By EBERE AGOZIE

The Attorney-General of the Federation, Mr. Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), has hailed Monday’s decision by the Supreme Court, affirming the President’s power to declare emergency rule in any state of the federation.

This was contained in a statement issued by Mr. Kamarudeen Ogundele, the Senior Assistant to the President on Communication, and Publicity office of the AGF and Minister of Justice on Tuesday in Abuja.

The Attorney-General said the judgment is a further consolidation to Nigeria’s fledging democracy and has cleared whatever doubt anyone might have had.

“The landmark judgment has further strengthened the nation’s jurisprudence and added another vital ingredient to consolidate its democracy,” Fagbemi said.

He also congratulated all parties in the matter as it was a win and has helped to erase any doubt anyone might have had about the action of the president and the endorsement by the National Assembly.

He said: “Nigeria is for all and he assured Nigerians of the president Tinubu’s administration’s commitment to uphold the tenets of democracy and the Rule of Law at all times.”

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the Supreme Court on Monday struck out a suit filed by 11 states of the federation challenging President Tinubu’s suspension of the Rivers’ governor, deputy governor and members of the House of Assembly following the declaration of a state of emergency in the state.

The suit, instituted by states governed by the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), questioned the constitutional validity of the president’s actions in Rivers State, arguing that the 1999 Constitution does not empower the president to suspend democratically elected state officials under the guise of emergency rule.

In a split decision of six to one, a seven-man panel of the apex court declined jurisdiction and struck out the suit for want of competence, holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a dispute that would activate the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction.

Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Mohammed Idris, held that the states did not disclose any cause of action capable of invoking the court’s powers as a court of first instance.

He stressed that the Supreme Court could only exercise original jurisdiction where there is a justiciable dispute between the Federation and a state, or between states, as provided under the Constitution.

According to the court, the subject matter of the suit did not qualify as a dispute between the Federal Government and any of the plaintiff states, adding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate how the actions complained of directly affecting them in a manner contemplated by the Constitution. (NAN)

Update news