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

In a statement on Tuesday by his media aide, Kamarudeen Ogundele, the AGF said the judgment is a further consolidation of Nigeria’s fledgling 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,” Mr Fagbemi said.

He said the decision was a win that helped erase any doubt about the president’s action and the National Assembly’s endorsement.

He said, ”Nigeria is for all of us, and I assure Nigerians of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration’s commitment to uphold the tenets of democracy and the rule of law at all times.”

The Supreme Court on Monday struck out a suit filed by 11 states challenging Mr 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 exercise original jurisdiction only where there is a justiciable dispute between the federation and a state, or between states, as provided by 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, and the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate how the actions complained of directly affected them in a manner contemplated by the Constitution.

(NAN)