Banner Online News

Nigeria’s Supreme Court has stepped into one of the most consequential constitutional battles of the Fourth Republic, the fight over President Bola Tinubu’s emergency rule in Rivers State, as ten PDP-governed states challenge what they call a “dangerous overreach” of presidential power.

A seven-member panel led by Justice Inyang Okoro on Tuesday, October 21, 2025 reserved judgment after parties adopted their written addresses. The date for the verdict will be announced later, but the stakes could not be higher for democracy, federalism, and the limits of executive authority.

The plaintiffs, Adamawa, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Bauchi, Akwa Ibom, Plateau, Taraba, Zamfara, and Bayelsa are asking the apex court to declare unconstitutional President Tinubu’s March 18, 2025 proclamation of a state of emergency in Rivers, which suspended Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, and the House of Assembly. Delta State, initially part of the suit, withdrew during Tuesday’s proceedings.

At the heart of the case is a simple but explosive question: Can the President, under the guise of an emergency, sack a democratically elected government and install a sole administrator?

President Tinubu had justified his proclamation as a necessary response to Rivers’ prolonged political turmoil. But critics.  including senior constitutional lawyers and rights groups, saw it as a creeping return to military-style governance.

Under the emergency declaration, Tinubu appointed retired Vice Admiral Ibok Ibas as Sole Administrator for six months, effectively placing the state under direct federal control.

Lead counsel to the PDP states, Eyitayo Jegede (SAN), told the court that while the President indeed has powers to declare emergencies, those powers do not extend to “dismantling elected institutions and replacing them with appointees.” He argued that such actions amount to a civilian coup against the constitution.

“The issue here is not whether the President can act in an emergency, but whether he can suspend the people’s mandate,” Jegede told the justices.

But Attorney General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), fired back, urging the court to throw out the suit as “speculative and devoid of merit.” Fagbemi maintained that the President acted within his constitutional powers to “restore peace and protect democracy” amid what he described as an “extraordinary situation.”

“Rivers was in crisis. The President had to act decisively. The officials were not removed, only suspended temporarily to safeguard governance,” Fagbemi said, dismissing the PDP states’ suit as “an attempt to be more Catholic than the Pope.”

Counsel to the National Assembly, Charles Yohila, aligned with the AGF’s submission, insisting that the legislature’s endorsement of the emergency gave it full constitutional legitimacy.

Yet, constitutional experts argue that the case could redefine the boundaries of Nigeria’s presidential powers. If the court sides with the PDP states, it could roll back what many see as the creeping centralization of power at the expense of state autonomy. If it doesn’t, it may embolden future presidents to deploy emergency powers as political weapons.

For now, all eyes are on the Supreme Court — where the question before the Justices goes beyond Rivers State. It is about whether democracy in Nigeria can survive the convenience of executive “emergency.”