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 reports circulating in the media.
Falana made this clarification while reacting to the Supreme Court’s judgment delivered on Monday, December 15, 2025, in the case of Attorney-General of Adamawa State & 19 Others v Attorney-General of the Federation.
The suit, filed by 11 states led by Attorneys-General of PDP-governed states, challenged President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State and the suspension of the governor, deputy governor, and members of the House of Assembly.
While the Supreme Court affirmed that the President has the constitutional authority to declare a state of emergency under Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution, Falana stressed that the court did not endorse the suspension or dissolution of elected state institutions.
According to Falana, although the apex court dismissed the suit on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, it still examined the substantive issues raised in the case. He noted that the judgment has been widely misinterpreted.
He explained that in the lead judgment delivered by Justice Mohammed Baba Idris, the court clearly stated that Section 305 does not grant the President the power to dissolve or suspend the executive and legislative arms of a state government during an emergency.
Falana further quoted the judgment as emphasizing that Nigeria’s Constitution divides governmental powers among the executive, legislature, and judiciary, and across federal, state, and local governments, with no arm or level being constitutionally superior to another.
He added that the Supreme Court observed that unlike the constitutions of some other countries, such as India and Pakistan, Nigeria’s Constitution deliberately does not empower the President to take over or displace state institutions during emergency rule, in line with the principles of federalism and state autonomy.
