Fresh crisis has hit the camp of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governors, as Delta state pulls out of the suit that is challenging President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State.
The development came about 12 days after the governor of Delta state, Sheriff Oborevwori and the entire leadership of the PDP in the state, decamped to the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and pledged their unalloyed support to President Tinubu.
Delta state was listed as one of the plaintiffs in the suit marked: SC/CV/329/2025, which governors of then 11 PDP states lodged before the apex court.
The plaintiffs specifically challenged President Tinubu’s powers to suspend democratically elected state officials, including a serving governor and his deputy, and replace them with unelected ones.
Aside from Delta, other states behind the suit were; Adamawa, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Bauchi, Akwa Ibom, Plateau, Taraba, Zamfara, and Bayelsa.
The governors had through their respective Attorneys-General, posed six questions for the Supreme Court to determine, among which included, 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.
The plaintiffs urged the apex court to also 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, was in contravention of provisions of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, as well as principles of constitutional federalism.
They further prayed the court to determine 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.
Upon determination of the questions, the PDP governors, among other reliefs, applied for an order nullifying the state of emergency proclamation in Rivers State as published in Official Gazette No. 47 of 2025.
They equally prayed 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.”
Cited as 1st and 2nd defendants in the matter, were the Attorney-General of the Federation, and the National Assembly, respectively.
However, as the Supreme Court, through the Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN, Justice Kudirat Ekekere-Ekun, is setting up a seven-man panel that will hear the constitutional matter, the plaintiffs suffered a depletion in their rank, with Delta state, withdrawing from the case.
A top government official in the state said that the Delta State governor, Sheriff Oborevwori, has already instructed the state’s legal team led by the Attorney-General, Mr. Ekemejero Ohwovoriole, SAN, to file a notice of discontinuance.
“At the moment, governor Oborevwori is no longer a PDP governor so there is no basis for him to remain a plaintiff in the suit that was filed by PDP governors.
“I can assure you that once a date is fixed by the Supreme Court, the Delta state legal team will formally withdraw from the hearing,” the official who craved anonymity, told Vanguard.
There are indications that Akwa Ibom state may equally pull out from the suit.
Meanwhile, both the AGF, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, and the NASS, have queried the competence of the suit and the jurisdiction of the apex court to hear it.
In its preliminary objection, the NASS contended that the plaintiffs failed to fulfil the conditional precedent that would empower the Supreme Court to hear the matter which it described as frivolous and speculative.
It was part of the contentions of the NASS that the plaintiffs failed to issue the statutorily required three-month pre-action notice to its Clerk, as mandated under Section 21 of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act, 2017.
It maintained that the Act provided 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.”
More so, the 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.
The 2nd defendant accused the PDP governors of attempting to use the Supreme Court to dictate how it should perform its constitutional duties, especially as it relates to the use of voice votes to ratify states of emergency under section 305 of the 1999 Constitution.
“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.
“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,” the NASS, which filed a memorandum of conditional appearance in the matter, added.
While praying the apex court to dismiss the suit as “unfounded, frivolous and a vexatious waste of resources, time and energy of the 2nd defendant,” the NASS prayed for a cost of N1billion to be awarded, jointly and severally, against the plaintiffs.
