The National Assembly has urged the Supreme Court to throw out the lawsuit filed by 11 governors from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) challenging the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State.
In its response to the Supreme Court, the National Assembly argued that the governors’ suit is legally flawed and without merit.
It further contended that the Supreme Court lacks the authority to hear the case and should impose a cost of N1 billion on the governors for filing what it described as a frivolous and speculative lawsuit.
In a preliminary objection, the National Assembly specifically argued that the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over the case, particularly concerning the National Assembly itself (the second defendant).
Read Also: Rivers APC Crisis Deepens As Factions Clash Over Court Ruling
The National Assembly stated that it was making a conditional appearance and argued that the proper legal procedures were not followed when the suit was initiated.
It emphasized that the governors failed to provide the legally required three-month pre-action notice to the Clerk of the National Assembly, as mandated by Section 21 of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act, 2017.
This section stipulates that anyone intending to sue a Legislative House must first serve a three-month notice outlining the cause of action and the remedies sought.
Additionally, the National Assembly argued that the governors did not obtain resolutions from their respective State Houses of Assembly, which is a necessary step before approaching the Supreme Court under its original jurisdiction as outlined in the Supreme Court (Original Jurisdiction) Act, 2002.
Referring to alleged threats mentioned in the governors’ suit, which stemmed from a statement attributed to the Attorney-General during a press briefing, the National Assembly pointed out that since these threats did not originate from them or their officers, the lawsuit should not involve them.
“Considering the affidavit in support and the threats alleged, which did not come from the second defendant, there is no cause of action against it,” they argued.
They stated that the suit relates to a claimed threatened declaration of a state of emergency by the Attorney General, based on a statement made during a press briefing, and that the National Assembly or its officers were not implicated in this alleged threat.
The 11 PDP governors had gone to the Supreme Court to question the President’s authority to suspend a democratically elected state institution and replace it with an unelected one.
The governors of Adamawa, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Bauchi, Akwa Ibom, Plateau, Delta, Taraba, Zamfara, and Bayelsa states are the plaintiffs in the suit, with the Attorney-General of the Federation and the National Assembly named as the first and second defendants, respectively.
The states asked the Supreme Court to rule on six constitutional questions, including whether the President has the lawful power to suspend or interfere with the offices of a governor and deputy governor and replace them with unelected individuals under the guise of a state of emergency.
The National Assembly further argued that the governors were attempting to dictate how it performs its constitutional duties, particularly regarding the use of voice votes to approve states of emergency under Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution.
The objection described the suit as speculative and an abuse of the court process.
“The second 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 an objection and submits that the 11 states (plaintiffs) approached the court wrongly and in abuse of court process,” the National Assembly stated.
Based on six grounds, the National Assembly argued that the governors’ suit lacked a valid legal basis (cause of action) and that the governors lacked the legal standing (locus standi) to sue the National Assembly on the issues raised.
They also argued that the governors failed to follow the correct legal procedures as outlined in Section 2, Schedule 2 of the Supreme Court (Additional Original Jurisdiction) Act, 2002.
A legal officer from the National Assembly, Godswill Onyegbu, stated in an affidavit supporting the preliminary objection that due process was not followed in initiating the suit and that no actual dispute exists between the governors and the National Assembly.
He also argued that the governors did not obtain the necessary resolutions from their State Houses of Assembly to authorize the suit under the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction and that the governors have not demonstrated any specific harm suffered beyond that of the general public in Rivers State.
In addition to seeking the dismissal of the suit, Onyegbu requested that the Supreme Court award costs of N1 billion against the 11 governors jointly and severally.
He emphasized that the State Houses of Assembly of the plaintiff states did not pass resolutions authorizing the lawsuit and that the governors have not established any legal rights against the National Assembly that would warrant the granting of a perpetual injunction.
He concluded that dismissing the suit against the National Assembly with a cost of N1 billion would be in the best interest of justice.
Join Informant Online WhatsApp Channel With Link Below: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaihFajBadmT29ufud2
