Supreme Court strikes out PDP states’ Suit on Rivers Emergency; Affirms Presidential Powers
In a landmark judgment on Monday, the Supreme Court of Nigeria struck out a suit filed by Adamawa and ten other Peoples Democratic Party-led states challenging the constitutionality of the state of emergency declared in Rivers State, in a decision delivered in Abuja.
A seven-member panel of the apex court, in a split ruling of six to one, held that the plaintiffs failed to establish any justiciable cause of action to trigger the exercise of the court’s original jurisdiction.
Justice Mohammed Idris, delivering the lead majority judgment, said the applicants were unable to demonstrate an actionable dispute between the states and the federal government that would warrant the Supreme Court’s intervention under its constitutional mandate.
The suit, marked SC/CV/329/2025, was instituted by the Attorneys-General of the 11 PDP-led states, including Adamawa, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Bauchi, Akwa Ibom, Plateau, Taraba, Zamfara and Bayelsa, some of whom however were no longer in the Party as at the time of the judgement delivery. They had sought declarations that President Tinubu’s March 18, 2025 proclamation of a six-month state of emergency in Rivers was unlawful, arguing that it exceeded the powers conferred by Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution.
At the core of the plaintiffs’ case was the contention that the President lacked the constitutional authority to suspend elected officials; namely Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy and members of the Rivers State House of Assembly and replace them with an unelected sole administrator under the guise of emergency powers. They further argued that the emergency proclamation contravened fundamental constitutional provisions relating to democratic governance.
However, the Supreme Court majority held that the case as presently constituted did not disclose a dispute that the court could adjudicate upon, prompting the striking out of the suit.
The ruling also affirmed the constitutional authority of the President to declare a state of emergency and to take necessary measures, including temporary suspension of offices, where exigencies require such action, provided they are within the law.
In a dissenting opinion, the lone justice on the panel disagreed with the majority’s assessment of justiciability, but the specifics of the dissent were not made immediately public.
The emergency declaration in March followed reported security and governance concerns in Rivers State. President Tinubu’s proclamation had triggered significant political controversy and a flurry of legal challenges, including multiple suits filed in different courts.
Critics of the emergency rule, including the PDP states, argued that the action undermined the constitutional autonomy of a federating state, while supporters including the Federal Government and the National Assembly defended it as a necessary response to avert breakdown of law and order.
The Supreme Court’s decision is expected to have far-reaching implications for the scope of executive emergency powers and the interplay between federal authority and state autonomy under Nigeria’s constitutional framework.
EDITOR
Sam Udekwe is a journalist working in the News and Current Affairs department, Enugu State Broadcasting Service (ESBS) Enugu. He is well trained in all genres of journalistic venture.
Mr Sam read Mass Communication, graduating all with Distinction in National Diploma, Higher National Diploma and Postgraduate Diploma at IMT, Enugu and Madonna University, Okija, Anambra state, as well as M.Sc Mass Communication with Second Class(Upper Division) at National Open University of Nigeria.
He is the immediate past NUJ Chairman, Enugu state.
samowailo@gmail.com
