Pat Stevens/
Nigeria’s Supreme Court on Monday delivered a split judgment in a landmark case challenging the powers of the President to declare states of emergency, with six justices supporting broad presidential discretion and one dissenting.
The case, Attorney General of Adamawa State & 10 Ors. v. Attorney General of the Federation & Anor. (SC/CV/329/2025), arose from President Bola Tinubu’s March 18 emergency declaration in Rivers State, following political clashes between Governor Siminalayi Fubara, ex-Governor Nyesom Wike, and the state assembly.
While the Court ultimately struck out the suit filed by 11 opposition-led states, citing the absence of a cause of action and lack of consent from Rivers State, it issued commentary on the constitutional issues raised, effectively clarifying the scope of presidential emergency powers.
The majority of the Justices (6-1) appeared to accommodate the possibility that a state of emergency could temporarily interfere with the democratic structures of a state or parts of the Federation, emphasising that such measures must remain temporary and proportionate.
The Court underscored that voting in the House of Representatives, which endorses emergency proclamations, must comply with procedural requirements, specifically, votes must be recorded by name, constituency, and choice, not by voice as occurred in Rivers State.
Human rights lawyer, Inibehe Effiong, analysing the 14-page summary of the judgment, noted that the Supreme Court had avoided making a definitive pronouncement on the constitutionality of the Rivers State emergency.
Effiong explained that the emergency in Rivers was unlawful, as it was not endorsed by the National Assembly in line with legal procedure, highlighting a crucial safeguard for Nigeria’s federal structure.
The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), through its National Publicity Secretary Comrade Ini Ememobong, expressed concern over the implications of the Court’s reasoning.
In a press release, the party warned that the interpretation of Section 305 could allow the federal government to exert undue control over state governments, potentially undermining democracy and federalism.
The PDP called for urgent legislative safeguards to clearly define and limit presidential emergency powers, cautioning against the political centralisation of authority and the risk of authoritarianism.
The Apex Court’s decision highlights two key principles. First, a presidential emergency declaration must follow constitutional and procedural norms, including proper National Assembly endorsement.
Second, a suit challenging such a declaration must demonstrate a legitimate cause of action; in this case, the 11 states failed to do so, as the emergency was not declared in their jurisdictions and Rivers State did not consent to their suit.
The Court’s strike-out means its comments on the merits, while constitutionally significant, do not carry the binding authority of a fully adjudicated decision.
The Supreme Court ruling clarifies the delicate balance between executive authority and democratic governance in Nigeria. While it recognises the President’s discretion under Section 305 of the Constitution, it also reinforces procedural checks intended to protect federalism and prevent overreach.
Legal experts and political observers suggest that future cases may further define the boundaries of emergency powers, particularly in safeguarding state autonomy and the sanctity of the electoral mandate.
0
