In a landmark ruling with profound implications for Nigeria’s federal structure and democratic stability, the Supreme Court has delivered a nuanced verdict on the scope of presidential power during crises. The court’s six-to-one majority decision affirms the constitutional authority of the President to declare a state of emergency but crucially clarifies the permissible—and impermissible—uses of that power, particularly regarding the suspension of elected officials.
The case, SC/CV/329/2025, stemmed from a direct challenge by eleven Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)-controlled states against President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State. The core contention was the President’s subsequent suspension of the state’s elected governor, deputy governor, and legislature for six months, replacing them with a sole administrator. This action ignited a fierce constitutional debate: does emergency power grant the federal executive the authority to effectively dismantle a tier of democratically elected sub-national government?
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Mohammed Idris anchored the ruling in Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution. This provision grants the President the power to proclaim a state of emergency when “the Federation is at war” or when “there is actual breakdown of public order and public safety” to such a degree that ordinary law enforcement is inadequate. The court held that this power is discretionary and includes the authority to adopt “extraordinary measures” to restore normalcy. However, Justice Idris’s reasoning revealed a critical caveat: the suspension of elected officials, while not explicitly forbidden, must be for a “limited duration” and intrinsically tied to the imperative of quelling the immediate crisis. This establishes a precedent that such suspensions cannot be indefinite or used as a tool for political consolidation.
The plaintiffs’ argument, presented by their Attorneys-General, hinged on a fundamental principle: the doctrine of separation of powers and federalism. They contended that Sections 1(2), 5(2), 176, and 180 of the Constitution establish state governments as separate, sovereign entities within the federation. Suspending a governor and legislature, they argued, constitutes a unilateral federal takeover of state executive and legislative functions, violating the constitutional autonomy of the states. Their suit asked the Supreme Court to draw a bright line between managing an emergency and usurping democratic institutions.
In a fascinating procedural twist, the Supreme Court first upheld a preliminary objection from the defendants (the Attorney-General of the Federation and the National Assembly), striking out the suit for want of jurisdiction. The court found the plaintiffs failed to establish a justiciable dispute between states and the federation that would trigger the court’s original jurisdiction. Yet, in a move underscoring the national importance of the issues, Justice Idris proceeded to rule on the substantive questions, providing definitive guidance for future crises. This dual-track ruling emphasizes that while the specific plaintiffs may have lacked standing, the constitutional questions they raised demanded an answer.
The sole dissenting voice, Justice Obande Ogbuinya, offered a more restrictive interpretation. He agreed on the power to declare an emergency but dissented on the suspension of officials. His minority opinion posits that the Constitution’s architecture of federalism is indestructible even during an emergency. The offices of Governor, Deputy Governor, and State Legislators, he argued, are created and protected by the Constitution itself; a presidential proclamation cannot lawfully suspend what the supreme law establishes. This dissent highlights the enduring tension between unitary command in emergencies and the preservation of federal democratic safeguards.
Practical Implications and Unanswered Questions: The judgment is a pivotal chapter in Nigeria’s constitutional history, but it leaves several practical questions for future governance:
- The “Limited Duration” Test: What constitutes a “limited duration”? Six months was at issue here, but would twelve months pass constitutional muster? Future litigation may be needed to define this boundary.
- The “Sole Administrator” Model: The court did not explicitly ban the appointment of a sole administrator, but its emphasis on limited duration and restoration of normalcy implies this should be a last resort, interim administrative measure, not a parallel government.
- Judicial Oversight: The ruling implicitly reinforces the role of the judiciary as the ultimate arbiter of emergency actions. While the President has discretion, its exercise is subject to ex-post-facto judicial review for reasonableness and proportionality.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court has navigated a delicate balance. It has upheld the state’s need for decisive action in the face of existential threats to public order, while simultaneously erecting constitutional guardrails to prevent emergency powers from becoming a vehicle for democratic backsliding or the erosion of Nigeria’s federal compact. The message is clear: the Constitution remains in force, even during its own suspension.