Human rights lawyer Femi Falana (SAN) has clarified that the Supreme Court did not approve the dissolution or suspension of democratic structures in any state under emergency rule, contrary to interpretations circulating in sections of the media.
Falana was reacting to the Supreme Court’s judgment delivered on December 15, 2025, in Attorney-General of Adamawa State & 19 Ors v Attorney-General of the Federation (SC/CV/329/2025), which arose from a suit filed by 11 PDP-controlled states challenging President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of emergency rule in Rivers State and the suspension of the governor, deputy governor and state lawmakers.
While the apex court, in a split decision, affirmed the President’s constitutional authority to declare a state of emergency under Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution, Falana stressed that the ruling has been widely misunderstood.
According to him, although the Supreme Court struck out the suit for want of jurisdiction, it nevertheless proceeded to examine the substance of the case. In doing so, the court did not endorse any presidential power to dissolve or suspend state executive or legislative institutions.
“In its judgment, the Supreme Court did not endorse the dissolution of democratic structures during emergency rule in any state of the Federation,” Falana said.
He explained that the lead judgment, delivered by Justice Mohammed Baba Idris, expressly stated that Section 305 does not confer on the President the power to temporarily dissolve or suspend the executive and legislative arms of a state government.
Falana further quoted the court as emphasising that governmental powers under the Constitution are divided among the executive, legislature and judiciary, and shared across federal, state and local governments, with no arm or tier constitutionally superior to another.
The senior advocate noted that the court drew a clear distinction between Nigeria and countries such as India and Pakistan, whose constitutions expressly empower their presidents to assume or displace state institutions during emergencies.
According to Falana, the Supreme Court held that the absence of such provisions in Nigeria’s Constitution was deliberate, reflecting the country’s commitment to federalism and the autonomy of state governments.
He therefore urged the public and the media to avoid misrepresenting the judgment in ways that could undermine constitutional governance and democratic norms.
