By Chioma Ugboma
Dr Kayode Ajulo (SAN) the Ondo State Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, says the Supreme Court ruling on President Bola Tinubu’s intervention in Rivers was wise and highly commendable.
Ajulo also said the ruling illuminated the tensions within Nigeria’s Federal System.
This is contained in a statement by the attorney general on Wednesday, following the ruling of the Supreme Court on Monday , in Attorney General of Adamawa State & 10 Ors. v. Attorney General of the Federation & Anor. (SC/CV/329/2025).
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) recalls that in a landmark ruling delivered on Dec. 15, the Supreme Court addressed the contentious scope of Presidential Authority under Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), following the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State by President Bola Tinubu on March 18, 2025.
The six to one verdict, with Justice Mohammed Baba Idris, JSC, delivering the majority judgment and Justice Obande Festus Ogbuinya dissenting, had sparked intense debate across Nigeria’s political landscape.
Ajulo commended the apex court’s wisdom and President Bola Tinubu’s decisive leadership in navigating a crisis that threatened national stability.
In the statement tired:”Clarifying Misconceptions on Presidential Emergency Powers and the Rivers State Declaration: Analysis of the Supreme Court” the attorney general stated:
“Haven examined the 14-page summary of the judgment, supplemented by in-depth legal analyses, media reports, and expert commentaries, it becomes clear that media portrayals have frequently oversimplified or misconstrued the Court’s reasoning.
“Far from a carte blanche endorsement of executive overreach, the verdict strikes a delicate balance: affirming the judiciary’s independence, emphasising procedural rigour, and providing persuasive guidance on emergency powers while ultimately dismissing the suit for jurisdictional shortcomings.
“Headlines proclaiming an unqualified validation of the President’s ability to suspend elected officials have distorted the judgment’s essence.
“The Supreme Court did not explicitly uphold the constitutionality of the Rivers State emergency proclamation, which entailed a six-month suspension of Gov. Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, and the State House of Assembly, coupled with the appointment of a Sole Administrator.
“Instead, the Court struck out the originating summons brought by the Attorneys-General of 11 PDP-led states (Adamawa, Akwa Ibom, Bauchi, Bayelsa, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Plateau, Taraba, Zamfara, and initially Delta, which withdrew) under Section 232(1) of the Constitution,” he stated.
According to the attorney general, the majority held that no justiciable dispute existed between the plaintiffs and the Federation, as the emergency was localised to Rivers state without direct repercussions for the challengers.
“Absent Rivers state’s consent or a demonstrable cause of action, the invocation of the Court’s original jurisdiction was deemed improper.
“This jurisdictional strike-out is crucial: pronouncements in such dismissed suits carry no binding precedential weight, functioning merely as obiter dicta, persuasive observations, due to the matter’s “grave constitutional significance.
“As Justice Idris articulated, the absence of a competent cause of action is fatal and deprives this Court of jurisdiction, underscoring the procedural barriers to substantive adjudication. ”
He noted that the Court did not endorse the outright dissolution of democratic structures, countering sensationalist narratives.
“The majority’s obiter remarks thoughtfully accommodate the possibility that a state of emergency might temporarily disrupt a state’s democratic institutions, such as suspending officials to prevent anarchy or governance collapse.
“Rooted in Section 305, the Court stressed that presidential discretion is constrained: Measures must remain “temporary, proportionate, and restorative,” focused on reinstating normalcy without permanently ousting elected bodies, which would represent a “constitutional aberration.”
“This framework echoes historical applications, including suspensions in the 2004 Plateau and 2006 Ekiti emergencies, yet diverges from non-disruptive declarations in 2013 for Borno, Adamawa, and Yobe, highlighting the context-specific nature of such powers.
“Crucially, the Court refrained from a definitive ruling on the Rivers declaration’s validity, which was revoked after six months amid persistent rivalries between Fubara and allies of former governor Nyesom Wike.”
Ajulo further explained that Justice Idris’s summary highlighted the Constitution’s intentional ambiguity on institutional displacement, prioritising federalism and state sovereignty over more prescriptive models in jurisdictions like India or Pakistan.
“Justice Ogbuinya’s dissent, therefore, offers a vital counterbalance, positing that emergency authority cannot erode democratic foundations, thereby enriching the discourse on constitutional limits.
“A seminal aspect of the judgment lies in its scrutiny of the National Assembly’s ratification process. Section 305 mandates two-thirds approval in both Houses, adhering to their Standing Orders.
“In the House of Representatives, this necessitates a division vote, documented by name, constituency, and preference, with publication, for weighty issues. Yet, in the Rivers instance, a simple voice vote (“yea and nay”) was employed, violating Order 11 Rule 6 and Order 16.
“This procedural lapse renders the endorsement invalid, implying the emergency’s unlawfulness due to non-adherence to prescribed protocols. The Court subtly signals that such oversights warrant judicial intervention, bolstering accountability and deterring capricious actions.”
He noted that the verdict exposed the inherent frictions in Nigeria’s federal architecture, where emergency provisions act as bulwarks against disorder but harbour risks of authoritarian drift if unchecked.
“Critics have lambasted the ruling, cautioning it could reverse democratic gains and render governors subservient to the federal executive, fostering centralisation. Some have also warned of empowering presidents to arbitrarily decide which governors stay.
“It is, however, viewed in some quarters as a triumph for constitutional order, affirming the president’s role in preserving national cohesion.
“In essence, the judgment fortifies constitutional safeguards, judicial oversight, legislative scrutiny, and proportionality, while admonishing against enduring governance disruptions.
” It beckons legislative amendments to delineate emergency boundaries more clearly and implores actors to uphold procedural diligence in crises.””
He, however, commended the Supreme Court for its profound sagacity, steadfast dedication to constitutional exegesis, and pivotal role in fortifying Nigeria’s federal edifice. By dismissing the suit on jurisdictional grounds yet proffering obiter insights.
“The Court exemplifies judicial restraint and foresight, ensuring interpretations emphasised temporality and restoration, tenets that bolster democracy in adversity.
He also commended the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, whose measured legal counsel and unwavering fidelity to constitutionalism evidently shaped the government’s response
Ajulo also commended President Tinubu’s resolute and prescient intervention to keep Nigeria safe internally and externally.
“Confronted with intensifying political strife risking lawlessness and anarchy, Tinubu wielded his authority to safeguard citizens’ lives and property.
“His imposition of a time-bound rule, aligned with the Court’s obiter principles of proportionality and restorativeness, averted escalation and facilitated stability’s return, mirroring adaptive precedents while transcending partisan divides..
” This exemplifies leadership that prioritises national security with legal prudence.
“The ruling’s diverse receptions, from acclaim as a constitutional milestone to apprehensions over precedents, reflect Nigeria’s robust democratic vitality./,” he added. NAN
