On December 15, 2025, Nigeria's Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling affirming the constitutional authority of the President to declare a state of emergency in any state of the federation when there is a risk of breakdown of law and order or a descent into chaos and anarchy. The decision, delivered in a split 6-1 judgment, reinforces the executive's broad discretion under Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) to take extraordinary measures aimed at restoring normalcy and public safety.
The case stemmed from a political crisis in Rivers State earlier in 2025, where President Bola Ahmed Tinubu proclaimed a state of emergency, leading to the temporary suspension of elected officials, including Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, and members of the State House of Assembly, for a period of six months. This action was challenged by Adamawa State and ten other states governed by the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in a suit marked SC/CV/329/2025. The plaintiffs argued that the President lacked the power to suspend democratically elected officials and questioned whether the proclamation violated various constitutional provisions, including Sections 1(2), 5(2), 176, 180, 188, and 305.
In the lead majority judgment read by Justice Mohammed Idris, the seven-member panel (with six concurring) held that Section 305 empowers the President to deploy "extraordinary measures" in situations where normal governance structures are inadequate to contain threats to public order. Justice Idris emphasized that the Constitution does not explicitly limit or define the scope of these measures, thereby granting the President necessary discretion to prevent escalation into anarchy. "The provision envisages exceptional circumstances where the risk of chaos or a complete breakdown of law and order justifies swift executive intervention to safeguard democratic institutions and public security," the judgment stated.
The court further noted that such powers are not intended for permanent displacement of elected governments but for temporary restoration of stability. Importantly, the majority ruled that suspensions of elected officials during an emergency must be time-limited, aligning with principles of federalism and democracy.
On jurisdictional grounds, Justice Idris upheld preliminary objections raised by the Attorney-General of the Federation and the National Assembly, finding that the plaintiff states failed to establish a justiciable cause of action invoking the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. The suit was accordingly struck out, though the court proceeded to address the substantive merits and dismissed the claims.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Obande Ogbuinya agreed that the President has the authority to proclaim a state of emergency but argued that this does not extend to suspending elected officials, such as governors, deputy governors, or state legislators. He contended that such actions could undermine democratic governance and should be reserved for mechanisms like impeachment under relevant constitutional sections.
This ruling sets a significant precedent on the interpretation of emergency powers in Nigeria's federal system. Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution allows the President to declare a state of emergency in a state or the Federal Capital Territory if there is a clear and present danger of actual breakdown of public order and safety, requiring extraordinary measures beyond available state resources. The provision requires National Assembly approval within specified timelines and emphasizes proportionality.
Legal experts have described the decision as balancing executive flexibility with judicial oversight. It clarifies that while the President's actions are subject to review, courts will defer to executive discretion in genuine crises threatening national stability.
The Rivers State crisis, which prompted the original proclamation, involved escalating political tensions and violence that reportedly paralyzed governance. President Tinubu's administration defended the measure as necessary to avert further deterioration, a position now upheld by the apex court.
This judgment comes amid ongoing debates on federalism in Nigeria, where states often accuse the central government of overreach. However, the court stressed that emergency powers are a constitutional safeguard, not a tool for political suppression.
