The Supreme Court has affirmed the constitutional powers of the President to declare a state of emergency in any state of the federation to avert the breakdown of law and order.

In a split decision of a seven-member panel of the apex court, the apex court equally declined to fault the suspension of elected officials in states under emergency rule.

However, its decision stressed that such suspension, though necessary to ensure that the prevailing situation in the state did not degenerate into chaos or anarchy, must be confined to a limited period.

The judgement followed the dismissal of a suit that 11 states of the federation filed to challenge what they termed as President Bola Tinubu’s unconstitutional actions in Rivers State.

The states, which were controlled by the opposition Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, through their respective Attorneys-General, queried President Tinubu’s statutory powers to suspend a serving governor, the deputy governor, and members of the State House of Assembly, from office, after the proclamation of emergency rule.

They prayed the apex court to declare that based on provisions of sections 1(2), 5(2), and 305 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, the president “has no powers whatsoever or vires to suspend a democratically elected governor and deputy governor of a state in the federation of Nigeria under the guise of or pursuant to the proclamation of a state of emergency in the state of the federation by the president, including the states of the federation represented by the plaintiffs.”

The plaintiffs equally prayed the court to declare that President Tinubu had no power to suspend a democratically elected House of Assembly of a state pursuant to Sections 192 (4) (6) and 305 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).

As well as to declare that the suspension of Governor Siminalaye Fubara, his deputy, and members of the Rivers State Assembly was unconstitutional, unlawful, illegal, and utterly in gross violation of provisions of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.

Cited as 1st and 2nd defendants in the suit marked: SC/CV/329/2025, were the Attorney General of the Federation, AGF, and the National Assembly, NASS.

In the majority decision, the court held that section 305 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, imbued the president with the power to deploy extraordinary measures with a view to restoring normalcy where emergency rule was declared.