Dare Babalola
In a significant ruling on Monday, the Supreme Court affirmed the President’s constitutional powers to declare a state of emergency in any state, emphasising the authority’s role in preventing a breakdown of law and order or a descent into chaos and anarchy.
The apex court, in a split decision of six-to-one, held that the President, during a state of emergency, can suspend elected officials, but that such suspensions must be for a limited period.
Justice Mohammed Idris held, in the lead majority judgment, that Section 305 of the Constitution empowers the President to deploy extraordinary measures to restore normalcy where emergency rule is declared.
He pointed out that the provision doesn’t detail specific extraordinary measures, thus granting the President discretion in deciding how to respond to such situations.
The judgment came after states governed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) challenged President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State, which led to the suspension of elected officials for six months. The Supreme Court had reserved its decision on the case back in October.
The plaintiffs were the Attorneys-General of PDP-controlled states, while the defendants were the Federal Government and the National Assembly.
The suit was filed by the Attorneys-General of Adamawa, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Bauchi, Akwa Ibom, Plateau, Delta, Taraba, Zamfara, and Bayelsa states.
The suit, marked SC/CV/329/2025, was based on eight grounds, with the plaintiffs seeking the Supreme Court’s ruling on two key questions: whether the President has the constitutional power to suspend a democratically elected state government, and whether the process used to declare a state of emergency in Rivers State violated the 1999 Constitution.
Among other reliefs, the plaintiffs urged the court to determine “whether, upon a proper construction and interpretation of Sections 1(2), 5(2), 176, 180, 188, and 305 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria can lawfully suspend, or in any manner whatsoever interfere with, the offices of a Governor and the Deputy Governor of any of the 36 component States of the Federation and replace them with his unelected nominee as a Sole Administrator, under the guise of, or pursuant to, a Proclamation of a State of Emergency in any of the Plaintiffs’ States.”
They also asked “whether, upon a proper construction and interpretation of Sections 1(2), 4(6), 11(4) & (5), 90, 105, and 305 of the Constitution, the President can lawfully suspend the House of Assembly of any of the 36 States under the guise of, or pursuant to, a Proclamation of a State of Emergency in such States.”
In the earlier part of the judgment, Justice Idris upheld the preliminary objections raised by the defendants—the Attorney-General of the Federation and the National Assembly—against the competence of the suit.
He held that the plaintiffs failed to establish any cause of action capable of activating the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
In the six-to-one majority decision, the court agreed that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate the existence of an actionable dispute between them and the Federation to warrant the exercise of the court’s original jurisdiction.
Consequently, Justice Idris struck out the suit for want of jurisdiction. He nevertheless proceeded to consider the substantive issues and dismissed the case on the merits.
However, Justice Obande Ogbuinya dissented, holding that the suit succeeded in part.
He agreed that the President has the power to declare a state of emergency, but held that such power cannot be used to suspend elected state officials, including governors, deputy governors, and members of state legislatures.
