The Supreme Court has affirmed the constitutional authority of the President to declare a state of emergency in any state of the federation to prevent a breakdown of law and order or a slide into chaos and anarchy.
In a split decision of six to one delivered on Monday, the apex court upheld the President’s powers under the 1999 Constitution, ruling that such authority includes the ability to take extraordinary measures to restore normalcy during a state of emergency.
The court further held that elected state officials may be suspended during the period of emergency, provided the suspension is for a limited duration.
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Mohammed Idris relied on Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution, which empowers the President to proclaim a state of emergency and adopt exceptional steps to address grave threats to public order.
Justice Idris noted that the Constitution does not expressly define the scope of “extraordinary measures” available to the President in such circumstances, thereby granting the President discretion on the appropriate actions required to stabilise the situation.
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.
Latest News
- Senate Resumes Electoral Act Debate Amid Pressure
- Falana Condemns Postponement of Electoral Amendment Bill
- Guinea: ECOWAS Lifts All Sanctions after Doumbouya Election
The plaintiffs were the Attorneys-General of PDP-controlled states, while the defendants were the Federal Government and the National Assembly.
The states involved in the suit were Adamawa, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Bauchi, Akwa Ibom, Plateau, Delta, Taraba, Zamfara and Bayelsa. The case was marked SC/CV/329/2025.
The suit, founded on eight grounds, sought the court’s interpretation of whether the President has the constitutional authority to suspend a democratically elected governor, deputy governor or state legislature under a proclamation of a state of emergency.
Among other reliefs, the plaintiffs asked the court to determine whether Sections 1(2), 5(2), 176, 180, 188 and 305 of the Constitution permit the President to interfere with the offices of a governor and deputy governor or replace them with an unelected sole administrator.
They also questioned whether Sections 1(2), 4(6), 11(4) and (5), 90, 105 and 305 of the Constitution allow the suspension of a State House of Assembly during a state of emergency.
In an earlier part of the judgment, Justice Idris upheld the preliminary objections raised by the defendants, the Attorney-General of the Federation and the National Assembly challenging the competence of the suit.
He held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a justiciable dispute capable of invoking the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction.
The six-man majority of the court agreed that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate the existence of an actionable controversy between themselves and the Federation to warrant the exercise of the court’s original jurisdiction.
About the Author
