Nigeria’s Supreme Court has ruled that the President possesses constitutional authority to declare a state of emergency in any state where public order is under serious threat.
The court held that such powers are designed to prevent a collapse of governance, widespread violence, or a descent into anarchy.
In a closely divided judgment, with six justices in the majority and one dissenting, the apex court further affirmed that emergency rule may include the temporary suspension of elected state officials.
However, the court stressed that such action must be time-bound and cannot be open-ended.
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Mohammed Idris anchored the decision on Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution.
According to him, the provision grants the President latitude to take exceptional steps necessary to restore stability once an emergency has been proclaimed.
Justice Idris explained that the Constitution does not clearly define the scope of “extraordinary measures” available during emergency rule.
Consequently, he said this omission leaves the President with discretionary authority on how best to respond to the crisis at hand, provided such actions are aimed at restoring normal governance.
The ruling followed a suit filed by Adamawa State alongside 10 other states governed by the Peoples Democratic Party.
The states had challenged the legality of the emergency declaration imposed by President Bola Tinubu in Rivers State, a move that resulted in the six-month suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara and other elected officials.
Earlier in the judgment, the court upheld preliminary objections raised by the Attorney General of the Federation and the National Assembly.
Justice Idris held that the plaintiff states failed to demonstrate a valid cause of action capable of invoking the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction.
On that basis, the court struck out the suit for lack of jurisdiction.
Nonetheless, the justice proceeded to examine the substantive issues raised and ultimately dismissed the case on its merits.
Reacting to the implications of the ruling, a senior legal observer said the decision “reaffirms the supremacy of constitutional order during periods of national distress, while also setting boundaries against indefinite political disruptions.”
However, the verdict was not unanimous. Justice Obande Ogbuinya delivered a dissenting opinion, agreeing in part that the President may lawfully declare a state of emergency but rejecting the suspension of elected officials as a permissible tool.
Justice Ogbuinya maintained that emergency powers should not extend to removing governors, deputy governors, or lawmakers from office, arguing that such actions undermine democratic mandates.
He concluded that while emergency declarations are constitutional, their application must not erode the fundamental principles of representative governance.
