Earlier today, a full panel of the Supreme Court finally delivered a split judgment (six to one) in the suit filed by the Attorney-General of Adamawa State and others against the Attorney-General of the Federation and the National Assembly. The suit marked SC/CV/329/2025, challenged the powers of the President to suspend democratically elected officials like the Governor and Deputy Governor, and democratic institutions such as the Rivers State House of Assembly. The Apex Court struck out the suit based on an absence of a cause of action but, went on to comment on the issues raised in the suit therein. Their comments have been largely interpreted as upholding President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State earlier this year.
While we respect the authority of the apex court and recognise its finality within our jurisdiction, we are nevertheless compelled to draw attention to the grave dangers that can emanate from the interpretation of the reasoning in this judgement on the political landscape of our country. Our concern is anchored on the age-long principle of law that the express mention of one thing excludes others (expressio unius est exclusio alterius), and the clear constitutional position that no person or institution(other than the State House of Assembly or a court of law), is empowered to remove a Governor from office, even temporarily, during the subsistence of a constitutional term. To hold otherwise is to create a pathway by which a President, with the active support of the National Assembly, can compel political alignment or compliance through the instrumentality of emergency powers in ways not envisaged by the Constitution.
We submit that the interpretation of this judgment has the potential to reverse the hard-won democratic gains by unwittingly making state governments completely subservient to the Federal Government, forcing them to seek to ‘connect to the centre’ by joining the ruling party, as we are already witnessing. More troubling is the fact that the logical extension of this reasoning based on the provision of Section 305(3)(c) “extraordinary measures to restore peace and security” could, in the future, be interpreted to justify the suspension of other constitutional institutions, including the judiciary itself. We cannot reconcile how in a federation (not a unitary state) an elected President can be empowered to dismantle the democratic structures of a federating unit, sack elected officials and appoint leaders there, without consciously promoting authoritarianism and entrenching tyranny.
As a political party wholly committed to the protection and consolidation of democracy in Nigeria, we hereby call on the National Assembly to urgently initiate constitutional and legislative safeguards that clearly define and limit the scope of emergency powers of the president, to prevent imminent abuse and preserve Nigeria’s federation. We also urge Nigerians, civil society organisations, the media, and the international democratic community to remain vigilant in the defence of constitutionalism, federalism, and the sanctity of the electoral mandate.
We remain hopeful that, at the next opportunity, the Supreme Court will have cause to extensively clarify the constitutional boundaries of emergency powers, in the overriding interest of justice, democracy, and the long-term stability of our Republic.
