A Federal High Court in Abuja has scheduled a ruling for July 18 on a motion seeking to restrain the National Assembly from further engaging in any legislative activities, including approving appointments or budgets of the Rivers state government under the current Sole Administrator.

Justice James Omotosho chose the date on Wednesday after taking arguments in relation to the motion for interlocutory injunction filed by the plaintiffs in a suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1190/2025.

The suit was instituted by some indigens of River State and a group, the Registered Trustees of Hope Africa Foundation.

Other plaintiffs are King Oziwe Amba, Chief Julius Bulous, Chief George Ikeme, Chief Amachelu Orlu and Prince Odioha Wembe.

Listed as defendants in the suit are the National Assembly and the Clerk of the National Assembly.

Arguing the motion on Wednesday, plaintiffs’ lawyer, Ambrose Owuru, prayed the court to grant restraining the defendants from further acting on any requests from the emergency government in Rivers State pending the determination of the substantive suit, challenging the legality of the state of emergency declared in the state by President Bola Tinubu.

Owuru contended that the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State is without the required legislative approval because the voice votes adopted by the National Assembly in approve the emergency rule were unconstitutional.

The plaintiffs stated, in a supporting affidavit, that since they filed the suit, the activities of the respondents “have centred on approvals of illegal appointments and budget made and forwarded by the illegal administrator foisted on the applicants, Rivers State amid protests and rising restiveness in the state.

“The respondents, despite all the illegality and unconstitutionality of the foisted state of emergency on Rivers State outside the clear provisions of the 1999 constitution prohibiting state the emergency any part of the federating unit unless the governor of the state is aware and had failed to invite or request for such within a reasonable time, the respondents have engaged in constituting committees to run and spend funds of the applicants Rivers State.

“Unless this honorable court grants this application, the defendants/respondents will continue in the illegalities and unconstitutionality of their invented ‘voice votes’ in place of the actual constitutionally approved two third votes to support the state of emergency in Rivers State to engage in sheer political vendetta and promote political dispute and disorderliness among the citizens and Nigeria as a whole.

“The grant of this application will protect and preserve the applicants’ legal rights to be governed by an elected government of their choice in the present democratic setting in Nigeria,” the plaintiffs said.

In his counterargument, lawyer to the National Assembly and its Clerk, Mohammed Galadima, urged the court to reject the motion for interlocutory injunction, arguing that it is without merit.

The National Assembly and its Clerk stated, in a supporting affidavit, that the facts deposed to in the plaintiffs’ supporting affidavit to the motion “are contrived falsehood and calculated misrepresentation of the facts as they occurred.”

They argued that there has never been any illegality in their actions and that there is no breach of the Constitution as alleged by the applicants/plaintiffs

The defendants also faulted the plaintiffs’ claim that the emergency rule was a violation of their fundamental rights to be governed by a democratically elected government.

The National Assembly and its Clerk said they would be seriously prejudiced by the grant of the motion as it would create pandemonium and confusion in the governance of Rivers State.

They added that the grant of the motion will not be in the interest of justice.