The Supreme Court on Monday affirmed the constitutional authority of Nigeria’s president to declare a state of emergency in any state of the federation to avert a breakdown of law and order or a slide into chaos.
In a split decision of six to one, the apex court upheld the president’s powers under the 1999 Constitution to proclaim a state of emergency and to take extraordinary measures to restore normalcy.
The court further held that during a state of emergency, the President may suspend elected state officials, provided such suspension is for a limited period.
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Mohammed Idris held that Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution empowers the President to adopt extraordinary measures where a state of emergency has been declared.
Justice Idris noted that the Constitution does not expressly define the scope of such extraordinary measures, thereby vesting the President with discretion to act in a manner he considers necessary to restore order.
The judgment arose from a suit filed by states governed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), challenging President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State, during which elected state officials were suspended for six months.
The Supreme Court had reserved judgment in the matter in October.
The plaintiffs were the Attorneys-General of PDP-controlled states, which includes, Adamawa, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Bauchi, Akwa Ibom, Plateau, Delta, Taraba, Zamfara and Bayelsa states, while the defendants were the Federal Government and the National Assembly.
The suit, marked SC/CV/329/2025, was anchored on eight grounds. The plaintiffs asked the court to determine whether the President has the constitutional power to suspend a democratically elected state government and whether the procedure adopted in declaring a state of emergency in Rivers State was consistent with the provisions of the 1999 Constitution.
Among other reliefs, the plaintiffs sought a determination on whether, upon a proper interpretation of Sections 1(2), 5(2), 176, 180, 188 and 305 of the Constitution, the President could lawfully suspend or interfere with the offices of a governor and deputy governor and replace them with an unelected sole administrator under a state of emergency.
They also asked the court to determine whether, under Sections 1(2), 4(6), 11(4) and (5), 90, 105 and 305 of the Constitution, the President could lawfully suspend a state House of Assembly pursuant to a proclamation of a state of emergency.
In the earlier part of the judgment, Justice Idris upheld the preliminary objections raised by the Attorney-General of the Federation and the National Assembly, challenging the competence of the suit.
He held that the plaintiffs failed to disclose any cause of action capable of invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
The majority agreed that the plaintiffs did not establish the existence of a justiciable dispute between them and the Federation to warrant the exercise of the court’s original jurisdiction.
Consequently, the court struck out the suit for want of jurisdiction. Justice Idris, however, proceeded to consider the substantive issues and dismissed the case on the merits.
In a dissenting judgment, Justice Obande Ogbuinya agreed that the President has the power to declare a state of emergency but held that such power does not extend to suspending elected state officials, including governors, deputy governors and members of state legislatures.
Leave a Comment