The Supreme Court on Monday affirmed the constitutional authority of the President to declare a state of emergency in any part of the country in order to prevent a breakdown of law and order or a slide into chaos and anarchy.

In a split decision of six to one, the apex court upheld the President’s powers under the 1999 Constitution to proclaim a state of emergency and to adopt extraordinary measures aimed at restoring normalcy.

The court further held that, during a state of emergency, the President may suspend elected state officials, provided such suspension is for a limited and clearly defined period.

Delivering the lead majority judgment, Justice Mohammed Idris held that Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution empowers the President to take extraordinary steps once a state of emergency has been declared. He noted that the Constitution does not expressly define the nature of those extraordinary measures, thereby granting the President discretion on how to act in such circumstances.

The judgment arose from a suit filed by states governed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), challenging the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State by President Bola Tinubu. The proclamation led to the suspension of elected state officials for a six-month period. The Supreme Court had reserved judgment in the matter in October.

The plaintiffs, represented by the Attorneys-General of Adamawa, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Bauchi, Akwa Ibom, Plateau, Delta, Taraba, Zamfara, and Bayelsa states, sued the Federal Government and the National Assembly. The suit, marked SC/CV/329/2025, was founded on eight grounds.

Among other reliefs, the plaintiffs asked the court to determine whether the President has the constitutional authority to suspend a democratically elected state government and whether the procedure adopted in declaring a state of emergency in Rivers State violated the provisions of the 1999 Constitution.

They also sought a determination on whether, upon a proper interpretation of Sections 1(2), 5(2), 176, 180, 188, and 305 of the Constitution, the President can lawfully interfere with the offices of a governor and deputy governor or replace them with an unelected sole administrator under the guise of a state of emergency.

Additionally, the plaintiffs asked the court to decide whether the President can lawfully suspend a State House of Assembly pursuant to Sections 1(2), 4(6), 11(4) and (5), 90, 105, and 305 of the Constitution.

In the earlier part of the judgment, Justice Idris upheld the preliminary objections raised by the defendants—the Attorney-General of the Federation and the National Assembly—challenging the competence of the suit. He held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a cause of action sufficient to invoke the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction.

The majority agreed that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate the existence of a justiciable dispute between them and the Federation to warrant the exercise of the court’s original jurisdiction. Consequently, the suit was struck out for want of jurisdiction.

Notwithstanding this finding, Justice Idris proceeded to consider the substantive issues and dismissed the case on the merits.

However, Justice Obande Ogbuinya dissented, holding that the suit succeeded in part. While agreeing that the President has the constitutional power to declare a state of emergency, he ruled that such power does not extend to the suspension of elected state officials, including governors, deputy governors, and members of state legislatures.