Sam Amadi: Supreme Court Judgment on Emergency Rule Risks Expanding Presidential Powers, Weakening Democracy

Chuks Okocha in Abuja

Director of the Abuja School of Social and Political Thought, Dr. Sam Amadi, has warned the Supreme Court’s recent decision on the President’s emergency powers risks widening executive authority in ways that could undermine Nigeria’s constitutional democracy.

Speaking during an interview with ARISE News, Amadi said while the court was right to strike out the suit challenging the emergency rule in Rivers State on procedural grounds, its broader reasoning and comments could shape constitutional discourse in dangerous ways.

“In a way, that’s the final court, and for that reason, whatever the court decides feeds back into political discourse. The Supreme Court is a political institution,” Amadi said.

He explained that although courts are expected to interpret the law, their decisions inevitably carry political consequences.

“When the court speaks, it creates political impact,” he said, noting the judiciary, executive and legislature each have defined “zones of no interference”, but judicial pronouncements can still redefine how power is exercised.

Amadi identified three key issues with the ruling, starting with the timing.

“One is that the court did not decide this matter when it had recency and value,” he said. “Of course, the court manages its docket as it likes. So, it decided not to hear it then, and hear it now.”

Secondly, he said the case was correctly struck out on jurisdictional grounds.

“The court dismissed the case on the basis of want of jurisdiction,” Amadi explained. “The PDP states didn’t quite show enough legal connection to the dispute in terms of harms or rights they lost. The Rivers State governor or attorney-general should have been the right person.”

However, Amadi stressed that the court’s comments made in passing still carry weight.

“The things the Supreme Court justices said, even though not determinative, carry weight because they shape policy,” he said. “If they say the president can do X, Y, Z, even though it does not constitute precedent, it defines the perception of presidential power.”

He said this is why critics fear the judgement could legitimise excessive executive authority.

“Many people who criticise those by-the-way statements are worried that it shapes constitutional discourse to authorise presidents to do everything they want,” he said.

Asked whether this could lead to authoritarianism, Amadi said the concern was legitimate.

“If the president can dismantle constitutional governance in the states on a ruse, because ‘if it appears to him’ is subjective, then the president has a lot of leeway,” he said. “Even if I don’t feel there was any likelihood of breakdown, you can feel the risk.”

He drew parallels with historical emergency powers, noting that subjectivity has long been controversial.

“The court itself conceded there is an element of subjectivity,” Amadi said, referencing past emergency declarations in Nigeria’s political history.

Amadi said the Supreme Court acknowledged limits to presidential powers but appeared to contradict itself.

“They say the president cannot do whatever he likes, but they also suggested he could dismantle constituted state government,” he said. “That is the problem.”

He argued that emergency powers should not override democratic guarantees.

“The constitution guarantees democratic governance for the federation, states and local governments,” Amadi said. “That’s why coup plotting is unconstitutional.”

Drawing comparisons with the United States, he said emergency powers there are used to override state decisions, not democracy itself.

“When Trump claims emergency power, it’s to override state decision-making, not to uproot elected state governments,” he said.

Amadi argued that a more constitutionally sound approach would allow federal intervention without suspending elected institutions.

“You can imagine a governor still being there, the House of Assembly still being there, but the president federalises intervention and overrides certain decisions,” he said. “Those are arguable legitimate uses of emergency power.”

He said the court failed to adequately balance Section 305 with the broader democratic spirit of the constitution.

“The problem with the Supreme Court sometimes is that their reasoning may be deficient in rigorous constitutional theorising,” Amadi said. “Constitutional law is not just about reading sections. It’s about what democracy requires.”

Quoting constitutional scholarship, he added: “Most constitutional law is the work of judicial reasoning, not just the text.”

Amadi warned that allowing a president to dismantle elected state governments could be abused.

“You create the possibility that any president could use it to settle scores or confer advantage on himself,” he said. “That’s why there is good reason for public worry.”

He described the court’s approach as unnecessary, given that the case was dismissed on technical grounds.

“It was a gratuitous error,” Amadi said. “They said there was no standing, but still went on to theorise in a way that was not rigorous.”

While affirming the court’s authority, Amadi stressed that its logic remains open to debate.

“Their decision is final, but their logic is always contestable,” he said. “That’s how constitutional discourse works.”

Concluding, he said the ruling missed an opportunity to reinforce democratic safeguards.

“They got the facts right on standing,” Amadi said. “But they failed to foreground the most fundamental point of the constitution – protecting and entrenching democracy.”