting the suit, emphasising that the plaintiffs failed to issue 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.

It stated that “A person who has a cause of action against a Legislative House shall serve a three-month’s notice to the office of the Clerk of the Legislative House disclosing the cause of action and reliefs sought.”

Additionally, NASS argued that the plaintiffs did not secure resolutions from their respective State Houses of Assembly, a prerequisite for approaching the Supreme Court under its original jurisdiction provisions outlined in the Supreme Court (Original Jurisdiction) Act, 2002.

Citing alleged threats referenced in the plaintiffs’ suit, which borders on a statement attributed to the Attorney-General during a press briefing, NASS noted that since the threat did not emanate from them or its officers, the suit has no business with them.

The objection read, “Considering the affidavit in support and the threats alleged, which did not come from the 2nd Defendant, there is no cause of action against it.

“This is a suit relating to an alleged threatened declaration or proclamation of State of emergency in the plaintiffs’ States by the Honourable Attorney General and Minister of Justice. This is allegedly as a result of the statement of the 1st 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 2nd Defendant or any of its officers.”

The National Assembly further contended, “With the objection amongst others submitted, due process of instituting the action in the suit was not followed by the plaintiffs before taking this steps against the 2nd 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 each join to approach this busy Court pursuant to the provision of the Supreme Court (Original Jurisdiction) Act 2002 on the matters.”

NASS asserted that the plaintiffs were attempting to use the Supreme Court to dictate how it exercises its constitutional role, particularly regarding the use of voice votes to ratify states of emergency under section 305 of the 1999 Constitution.

The objection described the suit as speculative and an abuse of the court process.

“In the suit, the Plaintiffs seek to use the court to curtail the manner in which the 2nd defendant votes or make approval to ratify proclamations of State of Emergency declared pursuant to section 305 of the CFRN 1999, to get the 2/3 majority of their votes.

“It also seeks that the Court dictates how much roles are to be performed by the 2nd Defendant. The suit seeks to restrain the 2nd defendant from using voice votes to get majority approval for future or anticipated Proclamations of States of Emergency in the States of the Plaintiff.

“The suit also seeks by perpetual injunction, to restrain the second defendant’s Houses (Senate /House of Assembly) from carrying out their constitutional duties of approval of Proclamations of State of Emergency and seeks that the approval given by the 2nd Defendant on the 20th day of March, 2025, ratifying the proclamation of State of Emergency in Rivers State be set aside for being wrongfully approved.”

NASS further added, “The 2nd 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 objection and submits that the 11 States (Plaintiffs) approached the Court wrongly and in abuse of court process.”

It predicated its objection on six grounds, stating that the plaintiffs’ suit lacks a cause of action.

The National Assembly further stated that the plaintiffs lack locus standi to proceed against the second defendant on the issues raised in the suit.

It also argued that the plaintiffs failed to comply with due process as stipulated under section 2, Schedule 2 of the Supreme Court (Additional Original Jurisdiction) Act, 2002.

The 2nd defendant noted that the “court lacks jurisdiction.”

In an affidavit supporting the notice of preliminary objection deposed by Godswill Onyegbu, a legal officer in the Directorate of Legal Services, National Assembly, he argued that due process was not followed in instituting the suit.

Onyegbu maintained that no dispute exists between the plaintiffs and either the Government of Nigeria or the second defendant, (NASS).

He further deposed that, “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.

“That the plaintiffs lack the locus standi to institute this suit as none of the plaintiffs has 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.”

He noted that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the matter against the second defendant as constituted.

In addition to requesting the dismissal of the suit, Onyegbu called for a cost of N1b to be awarded jointly and severally against the plaintiffs in the interest of justice.

“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 2nd defendant to enjoy the equitable remedy of perpetual injunction.

“That the suit of the plaintiffs is speculative, unfounded, frivolous and a vexatious waste of resources, time and energy of the 2nd defendant.

“That the present court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain this matter as presently constituted against the 2nd defendants.

“That it is in the best interest of justice for the Court to dismiss or strike out this suit against the 2nd defendant with a cost of N1b only, jointly and severally against the plaintiffs,” the affidavit read.

 

Credit: The Punch

BIG STORY

Criminals On INTERPOL Red List Arrested In Nigeria — Interior Minister Tunji-Ojo

Published

on

The Minister of Interior, Olubunmi Tunji-Ojo, announced that criminals on the red list of the International Police (INTERPOL) were arrested at Nigerian airports.

Tunji-Ojo also disclosed that individuals declared wanted by various European countries were apprehended within two days of attempting to enter Nigeria.

He attributed these arrests to substantial investments in surveillance and intelligence-gathering equipment at the nation’s border points. This highlights a strategic improvement in national security.

He made these statements on Tuesday at a regional workshop on Maritime Border Security. The workshop, titled “Regional Maritime Border Security in the Context of Counter Terrorism in the Gulf of Guinea,” took place in Lagos State.

The minister specified that the arrested criminals originated from Italy, the Republic of Ireland, and several other countries.

“I can tell you that to a large extent, we have built a robust database, and we are reaping the fruits of that. Now, it will interest you that a couple of weeks ago, within two days, a lot of people on the Interpol and red list were arrested at our airports. It means that these people would have come in.” This quote emphasizes the effectiveness of the new database.

“One came from Italy, one came from Ireland, the other one, I think, from a couple of countries. These people would have come into Nigeria 18 years ago, but now we know that in terms of our air terminals, they are in sync because it’s integrated into the central system,” he stated. This illustrates the long-standing vulnerability that has now been addressed by the integrated system.

The minister also revealed that for the first time, Nigeria possesses Advanced Passenger Information (API), which is used to profile passengers entering the country. This signifies a major leap in border control capabilities.

Tunji-Ojo asserted that the API is utilized to cross-reference passengers’ records, background, and travel history.

“Now, we can tell you that Nigeria now has an API solution. We never had that before now. Before now, we were one of the few countries without an API solution, without the opportunity for our immigration officers to pre-profile people coming into Nigeria, not being able to query their background, query their record system, query their antecedents and their travel history.” This emphasizes the transformative impact of the new API system.

“We never had that capacity before President Bola Tinubu came on board, but today, I tell you, NIS has that, so if you’re coming into Nigeria today, before you come, we know everything about you.” This credits the current administration for implementing this crucial technology.

“We’ve queried you, we know where you’re coming from, and we can tell from their aspect, we’re now fulfilling our international obligations to our international colleagues by being able to uphold the tenets of UN resolution of the API solution that we have at the moment,” he stated. This highlights Nigeria’s adherence to international standards and its improved collaboration with other nations.

Earlier in the event, Kemi Nandap, the Comptroller General of the Nigeria Immigration Service, delivered remarks. She stated that the Service plays a crucial role in maritime border security by ensuring that “foreign terrorist fighters and other criminal elements do not exploit the nation’s territorial integrity.”

According to the Immigration boss, maritime insecurity stemming from illegal oil bunkering, fishing, piracy, armed robbery, and oil-related crimes poses a threat to “vessel and crew safety.” This outlines the various maritime security challenges Nigeria faces.

Continue Reading

BIG STORY

NIHOTOUR Reforms Gain Momentum As NOA Pledges Full Support [PHOTOS]

Published

on

The National Orientation Agency (NOA) has thrown its weight behind the ongoing repositioning of the National Institute for Hospitality and Tourism (NIHOTOUR), lauding the agency’s strategic move to regulate and standardise Nigeria’s hospitality, tourism, and travel industry.

During a courtesy visit by Aare (Dr.) Abisoye Fagade, Director General and CEO of NIHOTOUR, the NOA Director General, Mallam Lanre Issa-Onilu, described tourism as a vital tool for shaping Nigeria’s global image. He commended NIHOTOUR’s reform efforts and proposed a joint inter-agency project team to drive value-based education and sector professionalism.

“Tourism should reflect our national identity and values. NIHOTOUR’s efforts to introduce structure, certification, and professionalism are a welcome development,” Issa-Onilu said.

In a key policy proposal, the NOA DG called for the inclusion of Citizenship Studies in hospitality training programmes to promote patriotism and service ethics among sector personnel.

Aare Fagade, in his remarks, reaffirmed NIHOTOUR’s transformation from a training-focused institution to a regulatory body responsible for professional standards and certification. He emphasised that the Institute remains committed to quality assurance, stakeholder collaboration, and building a globally competitive workforce.

“We are building an ecosystem where integrity, competence, and national pride define hospitality and tourism practice in Nigeria,” Aare Fagade stated.

The collaboration between NIHOTOUR and NOA signals a new era of institutional synergy aimed at aligning tourism development with national values and international best practices.

Continue Reading

BIG STORY

UPDATE: Two Oyo Lawmakers Protest As Assembly Backtracks On Traditional Council Bill

Published

on

Two lawmakers walked out on Tuesday during a session where the Oyo State House of Assembly received the amended report of its committee. The report was related to a review of the Council of Obas and Chiefs.

Due to significant public criticism regarding the proposed amendment, the Assembly decided to revert to a rotational chairmanship among the Alaafin of Oyo, the Olubadan of Ibadanland, and the Soun of Ogbomoso.

The bill was officially passed during the plenary session. This followed the presentation of the report by the House Committee on Local Government and Chieftaincy Matters and State Honours, delivered by its Vice Chairman, Bamidele Adeola.

The Assembly formally resolved that “the chairmanship position should be rotated among the Alaafin of Oyo, the Olubadan of Ibadanland and the Soun of Ogbomosoland.” This decision clarifies the new structure of the council’s leadership.

The bill, which had its second reading last Thursday on the floor of the House, sparked “heated arguments” among traditional rulers and stakeholders across the state.

Initially, the bill proposed making the Alaafin the permanent chairman. The Olubadan and Soun were to serve as concurrent chairmen, in that order of ranking, during the Alaafin’s absence.

However, the Olubadan and Soun “insisted on maintaining rotational chairmanship” with the Alaafin. They urged the Assembly to reverse its earlier decision, highlighting their strong preference for shared leadership.

It was gathered that the committee, in its report, proposed that the permanent chairmanship clause in the bill should be replaced with a rotational chairmanship among the Alaafin, the Olubadan and the Soun on a two-year term.

The bill also struck out the permanent presiding officer role initially vested in the Alaafin.

The committee also recommended that the 10 beaded crown-wearing Ibadan obas, ⁠Samu and Agbakin be included as members of the Council of Obas and Chiefs.

Some traditional rulers in the state, however, criticised the Assembly for expanding the council to include the 10 Ibadan obas.

While some stakeholders from Ibadanland and Ogbomosoland vilified the bill, others saw it as a welcome development.

Kicking against the rotational clause, the lawmakers representing Oyo East and Atiba constituencies, Olorunpoto Rahman and Gbenga Oyekola, respectively, walked out while the House was deliberating on the recommendation of the committee.

In a sideline interview with newsmen, Rahman said, “We should be guided by the truth in whatever law we make. Everyone knows the position of the Alaafin. We are not out of touch with history.

“Alaafin is a paramount ruler. We should not make a law for political convenience. We should make a law that can stand the test of time. We should make a law that will align with history.

“We are not satisfied with the process by the committee. There was neither a public hearing nor stakeholder engagement. There is no instance where they invited anyone from Oyo to speak on this bill. I have serious issues with that.”

The Palace of the Olugbon of Orile-Igbon also viewed the Council of Obas and Chiefs (further amendment) Bill 2025 as a faulty political document whose consideration should be halted to give room for consultations.

The palace, in a statement by the Media Consultant to Olugbon of Orile-Igbon, Bisi Oladele, described the bill as faulty, decrying inadequate consultation by the Assembly.

“For such an important bill that seeks to revive and do justice to the council of obas and chiefs, the key stakeholders are the traditional rulers, who should have been adequately consulted before it was packaged. Besides, there should be a public hearing on the proposal.

“The actions on the bill so far clearly ignored the relevance of traditional rulers in Oyo State. It is openly based on political patronage,” the statement stated.

It lamented that the amendment further cemented Ibadans’ dominance over indigenes from other parts of the state.

“Should the bill be passed, indigenes of Oyo, Ogbomoso, Oke-Ogun and Ibarapa zones will again become second-class indigenes in their own state, just as Ibadan indigenes have been dominating other parts of the state politically.

“The city has produced governors since 1999, except for the late Adebayo Alao-Akala.

“While there is a need for the council to be revived and strengthened, it should not be skewed in favour of a particular zone to further dominate other zones.

“It should reflect fairness, justice, equity, and possess the capacity to promote peace among traditional rulers in the state,” it added.

The Olugbon, Oba Francis Alao, urged the lawmakers and other stakeholders to suspend work on the bill and consult widely to avoid passing a bill that would breed crisis among monarchs in the state.

He also debunked the claim of historical significance of Ogbomoso by the mogajis of the town in their opposition to the bill.

Oba Alao noted that should history alone be the factor of decision-making concerning the constitution of the council’s leadership, the Olugbon of Orile-Igbon would be ahead of the Soun of Ogbomoso.

“We should not forget that the current palace of the Soun of Ogbomoso sits on the land that falls within Olugbon’s kingdom.

“Orile-Igbon borders with Ijeru, which is also more ancient than Ogbomoso.

“But demography has kept Ogbomoso in a better standing than other towns and communities in the zone.

“This is the reality all traditional rulers in the Ogbomoso zone accepted, and this accounts for why more ancient towns in the zone do not contend with the status accorded Soun in the Obas Council. We understand it as good for administrative and political convenience,” he added.

Oba Alao said Alaafin ran a huge kingdom with many other kingdoms under it, and believed Alaafin deserved the permanent chairmanship.

“Where is Soun’s kingdom? Where is Olubadan’s kingdom? Alaafin ran a huge kingdom with many other kingdoms under it.

“But we are putting the past behind us because the world is dynamic. Yet the honour must be there for the thrones that deserve it,” he added.

A group, the Ebedi Frontliners, Iseyin, has called on the Oyo State Government to make the Aseyin of Iseyin a co-chairman in the bill.

This was contained in a statement released by its Public Relations Officer, Segun Fasasi, in Ibadan, on Tuesday.

Ebedi Frontliners, in a statement, said, “Alaafin is representing the interests of four local government areas in Oyo town, Soun of Ogbomoso represents the interests of five local government areas while Olubadan represents the interests of 11 local government areas, leaving Oke-Ogun area with 10 local government areas with no co-chairmanship candidate.”

The group, however, lauded Governor Seyi Makinde’s administration for what it called “the democratisation of the state’s chieftaincy laws,” saying the legislative exercise would give more roles to the traditional rulers.

 

Credit: The Punch

Continue Reading



 

Join Us On Facebook

Most Popular