In its response, it contended that the suit was procedurally flawed and lacked merit.
It further argued that the court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the suit and should award N1 billion in costs against the plaintiffs for filing what it termed a frivolous and speculative suit.
In a preliminary objection, the National Assembly argued that the court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the case, particularly against it, “the second defendant”.
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 months’ 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.
‘No Hand In Rivers Crisis’
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 had no business with 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. This is a suit relating to an alleged threatened declaration or proclamation of a state of emergency in the plaintiffs’ states by the Honourable Attorney General and Minister of Justice.
“This is allegedly a result of the statement of the first defendant in a press briefing held March 19, 2025, wherein he is said to have stated that after Rivers State, ..it can be anybody’s turn tomorrow….’ None of the alleged threat or statement is alluded to the second defendant or any of its officers,” it argued.
The 11 PDP governors had approached the Supreme Court to raise questions on what authority the President had 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 were listed as the first and second defendants, respectively, in the suit.
The 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.
‘Due Process Not Followed’
But the National 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 second 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 further asserted that the plaintiffs were attempting to use the Supreme Court to dictate how it exercised 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 court process.
NASS added, “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.”
Further in its objection, predicated on six grounds, the second defendant contended that the plaintiffs’ suit lacked a cause of action.
It stated that the plaintiffs lack locus standi to proceed against the second defendant on the issues raised in the suit.
The National Assembly 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.
A legal officer in the Directorate of Legal Services at the National Assembly, Godswill Onyegbu, in an affidavit supporting the notice of preliminary objection deposed, 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).
‘State Assemblies’ Resolutions Required’
“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,” he said.
He added that the plaintiffs lacked the locus standi to institute this suit as none of the plaintiffs had 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,” the lawyer added.
In addition to requesting the dismissal of the suit, Onyegbu called for costs of N1 billion to be awarded jointly and severally against the plaintiffs in the interest of justice.
He further stated, “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 second defendant to enjoy the equitable remedy of perpetual injunction.
“That it is in the best interest of justice for the court to dismiss or strike out this suit against the second defendant with a cost of N1 billion only, jointly and severally against the plaintiffs”.
