The National Assembly has asked the Supreme Court of Nigeria to dismiss the lawsuit filed by 11 governors from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), challenging the alleged declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State.
In its response, the National Assembly described the suit as “procedurally defective and devoid of merit,” and argued that the apex court lacks the jurisdiction to hear the case. It also requested the court to award ₦1 billion in costs against the plaintiffs for filing what it termed a frivolous and speculative action.
Through a preliminary objection, the National Assembly—named as the second defendant—contended that due process was not followed in filing the suit. It maintained that the PDP governors failed to issue the mandatory three-month pre-action notice to the Clerk of the National Assembly, as required under Section 21 of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act, 2017.
According to that provision, any person with a cause of action against a legislative house must notify the Clerk in writing, disclosing the nature of the grievance and the reliefs being sought.
Additionally, the National Assembly argued that the governors did not secure authorisation from their respective State Houses of Assembly—a necessary step for invoking the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction under the Supreme Court (Original Jurisdiction) Act, 2002.
‘No Involvement in Rivers Crisis’
Responding to references in the suit to an alleged threat made by the Attorney-General at a press briefing on March 19, 2025, the National Assembly said no such statement was made by its members or officers and therefore the suit had no bearing on it.
“This suit relates to an alleged threat of a state of emergency declaration made by the Attorney-General and not by the second defendant,” it stated. “There is no cause of action against the National Assembly.”
The suit, filed by governors of Adamawa, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Bauchi, Akwa Ibom, Plateau, Delta, Taraba, Zamfara, and Bayelsa states, challenges the legality of any attempt to suspend a democratically elected state government and replace it with an unelected body under the pretext of a state of emergency.
The Attorney-General of the Federation and the National Assembly were named as first and second defendants, respectively.
The plaintiffs asked the court to resolve six constitutional issues, including whether the President can lawfully suspend the offices of a governor and deputy governor under emergency powers.
‘Suit Is Speculative and Abusive’
The National Assembly, however, insisted that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy both procedural and substantive requirements. It said they lacked locus standi and failed to demonstrate any direct injury or legal right violated by the second defendant.
Godswill Onyegbu, a legal officer from the National Assembly’s Directorate of Legal Services, supported the objection with an affidavit. He noted that the state legislatures had not passed the required resolutions authorising the governors to file the suit and that there was no legal dispute involving the National Assembly.
“There is no conflict of law or fact between the plaintiffs and the second defendant,” he stated, adding that the suit seeks to use the Supreme Court to dictate how the National Assembly exercises its constitutional role—particularly its use of voice votes under Section 305 of the Constitution to ratify a state of emergency.
₦1 Billion Sanction Sought
Onyegbu urged the Supreme Court to either dismiss or strike out the suit, describing it as “an abuse of court process.” He asked that ₦1 billion in costs be imposed jointly and severally on the plaintiffs.
He concluded:
- The plaintiffs lacked the legal standing to bring the action.
- No resolution was passed by any State House of Assembly authorising the suit.
- No specific injury or legal violation was established against the National Assembly.
- The plaintiffs were not entitled to a perpetual injunction or any other equitable relief.