The Supreme Court has ruled that the President of Nigeria has the constitutional authority to declare a state of emergency in any state and, where necessary, suspend elected officials for a limited period.
The apex court gave the decision on Monday in a majority judgment, settling a major constitutional dispute over the scope of presidential powers during emergency situations.
In a split decision of six justices to one, the court upheld the President’s power to take extraordinary steps when law and order in a state are threatened.
The ruling confirms that the President can act decisively to prevent chaos, breakdown of governance, or anarchy within any part of the federation.
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Mohammed Idris explained that Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution clearly empowers the President to proclaim a state of emergency when circumstances demand urgent intervention.
He stated that the Constitution does not spell out the exact measures a President must take once an emergency is declared.
According to him, this omission allows the President a level of discretion to determine appropriate actions aimed at restoring normal governance and public safety.
Justice Idris added that such actions may include the temporary suspension of elected officials, provided the suspension is not indefinite.
According to the court, any suspension must be time-bound and directly linked to efforts to restore stability.
The judgment arose from a suit filed by several states governed by the Peoples Democratic Party.
The states challenged the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State by President Bola Tinubu, during which elected state officials were suspended for six months.
The Supreme Court had reserved judgment in the case after hearing arguments in October.
The plaintiffs were the Attorneys-General of PDP-controlled states, while the defendants were the Federal Government and the National Assembly.
States involved included Adamawa, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Bauchi, Akwa Ibom, Plateau, Delta, Taraba, Zamfara, and Bayelsa.
The suit, marked SC/CV/329/2025, was built on eight constitutional grounds.
The plaintiffs asked the court to decide whether the President has the power to suspend a democratically elected state government under the guise of a state of emergency.
They also questioned whether the procedure used in declaring the emergency in Rivers State complied with the provisions of the 1999 Constitution.
Among the reliefs sought was a clear interpretation of whether the President can suspend a governor and deputy governor and replace them with an unelected sole administrator during an emergency.
They further asked the court to determine whether a state House of Assembly can lawfully be suspended under similar circumstances.
Before addressing the substantive issues, Justice Idris upheld preliminary objections raised by the Attorney-General of the Federation and the National Assembly.
He ruled that the states failed to establish a valid cause of action that could invoke the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction.
The majority of the justices agreed that there was no concrete dispute between the states and the Federation to justify the court’s intervention at that level.
As a result, the suit was struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
Despite this, the court went ahead to consider the core issues raised and dismissed the case on its merits.
However, the decision was not unanimous.
Justice Obande Ogbuinya delivered a dissenting opinion.
He agreed that the President has the power to declare a state of emergency.
He disagreed, however, with the majority on the issue of suspending elected officials.
Justice Ogbuinya held that the Constitution does not permit the suspension of governors, deputy governors, or members of state legislatures under any emergency proclamation.
He ruled that such actions undermine democratic governance and the will of the electorate.
Recall that, Politics Nigeria previously reported intense political reactions and legal threats following the declaration of emergency rule in Rivers State, with opposition parties warning of possible abuse of constitutional powers.
