…Strengthens centre, further weakens states
In a landmark ruling with far-reaching consequences for Nigeria’s federal structure, the Supreme Court recently clarified the conditions under which the President may declare a state of emergency, a decision that effectively strengthens the legal basis for federal intervention in state affairs during periods of crisis.
The Supreme Court held that while emergency powers are constitutionally permitted under Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution, their implementation must follow strict procedural requirements, including prompt approval by the National Assembly, defined time limits and continued judicial oversight.
However, beyond the legal clarification, Nigeria’s apex court judgment has practical implications for how power is exercised within the federation.
By affirming the President’s authority to act decisively where public order or security is deemed to have collapsed, the ruling expands the centre’s capacity to intervene in states facing severe instability, potentially reducing the discretion of state governments in managing internal crises.
In recent days, Lawyers and constitutional experts have expressed mixed reactions to the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Many senior lawyers described the ruling as a reaffirmation of constitutional order, arguing that the President must be empowered to act decisively in situations threatening national stability.
Other legal experts say the ruling provides clearer guidance for implementation but also recalibrates the balance between state autonomy and federal authority, particularly in security-related governance.
But they noted that Section 305 of the Constitution was deliberately crafted to allow extraordinary measures where there is a clear breakdown of law and order, adding that the court’s insistence that any suspension of elected officials must be time-bound serves as an important safeguard against abuse.
In the ruling, the court emphasised that emergency rule does not suspend the Constitution or dissolve democratic institutions by default, noting that any federal intervention must remain proportionate and temporary.
However, experts say by reinforcing the constitutional pathway for emergency declarations, the judgment lowers legal uncertainty around federal action in troubled states, making future interventions easier to justify within existing law.
The apex ruling is coming at a time the country is experiencing an unprecedented spate of insecurity, with many citizens frustrated over the government’s slow response and seeming lack of decisiveness to tackle the issue.
There are also concerns about bad governance with thousands displaced in their ancestral homes, government’s lack of attention to them, and what seems that the government is overwhelmed, especially in regions grappling with insurgency, banditry and communal violence.
While the federal government argues that the judgment equips the centre with lawful tools to maintain national stability, experts warn that its implementation could further centralize power and weaken the operational autonomy of states, a core pillar of Nigeria’s federal arrangement.
“The Supreme Court ruling has given the federal government a free ride to intimidate Nigerians and it is a danger to democracy. Where people can no longer challenge the nation on issues that affect them directly. Governors are likely to be affected by similar actions,” Chetam Nwala, lawyer and activist, said.
Speaking further, Nwala stressed that a similar judgement has been given by the High Court.
According to him, “One of the challenges we have seen; it’s not even just about the Supreme Court. We’ve seen the High Court also take the same position, which is really sad for our democracy and for us as a people, because what the Supreme Court has done is to streamline those who can bring this particular action.
Judgement weakens country’s federal structure
Many analysts say the Supreme Court judgement giving power to the president to declare a state of emergency in any state where circumstances threaten public safety or governance would only further weaken the country’s federal structure and concentrate power at the centre.
They argue that the decision limits the autonomy of governors and state assemblies, potentially allowing federal intervention in areas traditionally reserved for states.
Jonathan Iyieke, a constitutional lawyer, told BusinessDay that the judgement was against the federal arrangement and structure of the country, while calling for a review.
“I think the ruling needs to be revisited in order to protect the democratic institutions of Nigeria,” he said.
Similarly, lawyer Nwala further posited that the ruling was a danger to democracy in Nigeria that would create confusion in the polity.
“Let me tell you this; the Supreme Court has just created confusion. I must say this categorically, that this particular administration plunged our democracy into an arena.”
He added that the judgement gave an easy ride to the action of the President to suspend elected governor in states and should be condemned.
“It is quite sad, and it’s a danger to our democracy,”, he added.
Judgment struck balance between executive authority, democratic principles
Constitutional law expert, Ige Asemudara said the judgment struck a balance between executive authority and democratic principles.
He said the court made it clear that emergency powers are not a blank cheque, stressing that elected officials cannot be removed indefinitely under the guise of emergency rule.
According to him, “From extracts of the judgment which I have read in part, I commend the law lords of the Supreme Court. They have restated the law and set the record straight beyond per adventure.
“The emergency declaration powers of the President under Section 305 of the Constitution is for the peace, order and security of lives and properties. It is not a selfish or partisan powers and it is not right for anyone to perceive it in a partisan light.
“Every political player must play in such a way as not to endanger public infrastructures and facilities, lives and properties, peace and orderliness. If a player does, he may unwittingly pull the emergency trigger and the president cannot be blamed for it,” he said.
Judgement to shape future federal-state relations
Lawyers and political analysts have said that the true impact of the Supreme Court ruling will depend on how frequently and in what contexts emergency powers are invoked, and whether safeguards outlined by the court.
The experts said the judgement would shape future federal–state relations rigorously applied in practice and serve as a reference point in legal and political disputes over the scope of executive authority in times of national emergency.
But there are those who also noted that it would be in the best interest of the country for the federal government to find a way to resolve the security crisis facing the country and reform the electoral system to prevent emergence of godfathers like that the case seen in Rivers State between, the former governor and current FCT Minister, Nyesom Wike, and Governor Sim Fubara.
