Fagbemi: Supreme Court Judgment on Rivers Emergency Rule a Win for Nigerians

•Apex court confirms president can’t remove elected officials, Falana declares

•ADC: Ruling has created constitutional tyrant

Chuks Okocha, Alex Enumah in Abuja and Wale Igbintade in Lagos

The Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, has described the judgment of the Supreme Court affirming the power of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to declare a ‘State of Emergency’ as a win for all Nigerians.

According to the AGF, the judgment was a further consolidation to Nigeria’s fledging democracy and has cleared whatever doubt anyone might have had.

But human rights lawyer, Femi Falana, SAN, has clarified Supreme Court’s handling of the River State emergency rule case, emphasising that the president has no power to suspend or remove governors, legislators, or local government chairmen.

On its part, the African Democratic Congress (ADC),yesterday, accused the Supreme Court of creating a “constitutional tyrant” in the president by affirming his power to suspend elected governors and state assemblies during a state of emergency.

However, a statement by Fagbemi’s media aide, Kamarudeen Ogundele, disclosed that the AGF made the statement while reacting to the judgment in the suit filed by Adamawa State and 10 other Peoples Democratic Party (PDP-led) states, challenging the emergency rule declared by President Bola Tinubu in Rivers State in March this year.

“I welcome the judgment of the Supreme Court affirming the power granted the President by the constitution to declare a state of emergency in any state in Nigeria, whenever the situation arises.

“The landmark judgment has further strengthened our jurisprudence and added another vital ingredients to consolidate our democracy,” the statement read in part.

Fagbemi congratulated all parties in the matter, stating that, “It is a win for our fledging democracy and has helped to erase any doubt anyone might have had about the action of the President and the endorsement by the National Assembly.

“Nigeria is for all of us, and I assure Nigerians of the President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration’s commitment to uphold the tenets of democracy and the Rule of Law at all times,” the statement added.

Apex Court Confirms President Cannot Remove Elected Officials, Falana Declares But speaking on Arise TV Prime Time, Falana highlighted the Court’s consistent rulings affirming the independence and autonomy of Nigeria’s three tiers of government.

“The Constitution clearly establishes that the Federal, State, and Local Governments are independent and autonomous. None is superior to the others. Elected officials can only be removed in accordance with constitutional provisions, and any attempt to do otherwise is unlawful.”

Falana explained that while the Supreme Court dismissed the River State case on jurisdictional grounds, the Court provided critical guidance on Section 305 of the Constitution, which regulated presidential powers during a state of emergency.

He stressed that the ruling made it clear that emergency powers did not extend to the removal of elected officials.

Highlighting the minority judgment of JusticObande Ogbuinya, Falana noted that, “There is no constitutional provision empowering the president to remove elected public officers,” reinforcing the legal limits on federal intervention.

Falana also criticised what he described as inconsistent application of the “local standard” doctrine by the Supreme Court.

In the River State case, eleven Attorneys General challenged presidential actions, but the Court held that the plaintiffs lacked the required local standard.

By contrast, previous cases had recognised the Attorney General of the Federation’s ability to act on behalf of all local governments, raising questions about consistency in judicial interpretation.

According to Falana, in 2004 and 2006, the Supreme Court allowed challenges to emergency rule in Plateau and Ekiti States, providing a precedent for citizens to contest unconstitutional actions.

Beyond the specific case, Falana stressed the broader significance of public interest litigation in Nigeria.

He said landmark cases over the years had allowed citizens to influence governance, including the creation of local governments, approval of building plans, and control of local government funds.

He stated that public interest litigation has historically played a critical role in Nigeria’s transition from a centralised military system to a civilian federal structure.

He said public interest litigation remained vital for democracy and federalism,” adding that any attempt to limit this access would undermine citizens’ rights to hold the government accountable.”

While the Supreme Court dismissed the River State matter on procedural grounds, Falana noted that the guidance provided was a valuable tool for preventing future constitutional crises.

He urged Nigerians, particularly elected officials and legal practitioners, to study the judgments carefully, as they offered clarity on the scope of emergency powers and reinforced the independence of the nation’s democratic institutions.

“Section 305 of the Constitution does not empower the President to temporarily displace executive or legislative authority. This principle is central to protecting Nigeria’s federal structure and the sanctity of elected offices,” Falana stated.

ADC: S’Court Has Created Constitutional Tyrant

The African Democratic Congress (ADC), yesterday,accused the Supreme Court of creating a “constitutional tyrant” in the president by affirming his power to suspend elected governors and state assemblies during a state of emergency.

In a statement by its National Publicity Secretary, Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, the party warned that the ruling, though academic in nature, set a dangerous precedent and concentrated excessive power in the presidency in a manner that undermined not only Nigeria’s federal system, but democracy itself.

The coalition party said it was alarmed by the judgment of the Supreme Court, granting the president the power to suspend elected governors and state assemblies during a state of emergency.

According to the spokesman of ADC, ‘’Although the ruling appears innocuously academic, it represents a potential inflection point in our democratic development, one that may alter the nature of our democracy forever.’’

Abdullahi said by the Supreme Court judgment, the president has the “discretion to determine the measures required to restore peace and security” after declaring a state of emergency in any state.

In essence, the president might take any “extraordinary measures” if, in his opinion, such measures were necessary to restore peace in that state.

He explained that the implication of this position by the apex court was that the President of Nigeria, or his agents, could easily contrive a security situation in any state whose governor is deemed “unfriendly” and proceed to suspend both the governor and the state House of Assembly.

Although the national Publicity Secretary of the ADC  noted that the Constitution provided that “no arm or tier of government was constitutionally superior to another,” the clear effect of the ruling suggested the opposite and grantedthe president firm control over the political conduct of state governors.

The ADC, therefore, considered the judgment an “extremely dangerous” threat to Nigeria’s federalism and democracy.

Abdullahi said the grave risk inherent ithe judgment became even more apparent when the safeguards identified by the apex court as checks against abuse of presidential discretion were examined.