S’ Court backs President’s emergency powers, allows temporary suspension of elected officials

The Supreme Court has ruled that the President of Nigeria has the constitutional authority to declare a state of emergency in any state facing serious threats to law and order.

In a split decision of six justices to one, the apex court held on Monday that the President may also suspend elected state officials during an emergency, provided such action is temporary and aimed at restoring stability.

Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Mohammed Idris said Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution empowers the President to take extraordinary measures when a state is on the brink of chaos or anarchy.

Justice Idris explained that the Constitution does not clearly spell out the specific actions a President may take under emergency rule, thereby granting the President the discretion to determine the steps required to restore normal governance.

The ruling followed a suit filed by Adamawa State and ten other states governed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), who challenged the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State by President Bola Tinubu. The emergency proclamation had led to the suspension of elected state officials for six months.

Earlier in the judgment, the court upheld objections raised by the Attorney-General of the Federation and the National Assembly, ruling that the plaintiff states failed to establish a valid cause of action for the Supreme Court to exercise its original jurisdiction.

Justice Idris subsequently struck out the suit on jurisdictional grounds but proceeded to address the substantive issues and dismissed the case in its entirety.

However, Justice Obande Ogbuinya delivered a dissenting opinion, agreeing that the President has the power to declare a state of emergency but insisting that such power does not extend to suspending elected governors, their deputies, or members of state assemblies.

According to Justice Ogbuinya, removing elected officials under emergency rule undermines democratic principles and the will of the electorate.

The judgment has sparked renewed debate over the scope of presidential powers and the balance between national security and democratic governance in Nigeria.