The Supreme Court, in a split decision of six to one on Monday, December 15, 2025, made significant pronouncements regarding the President's constitutional power to declare a state of emergency. The apex court affirmed that the President possesses the authority to declare such a state in any state of the federation to prevent a breakdown of law and order or a descent into chaos and anarchy. Furthermore, the majority held that, during such a period, the President may suspend elected officials, provided any such suspension is for a limited duration necessary to ensure the situation does not degenerate.

The lead majority judgment, delivered by Justice Mohammed Idris, underscored that Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution empowers the President to adopt extraordinary measures to restore normalcy where a state of emergency has been declared. Justice Idris noted that the provision does not specify the exact nature of these extraordinary measures, thereby vesting the President with discretion on how to act in such circumstances to maintain constitutional order.

These pronouncements arose in the context of a suit (SC/CV/329/2025) brought before the court by 11 Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) states. The suit challenged President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State. In March, President Tinubu had declared the emergency, citing a threat to peace, which subsequently led to the suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, and the entire Rivers State House of Assembly members for six months. Following the expiration of the state of emergency in September, Governor Fubara and the state legislators have since resumed office.

The plaintiffs in the suit were the Attorneys-General of Adamawa, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Bauchi, Akwa Ibom, Plateau, Delta, Taraba, Zamfara, and Bayelsa states. They had named the Federal Government (represented by the Attorney-General of the Federation) and the National Assembly as the defendants in the matter.

Among their prayers, the plaintiffs sought a determination from the Supreme Court on whether, upon a proper construction of Sections 1(2), 5(2), 176, 180, 188, and 305 of the 1999 Constitution, the President could lawfully suspend or interfere with the offices of a Governor and Deputy Governor of any state, potentially replacing them with an unelected nominee as a Sole Administrator, under the guise of an emergency proclamation. They also questioned whether the President could lawfully suspend the House of Assembly of any state under similar circumstances, asserting that such actions, including the suspension of Governor Fubara and others, were unconstitutional, unlawful, and in gross violation of the 1999 Constitution.

However, despite the constitutional weight of the questions raised, the majority judgment ultimately struck out the suit for want of jurisdiction. Justice Idris upheld the preliminary objections raised by the Attorney-General of the Federation and the National Assembly, who were the defendants. The apex court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish any cause of action capable of activating the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, as they did not demonstrate the existence of an actionable dispute between them and the Federation to warrant the court’s intervention. Consequently, Justice Idris proceeded to strike out the suit.

In a dissenting judgment, Justice Obande Ogbuinya concurred with the majority that the President indeed has the power to declare a state of emergency. However, he sharply disagreed with the view that such power extends to suspending elected state officials, including governors, deputy governors, and members of state legislatures. Justice Ogbuinya maintained that while an emergency declaration is permissible, it cannot be used to displace duly elected officials, thereby arguing that the plaintiffs' suit succeeded in part.