The plaintiffs argued that the emergency rule imposed on Rivers State and the subsequent legislative approvals by the National Assembly were not backed by law.
The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed 18 July for ruling on an application seeking the invalidation of the Nigerian Senate's approval of the Rivers State's 2025 budget.
A group of Rivers State indigenes and a civil society organisation filed the application urging the court to restrain the National Assembly from approving budgets or appointments for the Rivers Government under the current Sole Administrator, Ibok-Ete Ibas, a retired vice admiral.
The applicants sought an interim injunction restraining the defendants "from further interference, approving, supporting and engaging in any legislative activities, including approving, appointment or budgets of Rivers State Government."
Follow us on WhatsApp | LinkedIn for the latest headlines
The plaintiffs include Oziwe Amba, who is the king regent of Diobu neighbourhood of Port Harcourt, the Rivers State capital. The others are Julius Bulous, George Ikeme, Amachelu Orlu, Odioha Wembe, and Hope Africa Foundation, which claimed to be part of the suit as a representative of Niger Delta Confederal Assembly.
They sued the National Assembly and its clerk to challenge the emergency rule and its fallouts, including ratification of Rivers State appointments and budgets by the National Assembly.
Their application seeking an interlocutory injunction, filed on 24 June, is tied to a substantive suit instituted on 19 June.
In the main suit, the plaintiffs asked the court to nullify President Bola Tinubu's declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State and the appointment of Mr Ibas as the state's sole administrator, both of which they described as unconstitutional.
President Bola Tinubu suspended Governor Siminalayi Fubara and other elected officials of the state for six months under the emergency rule he declared on the state on 18 March.
The president appointed Mr Ibas to act as the Sole Administrator of the state for the period of the emergency rule.
The Senate, the upper chamber of the National Assembly, which took over the legislative functions of the Rivers State House of Assembly following the emergency rule declaration, passed the state's 2025 budget on 25 June.
It passed the budget, which totalled N1.485 trillion, following the third reading of the appropriation bill on the floor.
The Senate has similarly confirmed appointments for positions in the state.
The case came up before the judge, James Omotosho, on Wednesday.
While Ambrose Owuru, representing the plaintiffs, called for the invalidation of the Senate's approval of the Rivers State's budget, Mohammed Galadima, who appeared for the National Assembly and its clerk, called for the dismissal of the application.
Plaintiffs' grouses
In his submission, Mr Owuru argued that the emergency rule and the subsequent legislative approvals by the National Assembly were not backed by law.
He said the emergency proclamation was invalid because it was passed via "voice vote" rather than the constitutionally required two-thirds majority under Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution.
Mr Owuru said the state's 2025 budget was illegally passed by the Senate on 25 June, despite pending litigation challenging the legitimacy of the administrator and the legislative process that enabled his appointment.
He said that the respondents have persisted in approving and supporting actions by an administrator who was imposed outside the provisions of the Constitution. "They continue to constitute committees and approve spending in a state governed by emergency without legal justification," the lawyer said.
He added that the Nigerian constitution only permits a state of emergency where the elected governor fails to act and where the National Assembly, through a proper quorum, gives approval, not through voice votes.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
The plaintiffs maintained in their affidavit filed in support of their application that failure to halt the contested actions connected with emergency rule would amount to continued trampling of their democratic rights to be governed by an elected official.
Call for dismissal of application
Responding to submission of the plaintiffs' lawyer, Mr Galadima maintained that the National Assembly acted lawfully and that the voice vote was procedurally valid within legislative practice.
He warned that granting the motion could create confusion and disrupt ongoing governance in the state. "The applicants have not shown any legal injury that warrants this court's intervention at this stage," the defence lawyer told the judge.
Judge Omotosho fixed 18 July for ruling on the motion.
