Human rights lawyer, Femi Falana (SAN) has said the Supreme Court did not endorse the dissolution of democratic structures in any state under emergency rule, contrary to some media reports.
A Supreme Court ruling on Monday had confirmed the President’s constitutional authority to declare a state of emergency to prevent a breakdown of law and order.
The apex court’s split decision affirmed that the President may declare a state of emergency and, during such a period, has the power to suspend elected officials for a limited time under Section 305 of the Constitution.
The ruling was handed down following a suit by 11 states led by Attorneys-General of PDP-controlled states, challenging the constitutionality of President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of emergency in Rivers State in March and the suspension of the state’s governor, deputy governor and lawmakers.
However, Falana, in a statement on Monday, said the apex court’s judgement delivered on December 15, 2025, in Attorney-General of Adamawa State & 19 Ors v Attorney-General of the Federation was being misinterpreted.
He explained that although the Supreme Court dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction, it still went ahead to consider the substance of the case.
According to Falana, the court did not approve any presidential power to dissolve or suspend state executive and legislative institutions during a declaration of emergency.
He said the leading judgment, delivered by Justice Mohammed Baba Idris, made it clear that Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution does not confer such powers on the President.
Falana said, “In its judgment delivered on December 15, 2025 in Attorney-General of Adamawa State & 19 Ors v Attorney-General of the Federation (Suit No SC/CV/329/2025), the Supreme Court dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction on the ground that the plaintiffs and lack of jurisdiction to maintain the action.
“However, the apex court decided to consider the merit of the substantive case. Curiously, the judgment has been wrongly interpreted by the media. Contrary to the misleading reports, the Supreme Court did not endorse the dissolution of democratic structures during emergency rule in any state of the Federation.
“In the leading judgment of the apex court, Mohammed Baba Idris JSC stated that Section 305 of the Nigerian Constitution does not confer power on the President to temporarily dissolve executive and legislative institutions of a State during emergency rule.”
Falana quoted the Justice as stating that governmental powers under the Constitution are divided among the executive, legislature and judiciary, and shared across the federal, state and local government levels, with no arm or tier constitutionally superior to another.
He further cited the judgment as noting that, unlike the constitutions of India and Pakistan, Nigeria’s Constitution does not expressly empower the President to assume or temporarily displace the executive or legislative institutions of a state during emergency rule.
Falana said the court held that the omission was deliberate and reflected Nigeria’s commitment to federalism and the autonomy of state governments.
Leave a comment