News
Rivers emergency rule: N’Assembly counters PDP govs’ lawsuit, demands N1bn
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.
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.
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.
The N’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.
The Spiritual Director of the Adoration Ministry Enugu, , has offered prayers for , praying for God’s favour, protection, and victory as the state approaches the coming elections.
Speaking during a church gathering, Mbaka declared that Governor Mbah would succeed, expressing confidence that God, whom he said had begun a great work through the governor, would bring it to completion.
“It shall be well with Peter Mbah; may the favour of God be with him. We back him with our prayers. The Adoration family throws our prayers around him, that he will succeed, in the name of Jesus. May God grant him the power of victory at the end of the whole election,” Mbaka said.
The cleric further expressed hope that Mbah’s leadership would bring joy to the Igbo people, the people of Enugu State, and the Church, adding that the Igbo economy could witness greater advancement under his administration.
According to Mbaka, the progress recorded so far gives hope that greater achievements lie ahead, stressing that God would perfect the work already begun.
His remarks come as political activities continue to gather momentum ahead of the forthcoming elections.
ENUGU — Governor Peter Mbah has directed the Enugu State Emergency Management Agency (ESEMA) to provide immediate relief materials and other palliative support to two families displaced by the fire that razed a two-storey building at No. 22 Church Road, Asata, Enugu, on Saturday.
The governor’s directive followed reports by Everydaynewsngr that the inferno destroyed two flats and consumed household property, valuables, and important documents belonging to the affected families, leaving them homeless.
The General Manager of ESEMA is expected to assess the extent of the damage and coordinate the distribution of emergency relief items to ease the hardship faced by the victims while further interventions are considered.
Residents of the area welcomed the governor’s swift response, describing it as a demonstration of compassion and responsible leadership at a difficult time for the affected families.
One of the victims, an employee of a higher institution in Enugu State who is said to be approaching retirement, had lamented that the fire wiped out decades of savings and destroyed all his household belongings, including vital documents and certificates.
No lives were lost in the incident, while the cause of the fire is yet to be determined. Authorities are expected to investigate the circumstances surrounding the outbreak as affected families begin the difficult task of rebuilding their lives.
The state government urged residents to remain safety conscious and report fire emergencies promptly to relevant agencies to minimise damage and loss of property.
By Our Reporter
Stakeholders in Nigeria’s real estate industry, alongside Golden Land Estate Ventures Limited, have called for urgent reforms to strengthen professionalism, transparency, and investor confidence in the sector.
The call was contained in a communiqué issued on Monday in Enugu following the company’s 2026 Mid-Year Seminar/Luncheon, held on Friday, July 3, at Wendy’s Place. The seminar, themed “Next-Level Real Estate Practices,” brought together real estate developers, chief executive officers, realtors, marketers, investors, and other stakeholders from the South-East to examine emerging industry trends, challenges, and practical strategies for sustainable growth.
According to the communiqué, participants unanimously adopted several resolutions after extensive deliberations.
Among the key resolutions was a call for stronger government action against the multiple sale of land. Participants urged the Federal, State, and Local Governments to strengthen land administration policies and impose stringent sanctions on communities and individuals involved in the fraudulent sale of the same parcel of land to multiple buyers.
They noted that such practices continue to erode investor confidence, fuel land-related litigation, and discourage genuine investment in the real estate sector.
The stakeholders also stressed the need to promote professionalism and healthy competition within the industry. They maintained that competition should be driven by integrity, innovation, quality service delivery, and professionalism rather than unhealthy rivalry, misinformation, or actions capable of damaging the reputation of fellow practitioners.
They further encouraged industry leaders to embrace collaboration as a means of promoting collective growth and enhancing public confidence in the sector.
The communiqué also emphasised the importance of honesty and transparency in dealings with clients. Participants urged real estate practitioners to refrain from making false claims, exaggerating property values, misrepresenting estate locations or approvals, or giving unrealistic assurances merely to secure transactions.
They insisted that prospective buyers should be provided with accurate, verifiable, and complete information before making investment decisions.
On service delivery, the seminar called on real estate developers and chief executives to establish effective internal controls to eliminate the overselling or double allocation of plots. Developers were also urged to ensure prompt allocation of purchased lands and timely issuance of all necessary documentation.
According to the communiqué, efficient service delivery is critical to sustaining customer trust and improving the credibility of the industry.
The participants also called on government agencies, industry regulators, professional bodies, community leaders, developers, and practitioners to work together in building a transparent, accountable, and investment-friendly real estate environment that protects property buyers and supports sustainable national development.
Golden Land Estate Ventures Limited reaffirmed its commitment to promoting ethical business practices, professional excellence, continuous capacity development, and responsible real estate investment in Nigeria.
The communiqué was signed by Comrade Damian Ogudike and Mr. Ikechukwu Eze, directors of Golden Land Estate Ventures Limited, on behalf of the company’s board. It was also drafted and endorsed by the seminar’s resource persons, Mrs. Amaka Dim of Exotic Landlady Estate and Miss Blessing Anene of BuildWise Solution Centre Estate.
By Our Correspondent
ENUGU — Two families were left homeless on Saturday after a fire destroyed two flats in a two-storey building located at No. 22 Church Road, Asata, in Enugu metropolis.
The fire, which started at about 10 a.m., reportedly broke out after the occupants of the affected upper-floor flats had left for their daily activities.
Although the cause of the fire was yet to be ascertained as of the time of filing this report, eyewitness Tony Iroji said the inferno completely destroyed household items and other valuables in the affected apartments.
One of the victims, who returned home while the building was engulfed in flames, reportedly collapsed after seeing the extent of the damage. He was revived by sympathisers at the scene.
The victim, said to be an employee of one of the higher institutions in Enugu State and nearing retirement, lamented that years of hard work had been wiped out by the incident.
According to him, the fire destroyed all his household property, including important documents and certificates, leaving him with no option but to relocate his family to his ancestral home.
“All I have worked for all these years is gone,” he said in tears.
No life was lost in the incident, but residents appealed to the Enugu State Government, emergency management agencies and public-spirited individuals to come to the aid of the affected families, even as they urged the authorities to investigate the cause of the fire.
See video
The National Association of Nigerian Students (NANS), the apex students governing body, has issued a four days ultimatum to South African business interests to evacuate Nigeria.
This is contained in a statement issued on Monday in Enugu by Comrade Amb. Bestman Okereafor, NANS National Executive Director, Cooperate and Private Sectors Engagement.
The statement said that after the expiration of the ultimatum, South African business interests would face full wrath of the over 43.1 million Nigerian students scattered in the nooks and crannies of the country.
“The attention of the apex students governing body, NANS, has been drawn to continuous attacks, intimidation and subsequent chase of law abiding, peaceful and hardworking Nigerians and other Africans from South Africa.
“As the biggest students body in Africa, we are giving South African business interests four days to evacuate our beloved country, Nigeria.
“The reason for this action is simple. South Africans cannot continue to oppress and chase our people from their country and expect their businesses to thrive on our soil,” it said.
The statement further noted that immediately after expiration of the ultimatum, NANS will consider picketing South Africa business interests, while further actions will follow.”
It called on the Federal Government of Nigeria and the African Union (AU) to take more decisive actions against South Africa for their inimical acts towards other Africans.
“It is on record that Nigeria played a major role in support of South Africa during the apartheid struggle and should never be paid with disloyalty, disrespect and global embarrassment,” it added.
It would be recalled that xenophobic attack by South Africans on other Africans for some months had led to Nigerians being physically assaulted, embarrassed, intimidated, injured and some gruesomely murdered.
Several Nigeria business interests and business premises, owned by law abiding Nigerians in South Africa, had been completely burnt down or destroyed by rampaging South Africans without any justification.
The alleged perpetrators of these crimes had earlier given Nigerians and other Africans an ultimatum of June 30 to leave South Africa.
The Federal Government through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had in recent weeks airlifted hundreds of Nigerians, who are willing to leave the unfriendly country and her people, free of charge back to Nigeria.
However, some of those, who returned to Nigeria recently, left South Africa barely with the cloth they put on, losing savings, valuables and businesses they set up or acquired after many years.
-
Crime4 days agoEnugu Police Foil Armed Robbery, Kill Suspect, Arrest Four in Border Operations
-
Crime3 days agoYahoo Boys Stole ₦7.2m From Serving Judge’s Account in Midnight Cyberattack – EFCC Chair
-
Politics5 days agoFormer Minister Uche Nnaji To Remain In Detention For 14 Days
-
Crime5 days agoMedia Vindicated as ICPC Explains Ex-Minister’s Public Disgrace at Abuja Airport
-
News5 days agoGod forbid Nigeria sees another Civil War — Obasanjo
-
Politics4 days agoAPGA Debunks Claims of Protest Vote by Aggrieved Aspirants
-
News4 days agoEvery Naira stolen robs Enugu of development’ — Gov. Mbah charges Public Officers on Accountability
-
Crime3 days agoEFCC Witness Clears Ngige Of N80 Million Alleged Fraud