A United Kingdom-based human rights lawyer and activist, Chief Niyi Aborisade, has warned that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the President’s power to declare a state of emergency poses a serious danger to Nigeria’s federal system and should worry state governors across the country.
Reacting to the judgment delivered on December 15, 2025, Aborisade said the ruling, which affirmed the President’s authority under Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution, could be abused by an over-ambitious president to undermine opposition-controlled states.
The Supreme Court had held that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu acted within his constitutional powers to declare a state of emergency in Rivers State, noting that the President is empowered to take “extraordinary measures” to restore normalcy where such a declaration has been made.
Aborisade, who is also a Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governorship aspirant in Oyo State for the 2027 election, said the court’s reasoning sets a troubling precedent.
“An expansive interpretation of Section 305 places governors at the mercy of the President. Under the guise of restoring order, an over-ambitious president could declare a state of emergency in opposition-held states even where there is no genuine necessity”, he said.
He noted that by the time the apex court delivered its judgment, the Rivers State emergency had already expired after six months, the proclamation had been discontinued and Governor Siminalayi Fubara restored to office, rendering the suit largely academic.
The suit was instituted by attorneys-general of PDP-controlled states, challenging whether the President could lawfully suspend governors, deputy governors and state Houses of Assembly, and replace them with unelected administrators under a state of emergency.
However, the Supreme Court first struck out the suit for want of jurisdiction, holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish an actionable dispute to invoke its original jurisdiction. Despite this, the court went on to consider the merits of the case “for the sake of completeness” and dismissed the claims.
A dissenting opinion by Justice Obande Ogbuiniya held that while the President has the constitutional power to declare a state of emergency, such power does not extend to suspending elected state officials, including governors, their deputies and members of state legislatures.
Aborisade also pointed to the shifting political context surrounding the case, noting that Governor Fubara and most of the PDP governors who initiated the action have since defected to the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), leaving only the governors of Oyo and Bauchi states in the opposition camp.
According to him, this development reflects growing anxiety among governors over the implications of the judgment and the expanding reach of federal power.
Drawing historical parallels, Aborisade recalled the 1962 declaration of a state of emergency in the former Western Region by Prime Minister Tafawa Balewa, which led to the removal of elected officials and the appointment of an administrator.
“Chief Obafemi Awolowo described that episode as a gross misuse of power,” he said. “The fear now is that history could repeat itself under the cover of constitutional interpretation.”
He further criticised the judgment for failing to determine whether the factual conditions necessary to justify a state of emergency actually existed in Rivers State, warning that this omission weakens safeguards against arbitrary executive action.
Aborisade urged governors to prioritise peace and stability in their states but cautioned against allowing fear to erode constitutional autonomy. He also called on opposition parties to strengthen their organisation and engage the electorate rather than rely solely on the courts.
“Ultimately, power belongs to the people,” he said. “Emergency powers must not become a substitute for democratic choice or political competition.”
