The Supreme Court on Monday affirmed the constitutional authority of the President to declare a state of emergency in any part of the country and, where necessary, suspend elected officials for a limited period to avert a breakdown of law and order.
In a split decision of six to one, the apex court upheld the powers conferred on the President under Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution, ruling that such authority allows the adoption of extraordinary measures to restore peace and stability during emergencies.
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Mohammed Idris held that once a state of emergency is lawfully declared, the Constitution grants the President broad discretion to determine the steps required to return the affected state to normalcy. He noted that while the Constitution does not expressly list the specific measures that may be taken, it envisages decisive actions, including the temporary suspension of elected officials, provided such actions are time-bound.
The judgment arose from a suit filed by Attorneys-General of states governed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), who challenged President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State, during which elected officials were suspended for six months.
The plaintiffs—Attorneys-General of Adamawa, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Bauchi, Akwa Ibom, Plateau, Delta, Taraba, Zamfara and Bayelsa states—argued that the President lacked the constitutional power to suspend democratically elected state officials or dissolve state legislatures under the guise of emergency rule. They further contended that the procedure adopted in declaring the emergency in Rivers State violated several provisions of the Constitution.
In their suit marked SC/CV/329/2025, the plaintiffs sought multiple declarations, including whether the President could lawfully interfere with the offices of a governor, deputy governor or state House of Assembly during a state of emergency, and whether such powers could extend to appointing unelected administrators.
However, the Supreme Court upheld preliminary objections raised by the Federal Government and the National Assembly, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to establish a justiciable dispute capable of invoking the court’s original jurisdiction.
Justice Idris held that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate the existence of a concrete cause of action against the Federation, leading the court to strike out the suit for want of jurisdiction. Despite this, the court went further to consider the substantive issues and dismissed the case on its merits.
In a dissenting judgment, Justice Obande Ogbuinya agreed that the President possesses the constitutional power to declare a state of emergency but disagreed with the majority on the scope of that authority. He held that emergency powers do not extend to the suspension of elected officials, including governors, deputy governors and members of state legislatures.
The majority decision, however, affirmed that emergency declarations, when properly made, may include temporary suspension of elected officials as part of efforts to prevent chaos and restore public order.
