Nigeria’s Supreme Court on Monday, December 15, 2025, in a 6-1 split ruling, affirmed the President’s constitutional authority to declare a state of emergency in any state and temporarily suspend elected state officials.
The apex court delivered the judgment while ruling on a suit filed by Adamawa and ten other states, all led by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), challenging President Bola Tinubu’s March 2025 declaration of emergency rule in Rivers State.
That declaration, said to be driven by a prolonged political and security crisis, resulted in the six-month suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara, Deputy Governor, and members of the State House of Assembly.
However, PDP governors approached the Supreme Court, challenging the President’s authority to suspend elected officials during an emergency rule.
The suit was filed by the Attorneys-General of Adamawa, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Bauchi, Akwa Ibom, Plateau, Delta, Taraba, Zamfara, and Bayelsa states.
The suit, marked SC/CV/329/2025, was predicated on eight grounds. The plaintiffs asked the Supreme Court to determine whether the President has the constitutional authority to suspend a democratically elected government in a state and whether the procedure adopted in declaring a state of emergency in Rivers State contravened the 1999 Constitution.
The plaintiff, in the lawsuit, argued that such actions amounted to an unconstitutional usurpation of power and a fundamental breach of Nigeria’s federal structure, even under emergency conditions.
Among other reliefs, the plaintiffs urged the court to determine “whether, upon a proper construction and interpretation of Sections 1(2), 5(2), 176, 180, 188, and 305 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria can lawfully suspend, or in any manner whatsoever interfere with, the offices of a Governor and the Deputy Governor of any of the 36 component States of the Federation and replace them with his unelected nominee as a Sole Administrator, under the guise of, or pursuant to, a Proclamation of a State of Emergency in any of the Plaintiffs’ States.”
They also asked “whether, upon a proper construction and interpretation of Sections 1(2), 4(6), 11(4) & (5), 90, 105, and 305 of the Constitution, the President can lawfully suspend the House of Assembly of any of the 36 States under the guise of, or pursuant to, a Proclamation of a State of Emergency in such States.”
In the lead majority judgment, Justice Mohammed Idris held that while the court initially struck out the suit for lack of sufficient cause of action, it proceeded to address the issue of the President’s authority to suspend elected officials for clarity on a matter of national importance.
The court interpreted Section 305 of the Constitution as granting the President broad discretion to implement “extraordinary measures” to restore public order and avert anarchy when a state is threatened by a breakdown of law and order.
The court ruled that these measures include the temporary suspension of elected officials, provided the actions are time-limited and demonstrably aimed at achieving normalcy.
Justice Idris also upheld the preliminary objections raised by the defendants—the Attorney-General of the Federation and the National Assembly—against the competence of the suit.
He held that the plaintiffs failed to establish any cause of action capable of activating the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
In the six-to-one majority decision, the court agreed 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, Justice Idris struck out the suit for want of jurisdiction. He nevertheless proceeded to consider the substantive issues and dismissed the case on the merits.
However, Justice Obande Ogbuinya, in his judgment, dissented, holding that the suit succeeded in part.
While agreeing that the President has the power to declare a state of emergency, Justice Ogbuinya held that such power cannot be used to suspend elected state officials, including governors, deputy governors, and members of state legislatures.
