The President Bola Tinubu-led federal government has given five reasons the Supreme Court should dismiss the application filed by 11 governors of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) challenging the suspension of their colleague, Siminalayi Fubara of Rivers.
THECAPITAL.NG recalled that President Tinubu declared a state of emergency in Rivers and subsequently announced the suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, Ngozi Odu and all lawmakers in the state.….CONTINUE READING
Tinubu-led federal government, through the office of the AGF, filed the claims in defence of the suit filed by 11 PDP governors against the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers
In the defence, Tinubu asked the apex court to dismiss the PDP governors’ application based on the five reasons it gave.
President Tinubu had earlier declared a state of emergency in Rivers and subsequently appointed Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ekwe Ibas as the sole administrator in the state, leading to the suspension of Governor Fubara and all elected officials in the executive and judiciary.
Tinubu’s action followed the unending political crisis in the oil-rich state, which was due to the rift between Fubara and his estranged political godfather, Nyesom Wike, who is also the minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).
However, many faulted the president’s action and described it as unconstitutional.
Amid the saga, the PDP governors dragged the president and the federal government before the Supreme Court and asked the apex court to determine whether the president and the federal government have the right to suspend an elected officer.
In the defence, Tinubu, through the office of the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the suit of the governor, giving five reasons, in the preliminary objection and counter-affidavits, according to The Punch.
1. The federal government argued that the suit did not fall within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, citing section 232(1) of the 1999 constitution.
2. The AGF argued that the court’s jurisdiction is limited to disputes between the FG and a state, specifically when the dispute involves a question of law that affects the existence or extent of a legal right.
3. Also, the federal government maintained that “the plaintiffs have not disclosed any dispute, let alone a justiciable dispute between the Federation and them.’’
4. Another argument by the AGF was that the suit did not mention any cause of action, adding that the plaintiff did not have the locus standi to file the suit.
5. The federal government then concluded that the suit is academic, hypothetical, an abuse of the court process and speculative.
