Reported by: Ijeoma G | Edited by: Gabriel Osa
Nigeria’s Supreme Court on Monday delivered a landmark decision with far-reaching political and constitutional implications, striking out a suit filed by Adamawa State and ten other states governed by the Peoples Democratic Party challenging the propriety of the state of emergency declared in Rivers State by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. The ruling has effectively affirmed the authority of the President to invoke emergency powers under the Constitution, while also clarifying the limits of the apex court’s original jurisdiction in disputes involving federating states and the Federal Government.
The suit, brought by the eleven PDP-led states, questioned the legality and constitutionality of the emergency rule imposed on Rivers State, under which elected state officials were suspended for an initial six-month period. The plaintiffs argued that the declaration amounted to an overreach of federal power, undermined democratic governance at the subnational level, and violated the spirit and letter of Nigeria’s federal system. They urged the Supreme Court to set aside the emergency proclamation, insisting that the conditions in Rivers State did not justify such an extreme constitutional measure.
In a split decision of six justices to one, the Supreme Court struck out the suit, holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a cause of action capable of activating the court’s original jurisdiction. Justice Mohammed Idris, who delivered the lead majority judgment, ruled that the states did not demonstrate the existence of a justiciable dispute between themselves and the Federation that would warrant the Supreme Court’s intervention in its original capacity. According to the court, merely expressing disagreement with the President’s action or raising political objections did not amount to a legal dispute envisaged under the Constitution.
Justice Idris held that for the Supreme Court to exercise its original jurisdiction, there must be a clear and direct dispute involving legal rights and obligations between the parties as defined by the Constitution. In this case, the plaintiffs failed to show how the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State created an actionable legal injury against them as states or how it directly affected their constitutional rights. As a result, the court concluded that it lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the suit in the form presented.
Beyond the jurisdictional question, the judgment reinforced the constitutional authority of the President to declare a state of emergency in any part of the country when circumstances threaten a breakdown of law and order or risk degenerating into chaos or anarchy. The majority of the court held that such powers are clearly provided for under the Constitution and are intended to safeguard national stability, public safety, and the democratic order in times of grave crisis. While the court did not delve into a detailed examination of the factual situation in Rivers State, it affirmed that the power itself is lawful and constitutionally grounded.
The declaration of emergency rule in Rivers State had generated intense national debate when it was announced. President Tinubu justified the move as a necessary response to escalating political instability, governance paralysis, and security concerns in the state. The emergency proclamation, which received legislative backing, included the suspension of certain elected state officials and the introduction of extraordinary measures aimed at restoring order and effective governance. Supporters of the action argued that it was a difficult but unavoidable step to prevent further deterioration, while critics viewed it as an assault on democratic choice and state autonomy.
For the PDP-led states that approached the Supreme Court, the case was framed as a defence of federalism and constitutional democracy. They contended that allowing the Federal Government to suspend elected officials through emergency rule could weaken democratic institutions and expose opposition-controlled states to politically motivated interventions. The states maintained that security challenges and political disputes should be resolved through existing constitutional mechanisms without resorting to emergency powers that disrupt normal governance structures.
However, the Supreme Court’s ruling has now closed that particular legal avenue. By striking out the suit rather than dismissing it on the merits, the court signalled that the problem lay not necessarily in the arguments raised, but in the failure of the plaintiffs to meet the strict constitutional requirements for invoking the court’s original jurisdiction. Legal analysts say the decision underscores the importance of precision in constitutional litigation, especially when states seek to challenge actions of the Federal Government at the apex court.
The lone dissenting opinion, though not altering the outcome, reflected the broader national conversation about the balance between executive power and democratic safeguards. The dissenting justice reportedly cautioned against an overly expansive interpretation of emergency powers and stressed the need for careful judicial scrutiny whenever elected institutions are suspended. While the dissent did not carry the day, it added depth to the legal discourse surrounding emergency rule and constitutional checks and balances.
Reactions to the judgment have been swift and divided. Allies of the Federal Government welcomed the ruling as a vindication of presidential authority and a boost for decisive leadership in times of crisis. They argued that the Constitution would be rendered ineffective if the President were unable to act swiftly to prevent disorder and protect lives and property. According to this view, the Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the supremacy of constitutional mechanisms designed to preserve national stability.
On the other hand, opposition figures and civil society actors expressed concern about the broader implications of the ruling. Some warned that the decision could embolden future administrations to invoke emergency powers more readily, potentially eroding democratic norms if not carefully restrained by law and legislative oversight. They called for greater transparency, clear benchmarks for emergency declarations, and robust safeguards to prevent abuse.
For Rivers State, the ruling means that the emergency regime remains legally intact, at least for now. Governance in the state continues under the extraordinary framework established by the Federal Government, with security agencies and appointed administrators playing an expanded role. Residents and stakeholders are watching closely to see whether the measures will lead to lasting stability and a return to normal democratic governance within the stipulated timeframe.
The Supreme Court’s decision also has implications for intergovernmental relations in Nigeria’s federal system. It highlights the limited circumstances under which states can successfully invoke the apex court’s original jurisdiction and underscores the judiciary’s cautious approach to disputes that sit at the intersection of law, politics, and national security. As Nigeria continues to grapple with complex governance and security challenges, the judgment is likely to be cited in future debates over the scope and limits of emergency powers.
Ultimately, the ruling represents a defining moment in Nigeria’s constitutional jurisprudence. It reaffirms the President’s authority to act decisively in extraordinary situations while reminding litigants of the procedural rigour required to challenge such actions before the courts. As political actors, legal practitioners, and citizens reflect on the outcome, the case stands as a reminder that the balance between order and liberty remains one of the most delicate questions in a constitutional democracy.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments