The federal government has brought a defense to the Supreme Court to justify the State of Emergency declaration in Rivers State, a move that was necessary due to the collapse of governance and the increased threat to the nation’s economic infrastructure.
The government’s response to legal challenges raised by 11 countries (mainly by the opposition Democratic Party (PDP)) has insisted that it has no choice but to act for national stability.
The plaintiff pointed out that Adamawa, Akwa Ibom, Bauchi, Bayelsa, Delta, Enugu, Oshen, Oyo, Plateau, Talaba and Zamfara all believe that the federal government acts illegally by exercising emergency rule in the river. However, the federal government rejected these claims among anti-devotes who were revoked by the President and Special Assistant to the Federal Justice Department, Mr. Teye Hussein Oloyd. The facts of this case and I have the President and Chief Akin Olujinmi, Con, San, San, the first defendant, swore to this counter affidavit. ”
Oloyd continued: “I have read the affidavit in support of the original subpoena. I admit that paragraphs 1 and 8 of the affidavit were to support the initiated subpoena. Affidavits 31 and 32 were to support the original subpoena, on the grounds that they were incorrect.”
He asserted that the political impasse in River State made governance impossible, “Because of my role as a special assistant to President Ahmed Bola Tinubu, I know the facts and circumstances that happened in River State, because Bola Ahmed Bola Tinubu declared a state of emergency in River State, which is certainly Is Iss Iss Iss Is at Is at Is at Is at Is at Is at Is at the Is at Inter Inter Inter Inter Inter Inter Inter Inter Inter Inta Iss Ather Ith March 20. The serious political crisis in River State has prevented the Governor and the House of Representatives from working together.”
According to the affidavit, the Rivers State Capitol was only consistent with Governor Similayi Fubara, while 27 other members opposed him. “So the governor cannot propose any appropriation bill to the House so that the governor can get funds for River State affairs,” Oloyd said. “In addition, governance has stalled because the non-appropriation bill does not present tolls to the River State Capitol.”
The federal government has also accused Gov. Fubara of exacerbating the crisis by demolishing the state capitol, leaving most legislators without legislative responsibilities. “The crisis escalated to the governor demolishing the house of the National Parliament, thus depriving the formal accommodation of the 27 members who opposed him, where they could meet to fulfill their duties as a parliamentary house,” the affidavit said. “However, the governor allowed him to meet with four members loyal to him in his office.”
The government stressed further instability, citing attacks on economic infrastructure and radical attacks. “There was violence in the state, attacking the country’s key economic assets, including destroying oil pipelines, and the governor did nothing to resolve the incident. The activists are openly threatening the enemy and sulphur of those enemies who were governors, even if the governor did nothing.
Oloyede said the governor and lawmakers have made a series of legal proceedings that have reached the highest litigation in the Supreme Court. “The governor and 27 members of the House of Representatives filed lawsuits against liability in several courts, both of which worked hard to surpass each other in the state’s political logjam.”
He mentioned the Supreme Court’s judgment, which said: “Without one of three weapons, it is impossible to say that the government existed in one of the national governments under the 1999 Constitution. In this case, the head of the government’s executive branch has chosen to collapse the legislature to enable him to rule without the legislature.
President Tinub and other politicians reportedly failed to mediate the crisis. “President Bola Ahmed Tinubu intervened in disputes between the governor and state legislators and other political players in the state in an attempt to resolve the issue friendly, but the parties insisted on their personal stance to undermine peace and development in the state,” Oloyede noted. “Similarly, many well-meaning and respected Nigerians have intervened in the crisis to resolve the issue, but the governor and members of the state legislature have no room for a resolution. Even after the Supreme Court decision mentioned above, matters remained in the state after the Supreme Court decision in the state, and the party president allowed the crisis to allow the crisis, thus avoiding the crisis. Tinubu had to declare a state of emergency in the River State to prevent drifting to greater violence.”
The federal government submitted a piece of evidence, adding: “In contrast to the testimonies of Sections 6, 9, 9, 10, 11, 12, 12, 13, 13, 27, 27, 27, 27, 27, 27, 28, 29, 29, 29, 30, 30, 30, 30 and 31.”
Oloyede also rejected the plaintiff’s interpretation of Article 305(6) of the Constitution and stated: “I have read Article 305(6) of the 1999 Constitution, so I know that the solution of the third provision that does not have a provision should be voted by each house in the National Assembly.”
He insisted that the president acted within the scope of the Constitution, adding: “It is the country that has the power under the Constitution to declare a state of emergency in the federal or any part of the Constitution. The role of the Constitution to the National Assembly is to approve or disapprove the responsibility of the President in order to make it responsible for the responsibility of the President, so that it is responsible for the responsibility of the responsibility of the responsibility of the President, so that it is responsible for the responsibility of the responsibility of the responsibility of the State of Emergency. The region affected by the declaration of the emergency.”
He stressed: “President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is a strong adherence to the rule of law, and he is committed to exercising his powers only in accordance with the provisions of the law and the Constitution, and based on reliable facts and performing his duties as president and security.”
The National Assembly also mentioned in the lawsuit that it had filed a preliminary objection on April 22, urging the Supreme Court to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds of irregular procedures and lack of merit. It demanded the cost of the plaintiff to include 1 billion guilds, calling the case “freckless and speculative.”
The PDP governor is seeking constitutional clarification from the Supreme Court to see if the president can suspend or interfere with the governor or his legislature’s office through an emergency statement, deeming such actions violated constitutional federal principles and violated chapters of the 1999 Constitution.
