The Supreme Court has upheld the President’s constitutional power to declare a state of emergency in any state where there is a threat of breakdown of law and order or a slide into chaos and anarchy. In a majority decision of six to one delivered on Monday, the court ruled that such a declaration can include suspending elected officials, provided the suspension is for a limited time and strictly tied to restoring normalcy.
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Mohammed Idris held that Section 305 of the Constitution empowers the President to deploy extraordinary measures once emergency rule is proclaimed. He noted that the section does not specify the exact nature of those measures, giving the President discretion on how best to stabilise the affected state.
The case arose from a suit by Adamawa State and 10 other Peoples Democratic Party led states challenging the state of emergency declared by President Bola Tinubu in Rivers State. During that period, elected officials in the state were suspended for six months, a move the plaintiffs argued was unconstitutional.
In the preliminary part of the ruling, Justice Idris upheld objections raised by the Attorney General of the Federation and the National Assembly, who were listed as defendants. He found that the 11 PDP states failed to show any cause of action that could trigger the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction.
On that basis, the court struck out the suit for lack of jurisdiction. Justice Idris nonetheless went on to consider the substance of the case and dismissed it on the merits, effectively validating the President’s actions in the Rivers State emergency episode.
Justice Obande Ogbuinya disagreed in a lone dissent, saying the suit succeeded in part. While he accepted that the President may declare a state of emergency, he held that the power cannot be used as a tool to suspend elected state officials such as governors, deputy governors and lawmakers.
Ogbuinya’s position sought to draw a line between emergency powers and the constitutional protection of elected tenures, warning against executive overreach. However, his view remained a minority against the six justices in the majority.
The judgment further clarifies the scope of presidential authority under Section 305 and will influence future debates and legal challenges around emergency rule in Nigeria’s federation. It also raises fresh questions for politicians and lawyers on how to balance the need for rapid crisis response with safeguarding democratic institutions at the state level.