The Supreme Court on Monday, December 15, 2025, delivered a far-reaching judgment affirming the constitutional authority of the President to declare a state of emergency in any part of the country to avert a collapse of law and order or prevent a slide into chaos.
In a split six-to-one decision, the apex court upheld the President’s powers under the 1999 Constitution, ruling that such authority extends to the suspension of elected state officials, provided the action is temporary and taken within the context of restoring stability.
Delivering the lead majority judgment, Justice Mohammed Idris anchored the decision on Section 305 of the Constitution, which empowers the President to take extraordinary steps once a state of emergency has been proclaimed.
He held that the provision deliberately leaves the scope of such measures undefined, thereby granting the President wide discretion to act decisively in moments of grave national concern.
According to the court, the absence of rigid limits in Section 305 reflects the framers’ intention to allow flexibility in responding to emergencies that threaten constitutional order and public safety.
The ruling arose from a suit filed by states governed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), which challenged President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State.
The proclamation, made amid escalating political tension, led to the suspension of elected state officials for six months. The Supreme Court had reserved judgment in the matter in October.
The plaintiffs, Attorneys-General of Adamawa, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Bauchi, Akwa Ibom, Plateau, Delta, Taraba, Zamfara, and Bayelsa states, approached the court in its original jurisdiction, naming the Federal Government and the National Assembly as defendants.
Marked SC/CV/329/2025, the suit was founded on eight grounds. The PDP-led states sought a definitive interpretation of whether the President could lawfully suspend a democratically elected governor, deputy governor, and state legislature under the guise of a state of emergency, and whether the procedure adopted in Rivers State complied with constitutional requirements.
Among the reliefs sought, the plaintiffs asked the court to determine whether Sections 1(2), 5(2), 176, 180, 188, and 305 of the Constitution permit the President to interfere with the offices of a governor and deputy governor or replace them with an unelected sole administrator. They also questioned whether Sections 1(2), 4(6), 11(4) and (5), 90, 105, and 305 allow for the suspension of a State House of Assembly during an emergency proclamation.
In an earlier segment of the judgment, Justice Idris upheld the preliminary objections raised by the Attorney-General of the Federation and the National Assembly, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to disclose a cause of action sufficient to invoke the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction.
The majority of the court agreed that the plaintiffs did not establish the existence of a justiciable dispute between themselves and the Federation, rendering the suit incompetent. On that basis, Justice Idris struck out the case for want of jurisdiction. Nonetheless, he proceeded to examine the substantive issues and dismissed the claims on their merits.
The judgment, however, was not unanimous.
Justice Obande Ogbuinya dissented, holding that while the President indeed possesses the constitutional power to declare a state of emergency, such authority does not extend to suspending elected state officials. In his view, governors, deputy governors, and members of state legislatures enjoy constitutional protection that cannot be set aside by an emergency proclamation.
Despite the lone dissent, the majority decision now stands as a landmark affirmation of presidential emergency powers, significantly shaping the constitutional balance between federal authority and state autonomy in times of crisis
