The Supreme Court has affirmed the constitutional authority of the President to declare a state of emergency in any state where there is a threat of a breakdown of law and order or a slide into chaos and anarchy.
In a split decision of six justices to one, the apex court held that the President may, during a state of emergency, suspend elected state officials, provided such suspension is for a limited and clearly defined period.
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Mohammed Idris relied on Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution, which empowers the President to take extraordinary measures to restore order and normalcy once emergency rule is proclaimed. He noted that the section does not expressly spell out the specific nature of such extraordinary measures, thereby granting the President discretion in determining the appropriate actions required to address the emergency.
Justice Idris explained that the framers of the Constitution deliberately left the scope of emergency powers broad, to enable decisive intervention in situations where normal governance structures are incapable of containing a crisis.
The judgment arose from a suit instituted by Adamawa State and ten other states governed by the Peoples Democratic Party, who challenged the constitutionality of the state of emergency declared by President Bola Tinubu in Rivers State. During that emergency declaration, elected officials of the state, including Governor Siminalayi Fubara, were suspended for six months.
In an earlier part of the ruling, Justice Idris upheld preliminary objections filed by the defendants—the Attorney General of the Federation and the National Assembly—challenging the competence of the suit.
According to the court, the plaintiffs failed to establish any cause of action capable of invoking the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction. On that basis, the suit was struck out for want of jurisdiction.
However, despite striking out the case, the court proceeded to consider the substantive issues raised. Upon reviewing the merits, the apex court dismissed the claims of the plaintiff states, effectively validating the President’s actions under the emergency proclamation.
Justice Idris held that once a state of emergency is lawfully declared, the President is constitutionally empowered to take steps that may temporarily override normal political arrangements if such steps are necessary to restore stability.
In a lone dissenting opinion, Justice Obande Ogbuinya disagreed with the majority on the scope of presidential powers under emergency rule.
Justice Ogbuinya acknowledged that the Constitution authorises the President to declare a state of emergency. However, he argued that such power does not extend to the suspension of elected officials, including governors, deputy governors, and members of state legislatures.
According to him, allowing the suspension of elected representatives undermines democratic principles and the sovereignty of the electorate, even in times of emergency. He therefore held that the suit succeeded in part, to the extent that it challenged the suspension of elected officials.
The majority decision, however, settles the constitutional debate in favour of expansive presidential authority during emergency situations, while emphasising that such powers must be exercised within defined temporal limits.
About the Author
