The Peoples Democratic Party cautioned that the Supreme Court’s ruling on the President’s emergency powers could lead to authoritarianism, erode Nigeria’s federal framework, and destroy democracy.
Ini Ememobong, PDP National Publicity Secretary, stated today that the Supreme Court’s interpretation may embolden the federal government to subjugate states and remove constitutionally elected institutions in the name of peace and security.
The Supreme Court verdict came after PDP-governed states sued President Bola Tinubu over his state of emergency proclamation in Rivers State, which suspended elected state officials for six months.
The Supreme Court reserved decision in October.
Attorneys-General of PDP-controlled states sued the Federal Government and National Assembly.
Adamawa, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Bauchi, Akwa Ibom, Plateau, Delta, Taraba, Zamfara, and Bayelsa Attorneys-General sued.
SC/CV/329/2025, based on eight grounds, asked the Supreme Court whether the President can suspend a democratically elected state government and whether Rivers State’s state of emergency declaration violated the 1999 Constitution.
On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled 6–1 that the President can proclaim a state of emergency.
The court ruled that the President may suspend elected politicians for a limited time in such cases.
The PDP asked for clear constitutional and legislative safeguards to prevent emergency powers from being misused, warning that unfettered authority might undermine democratic governance and Nigeria’s federal framework.
The party said, “While we respect the authority of the apex court and recognise its finality within our jurisdiction, we are nevertheless compelled to draw attention to the grave dangers that can emanate from the interpretation of the reasoning in this judgment on the political landscape of our country
Our concern is based on the age-old legal principle that express mention of one thing excludes others (expressio unius est exclusio alterius) and the clear constitutional position that no one other than the State House of Assembly or a court of law can remove a governor from office, even temporarily, during a constitutional term. To hold otherwise would allow a President, with National Assembly backing, to use emergency powers to force political alignment or acquiescence in manner not allowed by the Constitution.
“We argue that this judgment could reverse democratic gains by unwittingly making state governments completely subservient to the federal government, forcing them to ‘connect to the centre’ by joining the ruling party, as we are already seeing.
“What’s more troubling is that the logical extension of this reasoning, based on Section 305(3)(c) on ‘extraordinary measures to restore peace and security’, could be used to suspend other constitutional institutions, including the judiciary.
We cannot see how an elected president in a federation (not a unitary state) can undermine the democratic mechanisms of a federating unit, fire elected officials, and select leaders without fostering authoritarianism and entrenching tyranny.”
The PDP also urged the National Assembly to quickly pass constitutional and legislative measures that define and limit the President’s emergency powers to prevent misuse and defend Nigeria’s federal system.
As a political party dedicated to protecting and consolidating democracy in Nigeria, we urge the National Assembly to urgently establish constitutional and legislative safeguards that clearly define and limit the President’s emergency powers to prevent imminent abuse and preserve Nigeria’s federation.
“Nigerians, civil society organizations, the media, and the international democratic community must remain vigilant in defending constitutionalism, federalism, and the electoral mandate.
We hope the Supreme Court will have occasion to thoroughly explain the constitutional limitations of emergency powers at the next chance, in the interest of justice, democracy, and the long-term stability of our Republic.
About the Author
