The Supreme Court has struck out a suit challenging the emergency rule imposed on Rivers State earlier in the year.
The emergency rule lapsed on 18 September, but the suit filed by 11 states, which were all under the control of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), had continued. The Supreme Court heard the parties on 21 October and reserved judgement.
In a 6-1 majority judgement delivered on Monday, the Supreme Court upheld the preliminary objections raised by the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and the National Assembly, sued as the respondents in the suit.
Upholding the preliminary objections, Mohammed Idris, who delivered the lead majority judgement, ruled that the suit was incompetent.
He ruled that plaintiffs failed to establish any cause of action to activate the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
He held that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate the existence of an actionable dispute between them and the federation to warrant the exercise of the court’s original jurisdiction.
Consequently, Mr Idris, delivering the lead judgement, struck out the suit for want of jurisdiction.
Still, the court ruled that the suit would still have failed even if the court had jurisdiction to hear the case.
The Supreme Court upheld the president’s authority under the Nigerian constitution to proclaim a state of emergency, and that during such a period, the president may suspend elected officials, provided any such suspension is for a limited duration.
The court ruled that presidential power to declare a state of emergency in a state is meant to prevent a breakdown of law and order or a descent into chaos and anarchy.
The court also held that section 305 of the Nigerian constitution empowers the president to adopt extraordinary measures to restore normalcy where a state of emergency has been declared.
He noted that the provision does not specify the exact nature of those extraordinary measures, thereby, vesting the president with the discretion on how to act in such circumstances.
However, in a dissenting judgement, a member of the seven-member panel, Obande Ogbuinya, held that the suit of the plaintiffs succeeded in part.
He agreed that the president has the power to declare a state of emergency but held that such power cannot be used to suspend elected state officials, including governors, deputy governors, and members of state legislatures.
The judgement followed a suit filed by 11 states, which were all under the control of PDP at the time, challenging the state of emergency President Tinubu imposed on Rivers State on 18 March, citing prolonged political instability, constitutional breaches, and security threats.
He placed Governor Siminalayi Fubara, the deputy governor and members of the state House of Assembly, on a six-month suspension.
The president appointed Ibok-Ete Ibas, a retired vice-admiral, as sole administrator to govern the state while the emergency rule lasted.
In their suit, the PDP-led states argued the action violated Section 305 of the Nigerian Constitution.
The aggrieved states, some of which have since switched to other parties, are Adamawa, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Bauchi, Akwa Ibom, Plateau, Delta, Taraba, Zamfara, and Bayelsa. While the governors of Enugu, Osun, Delta, Akwa Ibom, and Bayelsa have joined the ruling All Progressives Congress, that of Osun has joined the Accord.
The plaintiffs joined the AGF, representing the federal government, and the National Assembly as defendants.
The AGF, in a preliminary objection, questioned the court’s jurisdiction to hear the suit.
The Supreme Court heard the case and reserved judgement in October.
The plaintiffs said the declaration did not comply with Section 305 of the Nigerian Constitution, which regulates emergency powers. They sought to have the emergency rule and the appointment of the sole administrator declared null and void.
In response, the federal government filed a preliminary objection, questioning the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to hear the suit.
It argued that the matter did not fall within the court’s original jurisdiction because it did not involve a dispute between the federation and a state or between states. It also said the plaintiffs lacked legal standing, describing the suit as “hypothetical, academic, and speculative.”
PDP REACTS TO SUPREME COURT’S JUDGEMENT ON RIVERS
Press Release
STATE OF EMERGENCY JUDGMENT: NAVIGATING A DANGEROUS DEMOCRATIC BEND
Earlier today, a full panel of the Supreme Court finally delivered a split judgment (six to one) in the suit filed by the Attorney-General of Adamawa State and others against the Attorney-General of the Federation and the National Assembly. The suit marked SC/CV/329/2025, challenged the powers of the President to suspend democratically elected officials like the Governor and Deputy Governor, and democratic institutions such as the Rivers State House of Assembly. The Apex Court struck out the suit based on an absence of a cause of action but, went on to comment on the issues raised in the suit therein. Their comments have been largely interpreted as upholding President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State earlier this year.
While we respect the authority of the apex court and recognise its finality within our jurisdiction, we are nevertheless compelled to draw attention to the grave dangers that can emanate from the interpretation of the reasoning in this judgement on the political landscape of our country. Our concern is anchored on the age-long principle of law that the express mention of one thing excludes others (expressio unius est exclusio alterius), and the clear constitutional position that no person or institution(other than the State House of Assembly or a court of law), is empowered to remove a Governor from office, even temporarily, during the subsistence of a constitutional term. To hold otherwise is to create a pathway by which a President, with the active support of the National Assembly, can compel political alignment or compliance through the instrumentality of emergency powers in ways not envisaged by the Constitution.
We submit that the interpretation of this judgment has the potential to reverse the hard-won democratic gains by unwittingly making state governments completely subservient to the Federal Government, forcing them to seek to ‘connect to the centre’ by joining the ruling party, as we are already witnessing. More troubling is the fact that the logical extension of this reasoning based on the provision of Section 305(3)(c) “extraordinary measures to restore peace and security” could, in the future, be interpreted to justify the suspension of other constitutional institutions, including the judiciary itself. We cannot reconcile how in a federation (not a unitary state) an elected President can be empowered to dismantle the democratic structures of a federating unit, sack elected officials and appoint leaders there, without consciously promoting authoritarianism and entrenching tyranny.
As a political party wholly committed to the protection and consolidation of democracy in Nigeria, we hereby call on the National Assembly to urgently initiate constitutional and legislative safeguards that clearly define and limit the scope of emergency powers of the president, to prevent imminent abuse and preserve Nigeria’s federation. We also urge Nigerians, civil society organisations, the media, and the international democratic community to remain vigilant in the defence of constitutionalism, federalism, and the sanctity of the electoral mandate.
We remain hopeful that, at the next opportunity, the Supreme Court will have cause to extensively clarify the constitutional boundaries of emergency powers, in the overriding interest of justice, democracy, and the long-term stability of our Republic.
Signed:
Comrade Ini Ememobong, mnipr
National Publicity Secretary
Peoples Democratic Party
15122025
