The Supreme Court of Nigeria has affirmed the constitutional authority of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to temporarily suspend elected governors and declare a state of emergency in any state where public order and safety have broken down, provided such actions are taken within the ambit of the law.
In a split decision of six to one delivered on Monday, the apex court upheld President Tinubu’s declaration of emergency rule in Rivers State and the suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara, relying on the provisions of Section 305 of the amended 1999 Constitution.
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Mohammed Idris held that the president acted within his constitutional powers when he proclaimed a state of emergency in Rivers State following prolonged political instability and institutional paralysis. The court consequently struck out a suit filed by several states governed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), which had challenged the legality of the president’s action.
Section 305(3)(c) of the amended 1999 Constitution empowers the president to declare a state of emergency “when there is actual breakdown of public order and public safety in the Federation or any part thereof to such extent as to require extraordinary measures.”
In its judgment, the Supreme Court interpreted this provision to mean that, where conditions warrant extraordinary intervention, the president may lawfully take steps that include the temporary suspension of elected officials to restore order and ensure effective governance.
The ruling resolves months of legal uncertainty that followed President Tinubu’s decision on March 18 to declare a state of emergency in Rivers State. At the time, the president suspended Governor Fubara, his deputy, and members of the Rivers State House of Assembly amid an intense political crisis that had crippled governance in the state.
The crisis was rooted in a bitter power struggle between Governor Fubara and his predecessor, Nyesom Wike, now Minister of the Federal Capital Territory. The standoff resulted in parallel political structures, legislative defections, and near-total breakdown of cooperation among arms of government in the state.
Following the declaration of emergency rule, PDP governors strongly criticised the president’s action, describing it as unconstitutional and an affront to democratic governance. They argued that the president lacked the authority to suspend an elected governor and lawmakers, insisting that such powers were not contemplated by the Constitution.
Adamawa State, alongside 10 other PDP-governed states, subsequently approached the Supreme Court to seek a definitive interpretation of Section 305 and to challenge what they described as executive overreach by the president.
However, in Monday’s ruling, the Supreme Court rejected their arguments, holding that the Constitution clearly vests the president with discretionary powers to act decisively in situations of grave national or subnational emergency. The court emphasised that such powers are not unlimited but must be exercised strictly within constitutional boundaries and for the purpose of restoring public order and safety.
Justice Idris noted that the emergency rule in Rivers State was time-bound and aimed at preventing a further descent into chaos. He added that the Constitution does not render the president helpless in the face of severe governance breakdown at the state level.
Following the suspension of Governor Fubara and the state legislature, President Tinubu appointed a retired naval officer, Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas (rtd), as the sole administrator of Rivers State. The administrator was tasked with overseeing the affairs of the state and stabilising governance during the emergency period.
During the suspension, salaries and allowances of the governor, his deputy, and the lawmakers were withheld, a move that further fuelled political controversy and legal debates across the country.
In September, after months of negotiations and relative calm, President Tinubu lifted the state of emergency and restored Governor Fubara and the Rivers State House of Assembly to their respective offices, marking the end of the extraordinary measures.
The Supreme Court’s ruling has far-reaching implications for Nigeria’s constitutional democracy, particularly in defining the balance of power between the federal government and the states. Legal analysts say the judgment clarifies the scope of presidential authority under Section 305 and sets a precedent for future emergencies.
The decision has also reshaped the political dynamics in Rivers State. Last week, Governor Fubara defected from the PDP to the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), pledging his support for President Tinubu’s administration and his re-election bid in 2027.
While supporters of the ruling argue that it strengthens the capacity of the federal government to maintain national stability, critics warn that the power to suspend elected officials must be exercised with extreme caution to avoid abuse and erosion of democratic norms.
Nonetheless, with the Supreme Court’s verdict, President Tinubu’s actions in Rivers State now carry the full weight of judicial endorsement, firmly establishing that, under Nigerian law, the declaration of a state of emergency can lawfully include the temporary suspension of democratic structures where public order has collapsed.
